Where Science And Religion Should Meet

[Rob Osborn]

I really wish you would stick with observable facts and report those facts without bias and political agendas and cease these guesses and stop

Chasing pipe dreams.

Religion has that right, science doesn't, thats my whole point.

[Rob Osborn]

Without accurate predictive capacity science become religion.

Evolution already is a religion.

[MormonFreeThinker]

After looking at all sides and then calculating through logic the best answer that supports the evidence. There is no doubt there was a global flood

 

Please watch 

[Rob Osborn]

Hold on there Skippy!  There is no scientific conspiracy to disprove the Book of Mormon.  The belief that Native Americans are of East Asian origin predates Joseph Smith- In fact, it was first proposed in the late 1500s!  It could just as well be said that Joseph Smith should not have tread in to scientific territory (which, of course would be ridiculous.)  Europeans observed the striking resemblance of some of the native people to East Asians and proposed an east Asian origin for them.  They observed the Mongolian blue spot and shovel shaped incisors-East Asian traits.  They observed the diversity of language and language families which point towards a very ancient origin for them.  Later they observed the closeness of the Alaska to Siberia, Inuit people, weather patterns, ice cores, archaeological sites, blood type, DNA evidence and on and on.  When there are piles of implications, inference is in order.  Photographic evidence of people crossing Beringia does not need to exist to establish a very solid scientific theory.

I believe the problem though comes down to this- When I was in school we were taught as pretty much "fact" that humans migrated across the land bridge some 20-30 thousand years ago. Until I was old enough to start using some common sense I took it as a truth taught by science. They also taught that ancient sea travel much before Columbus time to America didn't happen. At some point one has to start questioning just exactly how they are coming up with this stuff they teach as truth. If we hold the BoM to be true then science is flat out wrong where it matters the most. The truth is there really is no evidence whatsoever that links man crossing a landbridge to populate the America's, just ideas and opinions. There is also no evidence that people didn't migrate here on boats  thousands of years ago. When I go to history and science class I want the truth, not someones opinion of bias.

[Anijen]

I believe the problem though comes down to this- When I was in school we were taught as pretty much "fact" that humans migrated across the land bridge some 20-30 thousand years ago. Until I was old enough to start using some common sense I took it as a truth taught by science. They also taught that ancient sea travel much before Columbus time to America didn't happen. At some point one has to start questioning just exactly how they are coming up with this stuff they teach as truth. If we hold the BoM to be true then science is flat out wrong where it matters the most. The truth is there really is no evidence whatsoever that links man crossing a landbridge to populate the America's, just ideas and opinions. There is also no evidence that people didn't migrate here on boats  thousands of years ago. When I go to history and science class I want the truth, not someones opinion of bias.

Wishing I had a dollar for everything wrong in this statement.

[Brian 2.0]

Religion has that right, science doesn't, thats my whole point.

So you admit to using religion, not science, when making assumptions about the fossil record and geologic column.

[Rob Osborn]

Please watch 

Sounds like atheist propaganda. Interesting that he just provides opinions to try to debunk the global flood and then dismisses the evidence for a global flood because it doesn't align with his opinions. Let me just ask- if they are going to debunk a global flood don't you think they need to do some type of testing of sediments and how different sediments find different layers and if that be true would it not also be true for billions of dead things also?

[thesometimesaint]

I believe the problem though comes down to this- When I was in school we were taught as pretty much "fact" that humans migrated across the land bridge some 20-30 thousand years ago. Until I was old enough to start using some common sense I took it as a truth taught by science. They also taught that ancient sea travel much before Columbus time to America didn't happen. At some point one has to start questioning just exactly how they are coming up with this stuff they teach as truth. If we hold the BoM to be true then science is flat out wrong where it matters the most. The truth is there really is no evidence whatsoever that links man crossing a landbridge to populate the America's, just ideas and opinions. There is also no evidence that people didn't migrate here on boats  thousands of years ago. When I go to history and science class I want the truth, not someones opinion of bias.

 

Proof Texting

[Sine Saw Square]

The truth is there really is no evidence whatsoever that links man crossing a landbridge to populate the America's, just ideas and opinions. 

 

This might be of interest to you. http://www.nps.gov/bela/historyculture/other-migration-theories.htm

 

As I understand it, scientific theories (dare I say) "evolve" and refine over time as more evidence and discoveries are uncovered.

 

Why can't there have been a plethora of migrations- land bridge, boats from both the atlantic side and Pacific side? The Book of Mormon seems to suggest such- and so does some of the archeological evidence.  I think it's a bit strong to say there is no evidence of a land bridge. Just observing the physiology of the peoples living in Alaska, Canada, Syberia, and the Ainu people in Japan and even down into the Pacific North West suggests common ancestors. I remember reading some time ago about the linguistic diversity found in the Americas and how such complexity can only be explained by multiple migratory movements over thousands of years.  I don't think any of this has to threaten one's belief in the Book of Mormon.

 

Now if the Inuit looked like Africans or Scandinavians there might be cause to think they didn't come over from Asia.

 

There is also no evidence that people didn't migrate here on boats  thousands of years ago. When I go to history and science class I want the truth, not someones opinion of bias.

 

 

I don't think you can prove a negative.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Sine Saw Square

[Rob Osborn]

So you admit to using religion, not science, when making assumptions about the fossil record and geologic column.

Here is my point-

 

Science can make a statement that goes something like this- "we have evidence of a massive set of burial events in flood waters throughout the world at some distant times or times." Then, religion can step in and say something like this- "according to God, he caused the earth to be flooded which would have killed hundreds of billions of life forms." Then in this middle ground we can come into agreement with showing a connection with what science has found with what religious believers have faith and believe in. My whole point here is that just based off of pure scientific truth, no bias or opinions harbored, there is ample evidence of flooding worldwide which left a testimony of death in its sedimentary layers. As to when it occurred, how it occurred, etc, science cannot nor should not place absolutes on these areas.

[Rob Osborn]

Proof Texting

Its called having a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true.

[Rob Osborn]

This might be of interest to you. http://www.nps.gov/bela/historyculture/other-migration-theories.htm

 

As I understand it, scientific theories (dare I say) "evolve" and refine over time as more evidence and discoveries are uncovered.

 

Why can't there have been a plethora of migrations- land bridge, boats from both the atlantic side and Pacific side? The Book of Mormon seems to suggest such- and so does some of the archeological evidence.  I think it's a bit strong to say there is no evidence of a land bridge. Just observing the physiology of the peoples living in Alaska, Canada, Syberia, and the Ainu people in Japan and even down into the Pacific North West suggests common ancestors. I remember reading some time ago about the linguistic diversity found in the Americas and how such complexity can only be explained by multiple migratory movements over thousands of years.  I don't think any of this has to threaten one's belief in the Book of Mormon.

 

Now if the Inuit looked like Africans or Scandinavians there might be cause to think they didn't come over from Asia.

 

 

I don't think you can prove a negative.

There very possibly could have been a land bridge. My point here though is that all too often men mistakingly believe man was incapable of building a boat thousands of years ago so therefore there must have been a landbridge. Let me ask you this- were you ever taught that men could have migrated here to the Americas thousands of years ago on sea worthy ships/vessels?

[Brian 2.0]

Here is my point-

Science can make a statement that goes something like this- "we have evidence of a massive set of burial events in flood waters throughout the world at some distant times or times." Then, religion can step in and say something like this- "according to God, he caused the earth to be flooded which would have killed hundreds of billions of life forms."

Then science says, "no, you misunderstand, we didn't say we have evidence of ONE flood killing all these millions of life forms at one time, we said we have evidence of millions of life forms dying over the course of millions of years."

Then you say, "knock it off science! Only report what coincides with my beliefs!"

[thesometimesaint]

Its called having a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true.

 

I have a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. Just not one of your interpretation being true.

 

I've never piloted a Boeing 777. Therefore the Wright brothers never flew at Kitty Hawk.

[thesometimesaint]

There very possibly could have been a land bridge. My point here though is that all too often men mistakingly believe man was incapable of building a boat thousands of years ago so therefore there must have been a landbridge. Let me ask you this- were you ever taught that men could have migrated here to the Americas thousands of years ago on sea worthy ships/vessels?

 

As a young child I was taught that there was no evidence for transoceanic travel by boat before Columbus. As a teen I learned about the Vikings doing it from verified evidence, outside of literature, found in North America. I eagerly await verified evidence, outside of literature, found in the America's for the Lehite's.

[Rob Osborn]

Then science says, "no, you misunderstand, we didn't say we have evidence of ONE flood killing all these millions of life forms at one time, we said we have evidence of millions of life forms dying over the course of millions of years."

Then you say, "knock it off science! Only report what coincides with my beliefs!"

You are injecting opinion and bias in again. Thats the problem. Science has no way to surely say something is millions of years old. That is only a belief of interpretation.

[Rob Osborn]

As a young child I was taught that there was no evidence for transoceanic travel by boat before Columbus. As a teen I learned about the Vikings doing it from verified evidence, outside of literature, found in North America. I eagerly await verified evidence, outside of literature, found in the America's for the Lehite's.

I don't need the physical evidence although it will be nice when we do find it. If the BoM were proven to be untrue I would most definitley leave the church. But, I am placing strong faith that it is indeed true and that the Jaredites were the first humans to populate the Americas and as such the first people in America came on sea worthy boats.

[thesometimesaint]

You are injecting opinion and bias in again. Thats the problem. Science has no way to surely say something is millions of years old. That is only a belief of interpretation.

 

Incorrect. Dating by Radioactive Decay is well established science.

[Brian 2.0]

Here is my point-

Science can make a statement that goes something like this- "we have evidence of a massive set of burial events in flood waters throughout the world at some distant times or times." Then, religion can step in and say something like this- "

You realize that you are drawing an arbitrary line where science should stop at the exact spot that science is about to conflict with your beliefs. Then you say that anything after that point is "guessing".

The reality is that if they applied your standard then the line would be WAY before that:

- how do you know it was a burial event?

- how do you know it was in flood waters?

- how do you know this event you assume here happened at a distant time?

According to your rules science could only say this:

"Hey, we found something interesting looking in the ground."

[Ahab]

You are injecting opinion and bias in again. Thats the problem. Science has no way to surely say something is millions of years old. That is only a belief of interpretation.

You're always going to see some people who don't agree with you, Rob. Get used to it, like God has.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't need the physical evidence although it will be nice when we do find it. If the BoM were proven to be untrue I would most definitley leave the church. But, I am placing strong faith that it is indeed true and that the Jaredites were the first humans to populate the Americas and as such the first people in America came on sea worthy boats.

 

I don't need it either. Just as I don't need physical evidence of Christs resurrection to believe it true. I'm not too sure that physical evidence is necessary for any belief. I wouldn't leave the Church over it either. I'm perfectly content with my faith, and my science. So I'll withhold judgement until God tells me otherwise. However that will just allow me more questions to be asked.

 

The Jaredites were not the first people to come to the America's either.

SEE Clovis Points

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-clovis-point-and-the-discovery-of-americas-first-culture-3825828/?no-ist

[Ahab]

You realize that you are drawing an arbitrary line where science should stop at the exact spot that science is about to conflict with your beliefs. Then you say that anything after that point is "guessing".

The reality is that if they applied your standard then the line would be WAY before that:

- how do you know it was a burial event?

- how do you know it was in flood waters?

- how do you know this event you assume here happened at a distant time?

According to your rules science could only say this:

"Hey, we found something interesting looking in the ground."

That would actually be an improvement over what happens when people make false assertions.

[thesometimesaint]

That would actually be an improvement over what happens when people make false assertions.

 

What we see is the observation. Explaining that observation within the context of other observations is the theory. A false assertion is when the explanation is outside the context of other observations. IE; A false assertion for the reason that the sky is blue is because of reflection off the ocean(I've actually heard this one). That idea is outside the observation that oxygen scatters blue light better than any other color.

[Brian 2.0]

What we see is the observation. Explaining that observation within the context of other observations is the theory. A false assertion is when the explanation is outside the context of other observations. IE; A false assertion for the reason that the sky is blue is because of reflection off the ocean(I've actually heard this one). That idea is outside the observation that oxygen scatters blue light better than any other color.

And Rob is arguing for the elimination of all theories, only observations.

Basically neutering science.

[thesometimesaint]

And Rob is arguing for the elimination of all theories, only observations.

Basically neutering science.

 

It is worse. Science becomes religion, subject to whatever belief that religion holds. IE; Observation the sky is blue. No it's not, its a pineapple because my religion says it is.