Elder John A. Widtsoe On The Flood (Full Context)

[MormonFreeThinker]

I will be interested to hear the university side of things....for example, does the professor refuse to teach his students other possible explanations for the soft tissue that are currently being explored or does he insist his explanation is the only valid one?

 

I know, we shouldn't to jump to conclusions too quickly

Edited July 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

I will be interested to hear the university side of things....for example, does the professor refuse to teach his students other possible explanations for the soft tissue that are currently being explored or does he insist his explanation is the only valid one?

 

Yes and no. In any scientific theory it is always possible for it to be falsified. But not all ideas need to be retested. IE; The idea of a very old earth has been repeatedly confirmed by every test we have been able to throw at it. .

[Calm]

Are you saying the professor is refusing to teach variations? I thought you claimed he was only a tech and didn't teach. How do you know?

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying the professor is refusing to teach variations? I thought you claimed he was only a tech and didn't teach. How do you know?

Yes I know it is the Onion. However they do make a valid point.

SEE http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/

 

SEE http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

 

CSUN spokesperson Carmen Ramos Chandler told CBSLA Armitage was a temporary hire between 2010-2013 and worked as an electron microscopy technician.

Edited July 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

But he is not even teaching so how can he be refusing to teach his students all credible theories?

And how can an article in the Onion from 2005 supply any relevant details about the claims in 2014. I think you are wandering from the point of my comment which was solely we haven't heard both sides yet. We don't know what the school is claiming as justification unless it is simply he was a three year hire they didn't rehire.

Edited July 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

But he is not even teaching so how can he be refusing to teach his students all credible theories?

And how can an article in the Onion from 2005 supply any relevant details about the claims in 2014. I think you are wandering from the point of my comment which was solely we haven't heard both sides yet. We don't know what the school is claiming as justification unless it is simply he was a three year hire they didn't rehire.

 

He wasn't a teacher at that school. He was a lab technician. There is nothing wrong with that. Technicians in the appropriate area of research publish all the time. They help move the science along. Unfortunately for him young earth creationism is not a credible theory.

 

The point is that not all proposed theories are credible. Even if the complainant has merit, the school still is within its rights to not rehire anyone who does not support their mission. The school has refused to comment on the lawsuit.

[Calm]

And again how does that address my comment that we don't know the school's reasoning yet?

You do not have any new information not already cited in the article I linked to, right?

[danielwoods]

It is possible to prove the distant past according to the Church

 

the church DNA essay tells us that

1. "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America"

2. "The evidence assembled to date suggests that the majority of Native Americans carry largely Asian DNA"

3. DNA cannot disprove the Book of Mormon, but DNA proved that most ancient Native Americans came from Asia.

 

The reason why AnsweresinGenesis believes that the Chihuahua and Great Dane share a common ancestor is because of the evidence. DNA evidence proves that life is related (life in the present). 

 

If we cannot prove the distant past, does that mean that fossils don't prove that dinosaurs were once alive? Nobody has seen a living  T-Rex. 

 

In philosophy we cannot prove anything, but we should follow the best scientific evidence. 

 

"According to the Church" means nothing to me. 

 

Science deals with the present. 

 

DNA evidence proves that all life is "related" meaning, having a common ancestor? Uh... no. Only if one is willing to make unjustified leaps of faith and logic while ignoring certain important data. I am not one of those. 

 

Such as, DNA is evidence that all life contains the same common signature of the same designer/engineer. 

 

The existence of dinosaurs such as a T-Rex is a safe assumption based on the data, in my opinion. 

[thesometimesaint]

And again how does that address my comment that we don't know the school's reasoning yet?

You do not have any new information not already cited in the article I linked to, right?

 

My fault. Apologies. I think we are talking past each other. Until the case is heard we don't know the schools reasoning. All we really know is what the lawyer for the complainant says. 

 

The only information I am going off of is what CBS says.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

The existence of dinosaurs such as a T-Rex is a safe assumption based on the data, in my opinion. 

 

Evolution is a safe assumption too based on the data. 

Edited July 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

He wasn't a teacher at that school. He was a lab technician. 

 

He reminds me of Steven E. Jones, he was a physics teacher at BYU, but he got fired for saying that the collapse of the WTC towers was a controlled demolition.  Steven E Jones alleged evidence was published in a peer-reviewed Journal called Bentham. Bentham is not a respected scientific journal. I am sure many here disagree with Jones,  Mark Armitage is making the same mistake. 

 

There has also been alleged evidence of Bigfoot, LochNess, aliens is Roswell,  reincarnation, and they are presented in news reports.  

 

Steven E. Jones is also a Rod Meldrum supporter. 

http://www.firmlds.org/profile.php

 

the FIRM foundation is the perfect example of alleged evidence

Edited July 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

"According to the Church" means nothing to me. 

 

Science deals with the present. 

 

DNA evidence proves that all life is "related" meaning, having a common ancestor? Uh... no. Only if one is willing to make unjustified leaps of faith and logic while ignoring certain important data. I am not one of those. 

 

Such as, DNA is evidence that all life contains the same common signature of the same designer/engineer. 

 

The existence of dinosaurs such as a T-Rex is a safe assumption based on the data, in my opinion. 

 

Fair enough.

 

Utter nonsense. Science has always dealt with the past, present and probable future.

SEE http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/scientific-creationism-as-pseudoscience

"One omnipresent characteristic of "scientific" creationists' folk definitions of science is the contention that "true" science cannot address itself to the explanation of any event that occurred before there were any scientists present to observe it (see, for example, Morris et al. 1974, pp. 4-5; Gish, 1973, p. 3; Wysong, 1976, p. 43; Morris and Parker, 1982, xiii). One can see the obvious fundamentalist theological motivations that underlie this particular begging of the question. In one fell swoop, by definition, evolutionary studies, historical geology, and much of astronomy are automatically excluded from the domain of legitimate science".

 

Please provide whatever evidence you feel substantiates your claims.

 

Intelligent Design has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

Bones are not assumptions.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Such as, DNA is evidence that all life contains the same common signature of the same designer/engineer. 

 

 

I believe God used Evolution to create useful animals. Why do you say that DNA is evidence that life was designed? you keep saying that we cannot prove the distant past.  Have you seen God creating life?

 

 

The existence of dinosaurs such as a T-Rex is a safe assumption based on the data, in my opinion. 

 

Same thing with Evolution, age of the Earth, Plate Tectonics, and many other important scientific theories. 

There are many things that we cannot observe directly, but the evidence for Evolution is strong. 

 

DNA evidence can prove who is a descendant and who is not a descendant of Joseph Smith. 

"The DNA signature of Joseph Smith was easy. Perego had reconstructed it years earlier while trying to trace Joseph Smith's DNA back to England and Ireland" 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html?pg=all

 

We can have safe assumptions and high confidence about the past, but you are making a philosophical argument. 

Again, in philosophy we cannot prove anything, not even the present. 

 

Please see the video 

Edited July 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rodeo]

I believe it has become clear that soft tissue in dinosaur bones need some better explanation other than mere assumptions. Will mainstream science look into this matter unbiased or what?

[ERayR]

Tea Party? "Ron Paul's original staff economist"? That is politics, I request that your post gets deleted. 

No politics. 

Please link to a nonpartisan news article. 

 

According to some news reports, he was fired for his religious beliefs, not for his evidence. How come you guys are never skeptical about news reports and alleged evidence that support your opinions? Don't jump to conclusions too quickly, wait for the court. 

 

 

I really hate to say I told you so.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe it has become clear that soft tissue in dinosaur bones need some better explanation other than mere assumptions. Will mainstream science look into this matter unbiased or what?

 

What mere assumptions would that be? Everyone is biased. But it unlikely that my bias will be exactly the same bias as yours. The only real question is what can be supported by the evidence. That is how science works.

[danielwoods]

I believe God used Evolution to create useful animals. Why do you say that DNA is evidence that life was designed? you keep saying that we cannot prove the distant past.  Have you seen God creating life?

 

 

Same thing with Evolution, age of the Earth, Plate Tectonics, and many other important scientific theories. 

There are many things that we cannot observe directly, but the evidence for Evolution is strong. 

 

DNA evidence can prove who is a descendant and who is not a descendant of Joseph Smith. 

"The DNA signature of Joseph Smith was easy. Perego had reconstructed it years earlier while trying to trace Joseph Smith's DNA back to England and Ireland" 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700150651/DNA-solves-a-Joseph-Smith-mystery.html?pg=all

 

We can have safe assumptions and high confidence about the past, but you are making a philosophical argument. 

Again, in philosophy we cannot prove anything, not even the present. 

 

Please see the video 

 

Why is DNA evidence of a designer/engineer? Because I have observed things that are designed and engineered before, and DNA is equal to those things. 

 

In essence, evolutionists must claim that things like the computer are derived from non-intelligent sources. Has this ever been observed? No. The opposite is observed everyday. Making the claim that all of life (DNA included) has arisen through the process of evolution actually in opposition to the observed evidence, not supported by it. 

 

You claimed that God used evolution, but you still haven't answered my question why God didn't tell us that? 

 

You are correct, I am using a philosophical argument. And so are you. So also is every scientist who claims to make inferences about the past which can never be repeated or tested or observed. 

 

You see, as I stated, science only tests what it can observe, it makes inferences or guesses about what it can't see. If they are correct (like plate tectonics), then the data will agree with their predictions. However, if they are not correct, the data will not be explained by their theory. Soft tissue in dinosaurs is but one data point among many that don't agree with the evolutionists point of view. There are many others. We often don't hear about them because of that fact. They aren't popular to talk about, and aren't taught in schools (generally speaking). 

 

I believe it has become clear that soft tissue in dinosaur bones need some better explanation other than mere assumptions. Will mainstream science look into this matter unbiased or what?

 

Of course not. The minority view is attacked and labeled as pseudo science. Science is just as political as it is anything else, eventually the data will rule the day and can't be denied. Just as it did when Phlogiston theory was tossed to the trash heap. 

[ERayR]

You are correct, I am using a philosophical argument. And so are you. So also is every scientist who claims to make inferences about the past which can never be repeated or tested or observed. 

 

 

 

Philosophical arguments are the only arguments that can be used because the science club has banned them for scientific evidence thus separating science and religion.  It is strange, to me, that religious (philosophical) are rejected for science but scientific arguments are used by many to to reject religious ideas

[thesometimesaint]

Why is DNA evidence of a designer/engineer? Because I have observed things that are designed and engineered before, and DNA is equal to those things. 

 

In essence, evolutionists must claim that things like the computer are derived from non-intelligent sources. Has this ever been observed? No. The opposite is observed everyday. Making the claim that all of life (DNA included) has arisen through the process of evolution actually in opposition to the observed evidence, not supported by it. 

 

You claimed that God used evolution, but you still haven't answered my question why God didn't tell us that? 

 

You are correct, I am using a philosophical argument. And so are you. So also is every scientist who claims to make inferences about the past which can never be repeated or tested or observed. 

 

You see, as I stated, science only tests what it can observe, it makes inferences or guesses about what it can't see. If they are correct (like plate tectonics), then the data will agree with their predictions. However, if they are not correct, the data will not be explained by their theory. Soft tissue in dinosaurs is but one data point among many that don't agree with the evolutionists point of view. There are many others. We often don't hear about them because of that fact. They aren't popular to talk about, and aren't taught in schools (generally speaking). 

 

 

Of course not. The minority view is attacked and labeled as pseudo science. Science is just as political as it is anything else, eventually the data will rule the day and can't be denied. Just as it did when Phlogiston theory was tossed to the trash heap. 

 

Non Sequitur.

 

Computers for all their strengths are not living.

 

Yes it has.

SEE

 

Observed evolution.

SEE

 

Science doesn't attempt to say why God did or did not do anything. Only how some event happened. Belief in any or no God is irrelevant to science.

BTW About 40% of all US scientists are theists.

SEE

 

Observation in science means the use of our senses, and technology to measure and make falsifiable predictions about our natural world/universe. The predictions made by the theory of plate tectonic have been verified as accurate. 

 

Reductio ad Absurdum. 400 odd years ago no one knew how the planets stayed in regular ellipses. We do know now thanks to Laplace.

 

They are not taught in the public schools because ID is a religious concept.

 

Science is forever adding and discarding ideas. The ones that stick around are the ones that stand up to the evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

Philosophical arguments are the only arguments that can be used because the science club has banned them for scientific evidence thus separating science and religion.  It is strange, to me, that religious (philosophical) are rejected for science but scientific arguments are used by many to to reject religious ideas

 

I sure don't depending on the religious argument being presented. Overall I much prefer to use the correct tool for the task at hand.

[Rodeo]

What mere assumptions would that be? Everyone is biased. But it unlikely that my bias will be exactly the same bias as yours. The only real question is what can be supported by the evidence. That is how science works.

For me the clear evidence is that if we have soft tissue it is probably not as old as we previously though it to be. The evidence is clear that soft tissue means a different approach to that actual date of their extinction. It took many years for a lot of scientists in the field to even acknowledge the existence of soft tissue. This is because they have such a staunch bias that they are unwilling to see anything but what they want to see. Is that how science is supposed to work?

[ERayR]

For me the clear evidence is that if we have soft tissue it is probably not as old as we previously though it to be. The evidence is clear that soft tissue means a different approach to that actual date of their extinction. It took many years for a lot of scientists in the field to even acknowledge the existence of soft tissue. This is because they have such a staunch bias that they are unwilling to see anything but what they want to see. Is that how science is supposed to work?

 

I find the mindset is, if the evidence doesn't fit the current narrative then there must be something wrong with the evidence surely the narrative can not be wrong.

[danielwoods]

 

 

Computers for all their strengths are not living.

 

 

They are not taught in the public schools because ID is a religious concept.

 

 

No one has claimed that computers are living. The analogy is between engineered things. Many things are engineered, and their engineering is distinct from non-engineered things, based on this observation DNA is apart of that engineered category. The fact that DNA is also apart of a living structure only ads to the level of sophisticated engineering. Fact is we also engineer things to support human life (artificial lungs/hearts etc.), so just because it's alive doesn't disqualify DNA from being in that category. 

 

ID is only a religious concept if one posits a religious designer, which is not a necessary part of ID. 

 

This argument is rejected based not on scientific objections, but political and religious ones. Which only demonstrates that science is highly political. 

[longview]

For me the clear evidence is that if we have soft tissue it is probably not as old as we previously though it to be. The evidence is clear that soft tissue means a different approach to that actual date of their extinction. It took many years for a lot of scientists in the field to even acknowledge the existence of soft tissue. This is because they have such a staunch bias that they are unwilling to see anything but what they want to see. Is that how science is supposed to work?

 

A very excellent point.  Why would the CSUN (Northridge) staff not allow the peer review to continue its course and invite further examination of the evidence?  Why would the Biology Department want to silence Mark Armitage?  Especially when he has had a 30 year career of scientific work and publishing credits?

 

This brings up a disturbing question:  If a group of "professional" scientists or professor or researcher with a strong "commitment" to Evolutionary Theory were to unearth a fossil containing soft tissue, would she/he be honest enough to document the finding?  Maybe some would be inclined to do so but knowing the intolerance and rigid "narrative" of most academic institutions, they would be fearful of being hounded out of their positions and ruin their careers?  So either of those groups might be forced to suppress the find.  Which would be a tragic thing to have happen.  That would be unscientific behavior.  We are faced with extremism in academia that is setting back science many decades.

 

Remember what happened with the discovery of the Kennewick Man?  As soon as it was mentioned the possibility of its descendancy from European continent as far back as 7600 B.C., the academics freaked out and went into overdrive to suppress the evidence.  Because they did not want their favored politically correct view of the "noble" American "natives" to be challenged.  So some federal agency sent bulldozers to "mess up" and "cover up" the river bank where the excavation was taking place.  And they tried to lock up the Kennewick remains.  So court battles had to ensue.  Which was ridiculous and unscientific.

[Calm]

"Especially when he has had a 30 year career of scientific work and publishing credits"

Anyone establish the quality of that? What level of journals is his work being published in, for example?