Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 There is no godless science, many scientists that reject the global flood are Christian. If the Global Flood theory didn't have serious problems, atheists would still reject it, but not the Christian scientists. The fact that almost all legit scientists that belong to one of the Abrahamic religions, don't believe in a Global Flood. That is a good reason to douth the Great Global Flood. Let us not forget theat the most notable archaeology institutions whose members also beloeng to one of the Abrahamic religions do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a historical document and see it as nothing more than fiction. I am pretty sure that only LDS owned schools funnel any research into BoM archaeolgy. So whats new then?
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 14, 2014 Author Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) Let us not forget theat the most notable archaeology institutions whose members also beloeng to one of the Abrahamic religions do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a historical document and see it as nothing more than fiction. I am pretty sure that only LDS owned schools funnel any research into BoM archaeolgy. So whats new then? "beloeng to one of the Abrahamic religions do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a historical document" Mormon scholars, our church is an Abrahamic religion.Most Mormon scholars don't accept the Hemesphiric Geography theory. The Hemesphiric Geography also has serious problems, that is why most Mormon Scholars reject it.Same with the Global Flood, most legit Christian scientists reject it. I am not talking about the nonbelievers, I am talking about the believers (legit scientists) that reject the Great Global Flood and the Hemesphiric Geography. Edited May 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 "beloeng to one of the Abrahamic religions do not believe the Book of Mormon to be a historical document" Mormon scholars, our church is an Abrahamic religion. Most Mormon scholars don't accept the Hemesphiric Geography theory. The Hemesphiric Geography also has serious problems, that is why most Mormon Scholars reject it. Same with the Global Flood, most legit Christian scientists reject it. I am not talking about the nonbelievers, I am talking about the believers (legit scientists) that reject the Great Global Flood and the Hemesphiric Geography. Okay, lest rephrase the analogy to something else. Pretty much all of mainstream science has no place for the Creator in his creation and thus intelligent design theory is rejected. Instead most theistic scientists reject the Creator in explaining lifes origins. Thus they are a walking talking contradiction. So what new?
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 14, 2014 Author Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) Okay, lest rephrase the analogy to something else. Pretty much all of mainstream science has no place for the Creator in his creation and thus intelligent design theory is rejected. Instead most theistic scientists reject the Creator in explaining lifes origins. Thus they are a walking talking contradiction. So what new? Theistic scientists believe in the theory of Evolution, they believe that God used Evolution to create the life that we see on Earth. That is something that science cannot prove or disprove. If God intervenes in the quantum level, that is something beyond science. The Theory of Evolution does not prove or disprove God. Edited May 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Theistic scientists believe in the theory of Evolution, they believe that God used Evolution to create the life that we see on Earth. That is something that science cannot prove or disprove. If God intervenes in the quantum level, that is something beyond science. The Theory of Evolution does not prove or disprove God. Let me bring you up to date on the theory of ID. If any scientist posits that God directed or designed evolution in the creation its called being in the intelligent design theory. If one rejects this theory and then says that God used evolution then they are a liar.
The Nehor Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 More opinions I see. My views are also supported by science, just not your godless science. Please do not tie your scientific views to godly science. In essence you are saying: godly science = pseudoscientific quackery
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Please do not tie your scientific views to godly science. In essence you are saying: godly science = pseudoscientific quackery But that is exactly what it is- godly science. God is true and so is his science.
The Nehor Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 But that is exactly what it is- godly science. God is true and so is his science. He does not have science....omniscience removes the need for science. At that point there is only knowledge. He did not come up with your crazy "geology proves the flood" nonsense and I think he finds you an incredibly embarrassing supporter.
changed Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 But that is exactly what it is- godly science. God is true and so is his science.God is true, but our interpretation of what is written is suspect.
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 He does not have science....omniscience removes the need for science. At that point there is only knowledge. He did not come up with your crazy "geology proves the flood" nonsense and I think he finds you an incredibly embarrassing supporter. God uses science. Hes not "magic". Perhaps you should read the scriptures sometime. You may find that my "crazy geology" is actually what is spoken of in scripture. So then- are you calling God crazy?
The Nehor Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 God uses science. Hes not "magic". Perhaps you should read the scriptures sometime. You may find that my "crazy geology" is actually what is spoken of in scripture. So then- are you calling God crazy? Science is the study of existence in general. God does not study. He knows. God uses his knowledge to enact change either through technology or command or however He chooses to work. No, I am not calling God crazy. I want to call you crazy but I don't think you are. I see you more as this guy:
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Science is the study of existence in general. God does not study. He knows. God uses his knowledge to enact change either through technology or command or however He chooses to work. No, I am not calling God crazy. I want to call you crazy but I don't think you are. I see you more as this guy: Okay, let me say it this way- God uses laws, hes not magic. Its hard to drop to your level of intelligence.
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 14, 2014 Author Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) Let me bring you up to date on the theory of ID. If any scientist posits that God directed or designed evolution in the creation its called being in the intelligent design theory. If one rejects this theory and then says that God used evolution then they are a liar. Name me the Christian scientist (not a Christian deist) that said that, and present the exact quote. Perhaps he was saying that the Theory of Evolution doesn't prove the existence of God? Again, I am talking about the believers, not the unbelievers. Edited May 14, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
The Nehor Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Okay, let me say it this way- God uses laws, hes not magic. Its hard to drop to your level of intelligence.I imagine the poor choice of direction makes it much harder.....indeed impossible.
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Name me the Christian scientist (not a Christian deist) that said that, and present the exact quote. Perhaps he was saying that the Theory of Evolution doesn't prove the existence of God? Again, I am talking about the believers, not the unbelievers. I have been following this for twenty years as it has developed and all i can say is that mainstream evolutionary science is a paradigm of atheism. Creationism has always been around in some form or another and came to a head some 12-15 years ago in the school system. Around that time some creationists felt their scientific views were being held down by this literal interpretation of Genesis. And so Intelligent design went from a school of thought to being established as a new theory that wasn't held down to a strict interpretation of biblical events. Over a few years hardline creationists distanced themselves from this emerging ID theory and thus ID theory as we now know it was born. Evolutionists were quick to take note and assumed the role of policeman on the scientific watch front. They quickly established websites and organizations to combat this new approach. In so doing they forever embanked themselves into a paradigm of new age atheism where naturalism ibecomes their god and no other gods can come before it. In the defense of their mighty naturalism they constantly try to discredit any and all forms of science that may even hint at the possibility of their being a God. Why should they even care about ID theory? Its because it hints at their being a Godor a cause other than naturalism for why we are here.
mnn727 Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) To clarify, it wasn't an olive branch but actually an olive leaf. Olive seeds germinate and can create leafs within 4-8 weeks. So your argument doesn't hold up on that count.11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. (Gen. 8:11)Man was created from the dust of the earth the same way as you and I are also created from the dust of the earth.A Reply from someone who has obviously never grown tree's from seeds, well I have grown tree's from seeds. The first leaf will grow within about 6 weeks, and its so small (about 1/6 to 1/8 the size of a penny) that it would not be noticeable in a doves mouth. Now this is assuming it would conditions just right to sprout and grow after spending over a year covered under how much (salt) water, oh yeah, enough to cover the highest mountain to a depth of 26 cubits, got news for you, olive tree's don't grow on the tops of high mountains.Next expert please? Edited May 14, 2014 by mnn727
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 A Reply from someone who has obviously never grown tree's from seeds, well I have grown tree's from seeds. The first leaf will grow within about 6 weeks, and its so small (about 1/6 to 1/8 the size of a penny) that it would not be noticeable in a doves mouth. Now this is assuming it would conditions just right to sprout and grow after spending over a year covered under how much (salt) water, oh yeah, enough to cover the highest mountain to a depth of 26 cubits, got news for you, olive tree's don't grow on the tops of high mountains. Next expert please? So you agree an olive leaf is possible but now you say it is too small. Really? Then you say olive trees don't grow on mountains. Guess what? At the time the flood waters were receding, the tops of the mountains at this time would have been near sea level. Again your argument fails. Upthrust to the great heights wasn't immediatly occuring at this point. As for the salt water, you cant prove if or how much salt was in the water at this point. So I play it back at ya- next expert please?
mnn727 Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) At the time the flood waters were receding, the tops of the mountains at this time would have been near sea levelEven were that true, which for multiple reasons no rational person believes, don't forget according to Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground (Substance, not animal, not creature, but every thing; grass, trees, plants, etc) Your hill sized mountains does not even matter to this conversation as you also have to remember this dove finding an olive leaf is just 7 days after Noah sent out another dove that found no place to land, and 14 days after a raven found no place to land. 7-14 days is just not enough time for an olive leaf to grow, tiny or not. Edited May 14, 2014 by mnn727 3
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Even were that true, which for multiple reasons no rational person believes, don't forget according to Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground (Substance, not animal, not creature, but every thing; grass, trees, plants, etc) Your hill sized mountains does not even matter to this conversation as you also have to remember this dove finding an olive leaf is just 7 days after Noah sent out another dove that found no place to land, and 14 days after a raven found no place to land. 7-14 days is just not enough time for an olive leaf to grow, tiny or not. Perhaps there was dryer land further away but the bird did not find it. Besides that, the land was seen and then 47 days later after that is when the dove returned the olive leaf.
mnn727 Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) Perhaps there was dryer land further away but the bird did not find it. Besides that, the land was seen and then 47 days later after that is when the dove returned the olive leaf.And then in the last 6000 years or so God raised those near sea level mountains anywhere from 1000 feet up to 29000 feet and disguised it so it would not look recent. I am not sure why people have to believe in a magical (or even a deceptive) God. A God that changes the very laws He set up the universe to operate in. Edited May 14, 2014 by mnn727
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 And then in the last 6000 years or so God raised those near sea level mountains anywhere from 1000 feet up to 29000 feet and disguised it so it would not look recent. Would not look recent? What is that supposed to mean?
mnn727 Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 (edited) Would not look recent? What is that supposed to mean?Geologically speaking mountain ranges are very old, for example the Andes are estimated to be 18-25 million years oldThe Himalayas are estimated to be even older at 50 -75 million years, and the Rockies at 65 - 100 million years old. What you are saying is that God is deceptive to us. Edited May 14, 2014 by mnn727
thesometimesaint Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 I would think science and scientist would duck there heads and hope nobody remembered who brought the atomic bomb and the wonderful technological toys designed to break things and kill people but go ahead and worship at whatever alter you choose. I have heard that too much sea water intake can cause delirium. The same science that brought us the atomic bomb also brought us nuclear medicine. The same science that is designed to break things allows us to see how things are made. The same science that made the car kills tens of thousands of American's every year. You are using the same science of electricity to power your computer that kills people everyday by electrocution. The list of ways in which science has benefited our lives is as long as the ways in which it has been used to destroy. Science is by design amoral. It is the purposes to which we put it that makes us moral or immoral. I don't worship science. It is an incredibly useful tool nothing more. Cooking is an art. While baking is chemistry. Too much of anything is too much. To much of plain water causes death. We simply call it drowning.
thesometimesaint Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 So, we have some unsubstantiated claim of "millions of years" and you take it as truth? Opinions I say, opinions. We have no way to validate dating methods that do not coincide with historical accounts. You are being obtuse.
Rob Osborn Posted May 14, 2014 Posted May 14, 2014 Geologically speaking mountain ranges are very old, for example the Andes are estimated to be 18-25 million years old The Himalayas are estimated to be even older at 50 -75 million years, and the Rockies at 65 - 100 million years old. What you are saying is that God is deceptive to us. How do they know they are that old? Because of their subjective dating methods shown to be incorrect?
Recommended Posts