thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Why do we care? Scripture may well be, and mostly is, G-d-breathed, but that doesn't mean that when as-breathed Scripture is rendered in a writer's language, according to the writer's best understanding, then translated into the writer's symbolic written language on a page, what we read is precisely the "as-breathed" version of what was communicated by G-d to our prophetic writer. Thus if it were to be determined that the writer(s)/compiler(s) of Genesis as we have it conflated a folk story about the flood and its hero with the story of Noah, an earlier generation's Father of the Faithful, where Noah was never near any appreciable body of water, it should not trouble us in the least. The point of the Genesis tale (as we have it) is the Covenant between G-d and Man, with Noah as prophet through whom the Covenant is communicated to the Faithful. The point is not whether water covered mountains far higher than the writer(s)/compiler(s) could have conceived in their/his limited experience. While it has absolutely no bearing on my Salvation I do think that it is important that we get the science right. Our society depends on correctly making predictions about our natural world/universe. Science has proven to be the best tool so far developed for those accurate predictions. Without which I fear that we really will have the world pass us by like it has in Afghanistan. I have no desire to live in a cave being afraid of things that go bump in the night. Agreed. Agreed.
ERayR Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 False Equivalency. False equivalence is a logical fallacy where there appears to be a logical equivalence between two opposing arguments, but when in fact there is none. Journalists use a form of this logical fallacy when comparing two sides of a scientific debate in an attempt to provide a balance between a scientific and denialist point of view. However, there is no equivalence between the two sides, when one is supported by evidence, and the other side with little or no evidence, of which most is of low quality. In other words, in false equivalence, someone will state that the opposing arguments have a passing similarity in support, when, on close examination, there is large difference between the quality of evidence. Something which tss is very adept at.
ERayR Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 While it has absolutely no bearing on my Salvation I do think that it is important that we get the science right. Our society depends on correctly making predictions about our natural world/universe. Science has proven to be the best tool so far developed for those accurate predictions. Without which I fear that we really will have the world pass us by like it has in Afghanistan. I have no desire to live in a cave being afraid of things that go bump in the night. Agreed. Agreed. It is important to understand that there are areas that science is very good at and some areas -- not so much.
bcuzbcuz Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 It is important to understand that there are areas that science is very good at and some areas -- not so much.And who decides that, you? Is it better to disqualify science in all areas by predetermined evaluation....or let the issue at hand decide the validity?
USU78 Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) While it has absolutely no bearing on my Salvation I do think that it is important that we get the science right. Our society depends on correctly making predictions about our natural world/universe. Science has proven to be the best tool so far developed for those accurate predictions. Without which I fear that we really will have the world pass us by like it has in Afghanistan. I have no desire to live in a cave being afraid of things that go bump in the night. Agreed. Agreed. I'm fine with science, so long as we don't make assumptions about the immutability and finality of "answers" thereby achieved, since true, hard science makes no claims to infallibility. Edited May 29, 2014 by USU78 2
strappinglad Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 The history of scientific predictions over the last 50 years regarding the planets in our solar system is filled with 'surprises' ,' unimagined results' , and ' game changing observations' which came after actual measurements were received from satellite bypasses. To say we need to get the science correct assumes that it is possible to see the past or the future undistorted by world view . Science has been and is very good when it deals with the currently observable and repeatable. Its track record is shaky when it delves into the realm of what it thinks should be long before actual observations are possible and especially when pontificating on the unobservable.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Something which tss is very adept at. We all are, including you.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 It is important to understand that there are areas that science is very good at and some areas -- not so much. Agreed. Science is a limited way of looking at our universe. However it is very good in the limited way it works.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 I'm fine with science, so long as we don't make assumptions about the immutability and finality of "answers" thereby achieved, since true, hard science makes no claims to infallibility. Science by definition is always tentative.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 The history of scientific predictions over the last 50 years regarding the planets in our solar system is filled with 'surprises' ,' unimagined results' , and ' game changing observations' which came after actual measurements were received from satellite bypasses. To say we need to get the science correct assumes that it is possible to see the past or the future undistorted by world view . Science has been and is very good when it deals with the currently observable and repeatable. Its track record is shaky when it delves into the realm of what it thinks should be long before actual observations are possible and especially when pontificating on the unobservable. But you can’t be a scientist if you’re uncomfortable with ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos. This is very different from the way journalists portray us. So many articles begin, “Scientists now have to go back to the drawing board.” It’s as though we’re sitting in our offices, feet up on our desks—masters of the universe—and suddenly say, “Oops, somebody discovered something!” No. We’re always at the drawing board. If you’re not at the drawing board, you’re not making discoveries. You’re not a scientist; you’re something else. The public, on the other hand, seems to demand conclusive explanations as they leap without hesitation from statements of abject ignorance to statements of absolute certainty.”Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson
ERayR Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 And who decides that, you?Is it better to disqualify science in all areas by predetermined evaluation....or let the issue at hand decide the validity? Is it better to disqualify science religion in all areas by predetermined evaluation....or let the issue at hand decide the validity? Oh by the way please cease attributing things to me I didn't say. I did not advocate disqualifying science in any area let alone all areas. That over zealous hyperbole comes from your own fevered mind.
ERayR Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Science by definition is always tentative. Except macro-evolution.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Except macro-evolution. Even macro-evolution. However the evidence for it is truly profound.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 I don't deny it. Then we're are in agreement.
USU78 Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) Except macro-evolution. And man-caused global warming Edited May 29, 2014 by USU78
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 And man-caused global warming Even man-caused global warming. However the evidence for it is truly profound.
USU78 Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Even man-caused global warming. However the evidence for it is truly profound. Got no problem with the evidence that this here interglacial period is warming up a tad. Got no problem with the evidence that the polar caps may be receding a bit. Got huge problems with baseless claims that water is somehow disappearing, instead of being deposited elsewhere (we are, mostly, a closed H2O system on this here planet -- no water is being lost . . . we aren't on our way to becoming Arrakis and the Spaceballs aren't going to suck our water up by means of a giant Hoover). Got huge problems with claims that the prescriptions proposed for ameliating an interglacial warm-up would make any appreciable difference no matter how much damage we do to ourselves, our lifestyles, and our economies. --- And thus we land squarely in politics land 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) Got no problem with the evidence that this here interglacial period is warming up a tad. Got no problem with the evidence that the polar caps may be receding a bit. Got huge problems with baseless claims that water is somehow disappearing, instead of being deposited elsewhere (we are, mostly, a closed H2O system on this here planet -- no water is being lost . . . we aren't on our way to becoming Arrakis and the Spaceballs aren't going to suck our water up by means of a giant Hoover). Got huge problems with claims that the prescriptions proposed for ameliating an interglacial warm-up would make any appreciable difference no matter how much damage we do to ourselves, our lifestyles, and our economies. --- And thus we land squarely in politics land If it was up to mother nature we'd probably be reentering a glacial period. It is our added CO2 that is overriding that reentry. The polar ice caps have receded a lot. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ No scientist that I know claims the water is disappearing. It is going into our oceans.Like http://www.businessinsider.com/rising-sea-levels-are-destroying-nasas-multi-billion-dollar-facilities-2014-5 The planet doesn't care what rationalizations we come up with to justify adding more CO2 and other green house gases to our atmosphere. It simply gets hotter. Just one example of what is already being done in Kansas. http://www.awea.org/Resources/state.aspx?ItemNumber=5223 Now if we in the rest of this country would just get on board. We could go like Germany and no one is complaining about their economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany We have the technology to http://www.commondreams.org/further/2014/05/27-2 What we lack so far is the political will to do it. Edited May 29, 2014 by thesometimesaint
strappinglad Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 yup, Germany is leading the way. It closed down its nuclear plants and started burning...wait for it... COAL. Alternate energy generation provides 20-30 % of their needs. Well done Germany. But the bulk of their needs is and likely always will be from coal or nuclear or some other fuel that the green folks find nasty . Now if we could just figure out Hydrogen??? http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning
shark81 Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Unfortunately every advocate I know that subscribes to a heartland theory just parrot Wayne May, or Rodney Meldrum's theories. I have studied, and continue to study the Adena, Hopewell, Clovis people and have found no evidence that have any substantial connections to the people in the Book of Mormon. In fact the evidence coming from any of the mound builders would be contrary to that idea. I'm confused at why so many immediately dismiss a heartland setting for the Nephites. Regardless of geography, culture, finds, etc we know Moroni was physically in NY and buried the plates there. Someone put it there. Is that not a big lead? Name somewhere in South or Central America where we have a known link? We don't. I know you may not agree with Meldrum or others proposing the Heartland model, but why be so quick to debunk the heartland theory? I'm not talking about Meldrum or May, since I know you are suspicious of them... I'm just talking about a general Hearland theory. Joseph Smith talks about finding a white lamanite (Zelph) and talks about walking through nephite lands (in a letter to Emma) during the Zions camp march. So as far as evidence goes, why is it so far fetched to you that indeed these are nephite lands? The first missionaries sent to teach the lamanites were sent to midwest indian areas. I'm open to both ideas of a heartland or central/south america model... or perhaps something else. I don't think hostility should be part of our discussions though. One thing I know is that all theories currently have their issues. I tend to lean heartland based on a few things. Here are a few reasons: Dress: People say natives in a cold climate couldn't have worn just loin cloths... from my study on this, natives in the midwest wore a belt with loin covering and were indeed shirtless... also wore moccasins. There were seasonal fluctuations and migrating animals. There was a main river (scripture does not say it went south to north btw). It was in promised land... I see the USA as the promised land. Not south american or central american lands controlled by dictators. Many of those desert areas would not be considered choice above all lands. The restoration happened in this land. The book of mormon mentions mounds. The garden of eden is in this land. There is evidence of metal workings in this land and weaponry. Timber was used in this land for building. Rivers and lakes and waterways could have shifted somewhat in the last 2000-3000 years. I think you need an open approach to considering geography as listed in scripture. The fact that many in central and south america are joining the church seems to indicate that this is a gathering of people as "lamanites" are taught the gospel. Heartland theory doubts whether these people are lamanite descendants. I'm not sure what to say about this. Perhaps they are descendants... perhaps part of another tribe or civilization we don't know much about yet. All we can do is speculate. Science and archaeology so far for every question answered sometimes seems to add multiple questions on top. I'm leaning Heartland based on my gut instinct. I never have believed in the strange situation of 2 hill cumorah's. One day we will know, but in the meantime I would like to say the value of this book is the doctrine, not the location. I do hope that in my life more discoveries are made to help answer the doubters and make them more accountable to the evidences before them.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 yup, Germany is leading the way. It closed down its nuclear plants and started burning...wait for it...COAL. Alternate energy generation provides 20-30 % of their needs. Well done Germany. But the bulk of their needs is and likely always will be from coal or nuclear or some other fuel that the green folks find nasty . Now if we could just figure out Hydrogen???http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning You need to read and understand what you link to. It was the decision to eliminate nuclear fission plants as a power source that jump started the switch to high efficient coal fired generators. Modern cleaner burning technologies along with CO2 sequestration while better than old dirty technologies are at best a stop gap resolution to immediate power needs. We figured out hydrogen in the 18th Century. A colorless odorless combustible gas that when burned in air produces only heat, and water. Francois Isaac de Rivaz designed in 1806 the De Rivaz engine, the first internal combustion engine, which ran on a hydrogen/oxygen mixture. What we lack is the political will to its large scale use.
strappinglad Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 The Hindenburg fell down and went BOOM. Ever since then folks have been wary of Hydrogen. The infrastructure required to move to hydrogen stations everywhere as gasoline stations are now will be an enormous project. Not that it shouldn't be planned for. Hydrogen's problem is storage. Currently large heavy metal tanks are used but there is some hope for light fiber tanks and chemicals that act as a hydrogen' sponge' ( I forget the name) to avoid the disasterous explosive quality of pure hydrogen. As for coal, North America has a thousand years supply of the stuff at least. Germany has made significant progress in reducing the environmental problems of coal. It may be a stop gap process but it will be necessary for most coal-fired plants to adopt similar methods in the near future.
Calm Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Lost track of conversation, don't know if this has been posted before....for those interested in the heartland discussion:http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2013-fair-conference/2013-heartland-as-hinterland-the-mesoamerican-core-and-north-american-periphery-of-book-of-mormon-geography
cdowis Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) I'm confused at why so many immediately dismiss a heartland setting for the Nephites. Regardless of geography, culture, finds, etc we know Moroni was physically in NY and buried the plates there. Someone put it there. Is that not a big lead? Yes, but that was 30 years after the Great Battle. It is not so much as a "big lead" but deceptive where some are unable to conceive that more than one hill can have the same name. A "bigger lead" is whether the hill fits the description of the geography, from the actual text of the BOM. Name somewhere in South or Central America where we have a known link? We don't. The ancient names of sites in mesoamerica are unknown -- with a few exceptions, they are only known by modern names. One interesting exception is Lamanai in Belize. It has a BOM name (a Lamanite king mentioned in Alma) in a location identified as Lamanite -- southern part of mesoamerica. So, we now have that link, not only with the geography but also with a BOM name. Just a matter of doing your homework. I know you may not agree with Meldrum or others proposing the Heartland model, but why be so quick to debunk the heartland theory? I'm not talking about Meldrum or May, since I know you are suspicious of them... I'm just talking about a general Hearland theory. Even Meldrum supporters admit there is little external evidence for this theory. Instead they primarily depend on statements by early church leaders, almost none of whom had direct knowledge of BOM location. And name calling -- we are "weak in the faith" by not accepting their "inspired" statements. Joseph Smith talks about finding a white lamanite (Zelph) and talks about walking through nephite lands (in a letter to Emma) during the Zions camp march. So as far as evidence goes, why is it so far fetched to you that indeed these are nephite lands? North America is within the BOM "land northward" which was indeed Nephite territory. But very little of this history is found in the text of the BOM. That is why the main story of the BOM, incluiding the Battle of Destruction, is properly found in mesoamerica, not North America. The first missionaries sent to teach the lamanites were sent to midwest indian areas. Yes, after 2000 years, there would be lamanites there. I'm open to both ideas of a heartland or central/south america model... or perhaps something else. I don't think hostility should be part of our discussions though. BOM geography is not a doctrinal issue, but a factual issue subject to research and informed discussion. Meldrum supporters, on the other hand, consider this a matter of doctrinal pronouncements. Edited May 30, 2014 by cdowis
Recommended Posts