thesometimesaint Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 I see way too much selective dismissal and ridicule of data that doesn't fit the preconceived model instead of looking for answers to see why the rejected data is there. We're all entitled to our own opinions. However it is a mistake to claim something of a man a thing he never supported or suggested. In order to make the man of a character he never was. All you have to do is go the Antimormon's for sufficient examples.
thesometimesaint Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 Heres one http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html Scientific Impossibility.See Hydroplate debunkedhttp://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm
ERayR Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 We're all entitled to our own opinions. However it is a mistake to claim something of a man a thing he never supported or suggested. In order to make the man of a character he never was. All you have to do is go the Antimormon's for sufficient examples. Or just find some of my past posts on evolution and see what I have been accused of. Yep I agree.
Rob Osborn Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Scientific Impossibility. See Hydroplate debunked http://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm How does conjecture debunk anything?
Se7en10 Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 The Book of Mormon struggles to support itself so I don't expect external evidences to do it many favors. As an example, the current edition has many differences from the 1830 edition. 1830 Edition (1)1 Nephi Chapter 3 Page 32 (The chapters have been reorganized since, for ease of access)"...the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world..." Current Edition (2)1 Nephi 13:40 (The book is now organized into 22 chapters instead of just 6)"...the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world..." There are many instances in 1 Nephi where the Lamb of God is God in the 1830 edition that have been changed to show the Lamb of God as the Son of God in subsequent editions. Other changes include the names of characters and the addition or removal of words like 'no, not, etc' which change the whole meaning of verses. Some of these changes are for clarity, such as changing Joseph Smith from the author to the translator. 1 http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830#!/paperSummary/book-of-mormon-1830&p=38A website hosted by The Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 2 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13.40?lang=eng#39The official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints where a wide array of information can be foundFairmormon.org: The terms "God," "Everlasting God," and "Eternal Father" are ambiguous since they could properly refer to either the Father or the Son. For example, "Eternal Father" refers to God the Father in Moroni 4:3, Moroni 5:2, and Moroni 10:4, but to God the Son in Mosiah 16:15 and Alma 11:38-39.The addition of "the Son of" to four passages in 1 Nephi does not change the Book of Mormon's teaching that Jesus Christ is the God of Old Testament Israel. This concept is taught in more than a dozen other passages whose readings remain unchanged from the original manuscripts. For example:"And the God of our fathers, who were led out of Egypt, out of bondage, and also were preserved in the wilderness by him, yea, the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, yieldeth himself...as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up...and to be crucified...and to be buried in a sepulchre...." (1 Nephi 19:10)"...he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth." (Mosiah 7:27)"Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father." (Mosiah 16:15)"Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Alma 11:38-39)(See also 2 Nephi 25:12; Mosiah 3:8; Mosiah 13:28,33-34; Mosiah 15:1; Helaman 8:22-23; Helaman 14:12; Helaman 16:18; 3 Nephi 11:10,14; Mormon 9:12; Ether 3:14; Ether 4:7; Ether 4:12.)
thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I totally agree that evolution by itself is not an atheist argument. But, when an "atheist" such as Hadfield makes a video to easily and mockingly dismiss the biblical flood and then you have people link directly to his work then you have different issues at work. You link to an atheist and claim him as your beliefs then I am automatically going to assume they too must be atheist. Heres the deal- dont link to an atheist to support your claim because in essence you are saying "I am with atheist Hadfield on this one". You link to an Bibliolater Young Earth Creationist(BYEC) and claim him as your beliefs then I am automatically going to assume they too must be BYEC. Heres the deal- don't link to an BYEC to support your claim because in essence you are saying "I am with BYEC Ken Ham on this one". See how that works? Address the issue and stop with the Ad Hominem attacks. Edited May 28, 2014 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 How does conjecture debunk anything? Science is fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
Rob Osborn Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 You link to an Bibliolater Young Earth Creationist(BYEC) and claim him as your beliefs then I am automatically going to assume they too must be BYEC. Heres the deal- don't link to an BYEC to support your claim because in essence you are saying "I am with BYEC Ken Ham on this one". See how that works? Address the issue and stop with the Ad Hominem attacks.Blah blah blah.
Rob Osborn Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Science is fact whether you choose to believe it or not.Opinions by a scientists doen't make it fact.
thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Opinions by a scientists doen't make it fact. I hope you remember to claim that the next time something doesn't work on the cars you build.
Rob Osborn Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 I hope you remember to claim that the next time something doesn't work on the cars you build.Blah blah blah...
thesometimesaint Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Blah blah blah... Just holding you to your own standard.
ERayR Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Science is fact whether you choose to believe it or not. No science is someones interpretation of the facts whether you choose to believe it or not. 1
ERayR Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I hope you remember to claim that the next time something doesn't work on the cars you build. Irrelevant to this discussion. Why do you do that? Edited May 28, 2014 by ERayR
JLHPROF Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 No science is someones interpretation of the facts whether you choose to believe it or not. Also, science is based on mortal ability to observe the universe. The idea that we have seen enough to draw absolute conclusions seems a little arrogant. Who knows how many things have occurred over the life of this earth that we have been unable to see? Scientists are like the blind men in Kiplings tale describing the elephant and assuming their description is an absolute.They are often right, but they are often just seeing small amounts of the evidence. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 29, 2014 Author Posted May 29, 2014 No science is someones interpretation of the facts whether you choose to believe it or not. The science of medicine too? If you need a medicine, you won't take it because medical doctors have interpretations?
ERayR Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 (edited) The science of medicine too? If you need a medicine, you won't take it because medical doctors have interpretations? Edited May 29, 2014 by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Posted May 29, 2014 Author Posted May 29, 2014 Impossible to debate close minded folks. Finally we agree Rod 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Also, science is based on mortal ability to observe the universe. The idea that we have seen enough to draw absolute conclusions seems a little arrogant. Who knows how many things have occurred over the life of this earth that we have been unable to see? Scientists are like the blind men in Kiplings tale describing the elephant and assuming their description is an absolute.They are often right, but they are often just seeing small amounts of the evidence. Yes science is based on our ability to observe the universe. No we don't make absolute conclusions about anything in science. We merely draw theories as to how best to describe the universe. By definition it is always tentative. If we can't observe it it isn't science. The tools we use to observe the universe simply extend our ability to observe it. Science isn't always right. It is just right many more times than any other method, so far developed, for making internally consistent predictions about the observations.
JLHPROF Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Science isn't always right. It is just right many more times than any other method, so far developed, for making internally consistent predictions about the observations. I would say that revelation is correct more often than science, making it the primary method for acquiring truth.
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 I would say that revelation is correct more often than science, making it the primary method for acquiring truth. The tract record of religion is absolutely abysmal. IE; May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." To his credit he did admit to being wrong.
Rob Osborn Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 The tract record of religion is absolutely abysmal. IE; May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen." To his credit he did admit to being wrong.And what happens when we prove the global flood? Will scientists admit to being wrong?
ERayR Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 The science of medicine too? If you need a medicine, you won't take it because medical doctors have interpretations? Yes the science of medicine too. I did not say they are always wrong but medicine is very much an interpretation of facts. Example: A patient comes to you with a headache, a cough, and a runny nose. Whats wrong with him?
thesometimesaint Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 And what happens when we prove the global flood? Will scientists admit to being wrong? Then it is proven, but don't hold your breath till that happens. Obviously most will, but some will not. IE; For the first 1600 years of the CE it was a geocentric universe. Now-a-days we know differently. But we still have those that claim a geocentric universe.SEE
Recommended Posts