MormonFreeThinker Posted May 25, 2014 Author Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) (Hint: if you don't want to be grouped with atheists, dont link videos directly to them to support your arguments) You linked to inforwars and you like answersingenesis, those websites have anti-mormon stuff. Peter Hadfield only attacks creationism, not theism. Edited May 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 You linked to inforwars and you like answersingenesis, those websites have anti-mormon stuff. Peter Hadfield only attacks creationism, not theism. Peter Hadfield is an atheist.
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 25, 2014 Author Posted May 25, 2014 (edited) Peter Hadfield is an atheist. Atheist or not, it doesn't matter, if he is an atheist that is not going to make geology invalid. Ad hominem, if you understand the science, Peter doesn't care about your religious beliefs, or disbelief. He is a geologist, reads peer-reviewed papers, and debunks young earth creationism. Ken Ham is an anti-mormon. Edited May 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 Atheist or not, it doesn't matter, if he is an atheist that is not going to make geology invalid. Ad hominem, if you understand the science, Peter doesn't care about your religious beliefs, or disbelief. He is a geologist, reads peer-reviewed papers, and debunks young earth creationism. Ken Ham is an anti-mormon. Peter Hadfield also thinks homosexuality is okay and he mde a movie mocking Adam and Eve making out Adam to be homosexual. You got to be careful who you link to and what they really believe.
thesometimesaint Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 You gonna side with Hadfield too? I have no idea as to who Hafield is. But I do know who Pastor Peter LaRaffa is. I do know who Ken Ham of Adam and Eve riding a coconut eating T-Rex is, Who is Pierre-Simon LaPlace and what did he do?
Rob Osborn Posted May 25, 2014 Posted May 25, 2014 I have no idea as to who Hafield is. But I do know who Pastor Peter LaRaffa is. I do know who Ken Ham of Adam and Eve riding a coconut eating T-Rex is, Who is Pierre-Simon LaPlace and what did he do? You have no idea who Peter Hadfield is yet you have linked to his videos in the past. Hadfield is an atheist and apparently also thinks homosexuality is perfectly Okay.
thesometimesaint Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 You have no idea who Peter Hadfield is yet you have linked to his videos in the past. Hadfield is an atheist and apparently also thinks homosexuality is perfectly Okay. OK, but so what. I know Christians whom believe homosexuality is perfectly OK too. I also know some very nice people whom are Atheists. If their science is good their sexual orientation and/or their religion is of no scientific concern to me. If any Mormon Christian says 2+2=5 they are just as wrong as any Atheist who says 2+2=5.
Rob Osborn Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 OK, but so what. I know Christians whom believe homosexuality is perfectly OK too. I also know some very nice people whom are Atheists. If their science is good their sexual orientation and/or their religion is of no scientific concern to me. If any Mormon Christian says 2+2=5 they are just as wrong as any Atheist who says 2+2=5. I can agree that just because someone is atheist doesn't make them a bad person. But when you have an atheist making a video that basically trys to say why evolution is right and Noah's flood is bogus its kind of like putting thieves in charge of your gold in hopes it will be fine.
thesometimesaint Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 I can agree that just because someone is atheist doesn't make them a bad person. But when you have an atheist making a video that basically trys to say why evolution is right and Noah's flood is bogus its kind of like putting thieves in charge of your gold in hopes it will be fine.Charles Darwin was not an Atheist. He was Anglican. He formulated the Theory of Evolution.Henry Eyring wasn't an Atheist. He was LDS. He agreed with the science of Evolution.Dr. Kenneth Miller is not an Atheist. He is Catholic. He agrees with the science of Evolution. SEE The list of LDS scientists that fully accept Evolution is long and storied.
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 26, 2014 Author Posted May 26, 2014 (edited) Charles Darwin was not an Atheist. He was Anglican. He formulated the Theory of Evolution.Henry Eyring wasn't an Atheist. He was LDS. He agreed with the science of Evolution.Dr. Kenneth Miller is not an Atheist. He is Catholic. He agrees with the science of Evolution. SEE The list of LDS scientists that fully accept Evolution is long and storied. No point to argue with Rod, in his mind Evolution is atheism, and he is not open to new perspectives. Edited May 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Tiki Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Charles Darwin was not an Atheist. He was Anglican. He formulated the Theory of Evolution.Henry Eyring wasn't an Atheist. He was LDS. He agreed with the science of Evolution.Dr. Kenneth Miller is not an Atheist. He is Catholic. He agrees with the science of Evolution. SEE The list of LDS scientists that fully accept Evolution is long and storied.Henry J. Eyring did not agree with the science of Organic Evolution."What he believed was that it was wrong to discount something that seemed to be a strong argument for many of the things discovered in science.""Because he had these beliefs and opinions, it is a mistake to believe that he thought that evolution was definitely the truth.""One his friends once wrote, “When I was in Salt Lake one time, I was discussing some problems of early man with you in your office. I then asked ‘how do you believe it was?’ You replied, ‘I believe whichever way it turns out to have actually been.'"Being a scientist in the middle part of the 1900s, Henry was naturally asked very often about evolution, both from people who supported evolution as a science and wanted to pressure him into arguing against religion, and people who wanted him to argue against evolution. The interesting thing about Henry Eyring was that he could do neither. He knew deeply in his heart that the Church was true yet he also believed that evolution offered the best scientific explanation of the origin of man and he didn’t see that as a conflict."He once said, when replying to a letter:“We are not told who Adam's father was. To me the important thing is that Adam is the spirit child of God. He came into this world when he received a mortal body. The Fall consisted of becoming subject to death, and everyone born into the world is subject to death and so partakes of this fallen state with Adam. Finally, through the atonement we will all receive a resurrected body.”“Whether Adam's father lived on this earth or somewhere else would seem of secondary importance to me. Adam was the one whom God recognized as presiding over the first dispensation and as such, with Eve his wife, became our first parents. …if God did or did not use organic evolution to prepare the bodies to house his spirit children I remain unconcerned. I think the scientific evidence on organic evolution like anything else should stand or fall on its merits. Being trained as a geologist it answers many otherwise difficult problems for me, and I find no conflict with it and the gospel.”Quotes above from:http://theldsleft.blogspot.com/2009/09/mormon-scientist-life-and-faith-of.htmlThe science of evolution since the 1900s has proven nothing that man evolved from a lower species. His son is now a member of the First Presidency which issued this statement in the Feb 2002 Ensign:https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=engIt is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our Heavenly Father.So it's blatantly false for you to construe that Henry Eyring believed in the science of Evolution.
Rob Osborn Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Charles Darwin was not an Atheist. He was Anglican. He formulated the Theory of Evolution. Henry Eyring wasn't an Atheist. He was LDS. He agreed with the science of Evolution. Dr. Kenneth Miller is not an Atheist. He is Catholic. He agrees with the science of Evolution. SEE The list of LDS scientists that fully accept Evolution is long and storied. The list is long and storied eh? Is this just your opinion or do you actually have a viable reference? My whole point was that you guys list links to videos by atheists who will never even give anything in the bible a valid look. Their whole purpose is to find a way to dismiss God. All it leaves me thinking is that you guys must be atheists. Do you think that the church would ever get Hadfield to be a spokesman for them? Not in a million years!
Tiki Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 "[The radical economist Herbert] Spencer became a strong advocate of Darwinism, and the phrase survival of the fittest was included in the 6th edition of The Origin of Species published in 1872. Darwinism thus became associated with Spencer's economics and social philosophy.Darwin was part of an upper middle-class elite. His cousin, Francis Galton (1822 — 1911) considered the implications of natural selection for human breeding, and developed what he later termed eugenics. This was taken up by others as a pseudoscience and the concepts were introduced that persons of noble blood, and those of Caucasian race should be selected by society to breed over those of lower classes and other races. In terms of class struggle, this could be seen as a form of oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie."Quote from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_theory_and_the_political_left"Survival of the Fittest." This is what Charles Darwin included in his 1872 6th Edition of "Origin of Species coined by Herbert Spencer.And Darwin, being part of the upper middle-class elitists, his cousin developed "natural selection for human breeding" and that the Caucasian race should be selected to breed the lower classes.This is what the Theory of Organic Evolution has lead to. Is this what Mormons should believe?Korihor taught the same 'Survival of the Fittest' because Korihor allowed himself to be deceived by the Devil:Alma 30" 17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."Any member of the Church who supports the Theory of Evolution doesn't know the Theory and what it has been used for as a basis to destroy human life, nor does that member know The Book of Mormon."Book of Mormon Problems." What a joke.
thesometimesaint Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 The list is long and storied eh? Is this just your opinion or do you actually have a viable reference?My whole point was that you guys list links to videos by atheists who will never even give anything in the bible a valid look. Their whole purpose is to find a way to dismiss God. All it leaves me thinking is that you guys must be atheists. Do you think that the church would ever get Hadfield to be a spokesman for them? Not in a million years! SEE Mormon Scholar Testify.http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1206/index-by-specialty I've never said the Bible was an invalid book. Just that it is not a science book. So? Why should the Church ever want to get Mr. Hadfield to speak for the Church? I'm not a spokesman for the Church, though I have been a member for 43 years now. Was Galileo somehow an Atheist because he accepted science. Was Newton somehow an Atheist because he accepted science? Was Darwin an Atheist because he accepted science? Is Dr. Kenneth Miller the Catholic suddenly an Atheist because he accepts science? Are the 40% of all American scientists that are Theists suddenly Atheists because they accept science? You resort to name calling when you can't demonstrate your point.
thesometimesaint Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 Tiki: "Being a scientist in the middle part of the 1900s, Henry was naturally asked very often about evolution, both from people who supported evolution as a science and wanted to pressure him into arguing against religion, and people who wanted him to argue against evolution. The interesting thing about Henry Eyring was that he could do neither. He knew deeply in his heart that the Church was true yet he also believed that evolution offered the best scientific explanation of the origin of man and he didn’t see that as a conflict". I know deeply in my heart that the Church is true, and accept that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origin of man. I too see no inherent conflict between the two. While I eagerly await for God to tell me how he did it. I've got the suspicion that he used science to do it.
thesometimesaint Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 No point to argue with Rod, in his mind Evolution is atheism, and he is not open to new perspectives. That is true. What I object to is his calling me a liar.
Rob Osborn Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 SEE Mormon Scholar Testify. http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1206/index-by-specialty I've never said the Bible was an invalid book. Just that it is not a science book. So? Why should the Church ever want to get Mr. Hadfield to speak for the Church? I'm not a spokesman for the Church, though I have been a member for 43 years now. Was Galileo somehow an Atheist because he accepted science. Was Newton somehow an Atheist because he accepted science? Was Darwin an Atheist because he accepted science? Is Dr. Kenneth Miller the Catholic suddenly an Atheist because he accepts science? Are the 40% of all American scientists that are Theists suddenly Atheists because they accept science? You resort to name calling when you can't demonstrate your point. You always resort to linking to atheists. On the list you linked to of LDS scholars, how many of them believe fully in Darwinian evolution? Long and storied list eh?
Rob Osborn Posted May 26, 2014 Posted May 26, 2014 That is true. What I object to is his calling me a liar. I am not calling you a liar.
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 26, 2014 Author Posted May 26, 2014 You always resort to linking to atheists. On the list you linked to of LDS scholars, how many of them believe fully in Darwinian evolution? Long and storied list eh? I say that all Mormons that have a PhD in biology, paleontology, and genetics believe in darwinian evolution. . Can you name one that doesn't? 1
Rob Osborn Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 I say that all Mormons that have a PhD in biology, paleontology, and genetics believe in darwinian evolution. . Can you name one that doesn't? I am still waiting for the true list of LDS darwinian evolutionists who are also scientists. The list provided already means pretty much nothing. I was supposed to get a long storied list.
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 27, 2014 Author Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) I am still waiting for the true list of LDS darwinian evolutionists who are also scientists. The list provided already means pretty much nothing. I was supposed to get a long storied list. Dr. Ugo Perego (Geneticist), he believes in Human Evolution. The Book of Mormon and DNA essay cites a paper by Dr. Ugo Perego, see Resource number 4 https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=engHis paper says, "It is widely accepted that the ancestors of Native Americans arrived in the New World via Beringia approximately 10 to 30 thousand years ago" Dr. Wade E. Miller (Paleontologist) http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller Dr. Angela Robertson (Organismic and Evolutionary Biology) Probably all the BYU department of Biology, I can't name all of them, too many Can you name a Mormon (just one) that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics, that doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution? Edited May 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Dr. Ugo Perego (Geneticist), he believes in Human Evolution. The Book of Mormon and DNA essay cites a paper by Dr. Ugo Perego, see Resource number 4 https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng His paper says, "It is widely accepted that the ancestors of Native Americans arrived in the New World via Beringia approximately 10 to 30 thousand years ago" Dr. Wade E. Miller (Paleontologist) http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller Dr. Angela Robertson (Organismic and Evolutionary Biology) Probably all the BYU department of Biology, I can't name all of them, too many Can you name a Mormon (just one) that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics, that doesn't believe in Darwinian Evolution? Hum...I was thinking that the long storied list would be like a few hundred at least.
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 27, 2014 Author Posted May 27, 2014 (edited) Hum...I was thinking that the long storied list would be like a few hundred at least. I am not going to name 100 biologists, paleontologists, or geneticists. I already named 3, you name one, your turn. ) Please name just one Mormon that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics, that doesn't believe in darwinian evolution.It shouldn't be that hard. Number 4: Dr. Steven L. Peck (Professor of Biology) Edited May 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Recommended Posts