The Story Of All Of Us - History Channel

[Ahab]

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?

As long as it's the history of what actually happened I really don't care which books they get it from. And I wouldn't "demand" that they do anything. I'd just like them to do it right if they decide they want to tell our story.

Just tell the truth about what happened, if you tell our story. Do the dang research, and do it right!

That's what I'd tell them.

[Nathair/|\]

As long as it's the history of what actually happened I really don't care which books they get it from. And I wouldn't "demand" that they do anything. I'd just like them to do it right if they decide they want to tell our story.

Just tell the truth about what happened, if you tell our story. Do the dang research, and do it right!

That's what I'd tell them.

Sometimes I forget that most people don't have my particular idiosyncrasies and so have no idea what those books are. Let's try some more commonly known references. Should the tales of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or Homer's Odyssey be taught as objective, scientific history? Edited November 15, 2012 by Nathair

[Ahab]

God is not allowed in science.

Heh, it's not like a club they can keep him out of. He can be involved in it just as much as anyone else.

Let the evidence speak for or against itself. Otherwise yours is just an engagement in circular reasoning, and Red Herrings.

That's right, and that applies to them too. What happened is what happened regardless of what they say happened. I'd just like them to tell our story correctly, as it happened. .

Evolution is a well established fact.

Bull pucky, at least as far as macro evolution. There is no evidence showing one kind of creature became another kind of creature. That's just false reasoning based on the data and evidence we do have.

Whatever Gods' involvement in it remains outside the bounds of rational scientific debate.

I don't know where you're getting that idea. Our Father has a lot to say about science and we should ask for his help with our research.

Your God claims a lot of mistaken ideas.

Wow, you sound more and more like you're going off the deep end. Do you have any idea about who you are talking about?

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.

When you get some data you need to interpret it correctly. The false ideas are in your own mind, not in what God knows has happened.

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.

I didn't say they said war was a good thing. I said they made it seem that way. With our Father's help they (some of his children/our brothers and sisters) could have thought of all the good things they could have built without having anything to do with war. And it wasn't "war" that lead to those inventions and innovations. Any good idea they got they got from our Father, while all the bad ideas came from Satan.

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.

It's far better for us all to get along with each other than to kill each other, though, and the pharoah was no more a god than all of the rest of us. Are you aware of how he became a king? It was through compulsion, rather than being worthy of love and respect, Sounds to me like you need to learn the difference between a good god-king and an evil god-king.

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.

Not good, right? And what about what made and makes bad people that way? Who is following who? There is more to the story. Who can tell it? Maybe Paul Harvey could tell us the rest of the story.

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

I'm just venting because I think the people who tell our history, The Story Of All Of Us, should tell it as it should be told.

Doesn't it upset you a little when people do not tell the truth?

[Tacenda]

As long as it's the history of what actually happened I really don't care which books they get it from. And I wouldn't "demand" that they do anything. I'd just like them to do it right if they decide they want to tell our story.

Just tell the truth about what happened, if you tell our story. Do the dang research, and do it right!

That's what I'd tell them.

They're just not as smart as some of you are, here on MDDB. And I'm not kidding! Edited November 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[Ahab]

Sometimes I forget that most people don't have my particular idiosyncrasies and so have no idea what those books are. Let's try some more commonly known references. Should the tales of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or Homer's Odyssey be taught as objective, scientific history?

As I said, it really doesn't matter to me which books you get the truth from, as long as what you find is the truth.

You can answer your own question. What do you think? Do those books tell the truth of what actually happened?

[Nathair/|\]

As I said, it really doesn't matter to me which books you get the truth from, as long as what you find is the truth.

You can answer your own question. What do you think? Do those books tell the truth of what actually happened?

The same kind of truth that is found in the first chapters of Genesis. Myth is greater than scientific history, but should not ever be confused with it. Rather, it's the truth about who we are and what we are capable of, what it means to be human. It's way beyond the scope of the History Channel and other purveyors of scientific history.

[Ahab]

The same kind of truth that is found in the first chapters of Genesis.

If you knew what really happened, from where we came from to how we got to be as we are now, you'd be able to see that what is written in Genesis is basically true. There is more to the story, but what is written there doesn't detract from the truth, and it doesn't give any false history. You just need to be able to interpret the data correctly, and know what actually happened.

Myth is greater than scientific history, but should not ever be confused with it. Rather, it's the truth about who we are and what we are capable of, what it means to be human. It's way beyond the scope of the History Channel and other purveyors of scientific history.

Who we are is a direct result of where and who we came from and what happened to get us to where we are now. True history can tell us all about everything, at least as far as what is past and what is now present. Haven't you ever wondered why a lot of scripture involves history? It is the story of us, as it happened. All we need to know is how to learn from our history while being able to interpret the data correctly.

Edited November 16, 2012 by Ahab

[volgadon]

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

Not having seen the documentary, I must say I'm not too sure about that. A lot would depend on what theories are shown, what evidence is used, etc..

I've seen enough History Channel tripe to suspect that this will be another shallow, but colourful offering that will have serious students of history shaking their heads. I agree with what Gohan said, really.

[Calm]

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

You and Sherlock Holmes....

[Calm]

Don't remember if this has been posted but apparently you can watch it at:

http://www.history.c...ry-of-all-of-us

Managed to stick to it for the first five minutes or so. The two "experts" were no experts on the subject they discoursing on...one was a "writer"....why was he talking about the requirements of hunting? Plus it is way overdramatized, spends too much time of stuff not needing to be explained and ignores stuff needing to be sourced. And last while not inaccurate it implies that the earth is remarkably special or even unique in the conditions that allow for LIFE (not life as we know it but LIFE).

Can't stand the narrator's voice so even though the photography is great, not watching it.

Here is a review: http://thechronicleherald.ca/artslife/168912-history-tackles-the-story-of-mankind

Edited November 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

From the review....the two inches is noted in the first five I watched, I assume the other comes later but I saw no reference. Anyone have a source for this info? Our height and brains are smaller?

It’s interesting to note that our East African ancestors were about two inches taller than today’s humans, but as man invented things to make his life more comfortable and longer, our height went down, as did the size of our brains, but our stomachs went in the opposite direction.

Found a newspaper report, would like something more academic: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2002684/Were-getting-smaller-brains-shrinking--farming-blame.html

Edited November 16, 2012 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

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

Actually 6,000 years is an arbitrary number but then so is 2 million or 2 billion or 4 billion.

Edited November 16, 2012 by ERayR

[bcuzbcuz]

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.

My hat is off to you. i couldn't do the combining of such opposites.

[cdowis]

del.

Edited November 16, 2012 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Heh, it's not like a club they can keep him out of. He can be involved in it just as much as anyone else.

That's right, and that applies to them too. What happened is what happened regardless of what they say happened. I'd just like them to tell our story correctly, as it happened. .

Bull pucky, at least as far as macro evolution. There is no evidence showing one kind of creature became another kind of creature. That's just false reasoning based on the data and evidence we do have.

I don't know where you're getting that idea. Our Father has a lot to say about science and we should ask for his help with our research.

Wow, you sound more and more like you're going off the deep end. Do you have any idea about who you are talking about?

When you get some data you need to interpret it correctly. The false ideas are in your own mind, not in what God knows has happened.

I didn't say they said war was a good thing. I said they made it seem that way. With our Father's help they (some of his children/our brothers and sisters) could have thought of all the good things they could have built without having anything to do with war. And it wasn't "war" that lead to those inventions and innovations. Any good idea they got they got from our Father, while all the bad ideas came from Satan.

It's far better for us all to get along with each other than to kill each other, though, and the pharoah was no more a god than all of the rest of us. Are you aware of how he became a king? It was through compulsion, rather than being worthy of love and respect, Sounds to me like you need to learn the difference between a good god-king and an evil god-king.

Not good, right? And what about what made and makes bad people that way? Who is following who? There is more to the story. Who can tell it? Maybe Paul Harvey could tell us the rest of the story.

I'm just venting because I think the people who tell our history, The Story Of All Of Us, should tell it as it should be told.

Doesn't it upset you a little when people do not tell the truth?

Sorry. Scientists can't put any God(s)/Devils(Shiva, Yahweh, Jehovah, Seventh Dynamic, the Great Pumpkin, or invisible giant flying spaghetti monster, etc., etc., etc..) into science. The individual scientist can believe, or not believe, anything they want. Pray, or not pray, to any God/Devil real of imagined they want. Science by definition is Agnostic.

Largely we don't know what actually happened. Either the earth wasn't created yet, people weren't around to record it, if recorded they only recorded what they personally saw, told imaginative stories about it, flat out lied, didn't have all the necessary information, or the ability to gather it, were misunderstood by those recording it, misunderstood by those interpreting(reading) it, whatever. But through it all we can determine what did happen, what was likely to have happened, and what is impossible to have happened. IE; We can't claim with the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Courthouse the American South won the US Civil War. We don't need to know which and whom of all the soldiers on both sides had mustaches. The first fact is relevant the other is not.

That isn't what evolution says.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research...

BYU dinosaur collection:

http://cpms.byu.edu/ESM/research.html

The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution:

http://www.google.co...mG8dLEDKm0-IZmQ

I know exactly what I'm talking about. It is right there in our Holy Writ namely the Bible.

Shall we toss out the last two thousand years of knowledge just to appeal to your God? I'd much prefer to paint myself blue and dance naked around the trees to appease my ancestors Gods. Singing, dancing, feasting, drinking alcohol sounds a lot more fun than sitting in some of the Fast and Testimony Meetings I've attended.

Not from what I saw. A lot of terror, pain, anguish, and grief over loss is what I saw. Our instruments of war have changed but not the results. Rather sad isn't it?

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIFxbOZezhE

Unfortunately the sad history of this world says the opposite. From the invention of the club, to the Neutron Bomb, to the latest germ warfare "bug", it is all geared to misery, death, and destruction. Again science can not appeal to any God/Devil real or imagined. The individual scientist can believe, or not believe, anything they want. Pray, or not pray, to any God/Devil real of imagined they want. Science by definition is Agnostic.

I prefer we all just get along. But that isn't our history.

Pharaoh was the God-King to the Ancient Egyptians. Whether that was real or imagined the results were still the same. Read Section 132 of D&C for our take on it. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132.46,47,48,49?lang=eng

Though there are differences as one would expect of a different religion. It is remarkably close to the old Egyptian ideas of a God-King.

How should it be told? According to your personal preferences, or mine, or someone living by the rice paddies of Vietnam, or someone else? Tell me whom exactly is the one to tell it? "The complete and Comprehensive History of the Entire Universe Including Man" has yet to be written. Go for it.

Of course it very mildly upsets me. I try to be as accurate and thorough as I can. I'm far from perfect and I can pick out where the facts say otherwise in that show. However I seldom get upset enough to publicly object, and look to the good faith effort instead. I take what is good and disregard the rest.

Ps. My how time flies. It's that time again for me to go get some work done. See you later today or tomorrow.

Edited November 16, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Ahab]

Sorry. Scientists can't put any God(s)/Devils(Shiva, Yahweh, Jehovah, Seventh Dynamic, the Great Pumpkin, or invisible giant flying spaghetti monster, etc., etc., etc..) into science. The individual scientist can believe, or not believe, anything they want. Pray, or not pray, to any God/Devil real of imagined they want. Science by definition is Agnostic.

How would you define what science is? I'm just interested in hearing how you would define it. I know what it is, and I would define it as the name given to anything associated with the scientific method of discovery, which I like to illustrate like this:

The scientific method:

1. Choose an idea and/or problem to research.

2. Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.

3. Experiment to test hypotheses.

4. Examine results of the experiment(s).

5. Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.

6. Share what has been learned.

CHEERS!

Now you tell me, what makes you think someone has to exclude God from science? I know some people do, but you don't have to. He can be involved in every step of the process, with you, or me, or anyone else, or he can do it all on his own, again and again if he wants to, while sharing what he has learned with us.

As someone who thinks of himself as a scientist, what would you do if you saw God, or someone claiming to be the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, or just someone you thought might be the same kind of person as our Father in heaven? Just sit there doing nothing because you'd think it's just not possible to use science when discovering or doing some research to verify that it is God?

...

Ps. My how time flies. It's that time again for me to go get some work done. See you later today or tomorrow.

Take care.

[Rivers]

Hey Ahab, take it easy on the makers of the documentary. They don't have all the knowledge and wisdom you have. They're just doing the best they can with the knowledge they have from scientists and historians.

[thesometimesaint]

How would you define what science is? I'm just interested in hearing how you would define it. I know what it is, and I would define it as the name given to anything associated with the scientific method of discovery, which I like to illustrate like this:

The scientific method:

1. Choose an idea and/or problem to research.

2. Hypothesize using if/then and/or cause/effect statements.

3. Experiment to test hypotheses.

4. Examine results of the experiment(s).

5. Record procedures so the experiment(s) can be duplicated.

6. Share what has been learned.

CHEERS!

Now you tell me, what makes you think someone has to exclude God from science? I know some people do, but you don't have to. He can be involved in every step of the process, with you, or me, or anyone else, or he can do it all on his own, again and again if he wants to, while sharing what he has learned with us.

As someone who thinks of himself as a scientist, what would you do if you saw God, or someone claiming to be the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, or just someone you thought might be the same kind of person as our Father in heaven? Just sit there doing nothing because you'd think it's just not possible to use science when discovering or doing some research to verify that it is God?

...

Take care.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/science

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Supernatul

When I see God. I'll fall down and worship him. He'll then raise me up, and brush away all my tears. Then I'll have lots of questions to be answered by him.

Edited November 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Hey Ahab, take it easy on the makers of the documentary. They don't have all the knowledge and wisdom you have. They're just doing the best they can with the knowledge they have from scientists and historians.

Just a little tiring to have flights of imaginative fantasy presented as scientific fact.

[bcuzbcuz]

Come on now! Is this really what passes as history for most on this planet?

For those who don't know, the History Channel aired a 2 hour show last night on what they called The Story Of All Of Us, which I watched because I thought they did a fairly good job of their show called The Men Who Built America. Long story short, I wasn't impressed, and not only that, but I felt at least a little bit miffed that they were trying to pass that stuff off as "the story of all of us".

I bet even on this board we can come up with a much better portrayal of our history than that.

Anyone care to comment on why the History channel aired such a bad version of history?

Do you seriously think the world generally accepts that stuff as our true history, or was it merely the producers of the History Channel showing how very little they know of our true history?

Now that I've had the chance to see the program I can give an opinion. Apart from the matter that most of the dialogue contains sweeping generalities and generalizations always contain inaccuracies, I found the program quite well done. The one detail I feel they got wrong was their showing of the construction of the pyramids. They had ramps spiraling up and around the pyramid. When I was in Egypt last year the kind of ramps used were readily available for inspection at the site of Karnak. The ramps were simple straight ramps, heightened with each successive layer. A spiraling ramp is actually impossible for the gigantic blocks used in pyramid construction. Not the ramp itself but the physics of getting a two tonne block to turn a corner. All effect in pulling a block, because you can't get enough people behind to push, is lost when trying to maneuver round a corner.

Overall, a good program.

Other than that I thought entertaining and

[Ahab]

Hey Ahab, take it easy on the makers of the documentary. They don't have all the knowledge and wisdom you have. They're just doing the best they can with the knowledge they have from scientists and historians.

I'm taking that into consideration, but there's no good reasy they can't know at least as much as I know.

Anyway, I'm glad they liked their show, and that others like it. I was just hoping for some additional light and truth, meaning more than I already have.

[thesometimesaint]

Ahab:

From Television?

[Ahab]

Ahab:

From Television?

Yes, from television. The BYU channel isn't the only channel where light and truth are shared. The History Channel is generally better about their programing than this program, I think, and the Discover Channel, the Cooking Channel, and several other channels, also have some good programs, sometimes. And then, of course there is Sesame Street, on the public television channel, and even Mitt Romney said he likes the Big Bird.

Don't go beating down all television programs, as if they're all bad. I know there's some crap but there's also some good programing, sometimes.

[volgadon]

BTW, am I the only one thinking that "The Story of Us All," is far more elegant a title than the one chosen?

[Calm]

BTW, am I the only one thinking that "The Story of Us All," is far more elegant a title than the one chosen?

Now that you mention it....I did find it clunky (not a smooth rhythm) though I hadn't thought it through to your much better solution. Edited November 20, 2012 by calmoriah