"great Surprise"—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins

[Robert F. Smith]

So you rely scripture which is contradictory can changing over time, on men who claim to speak for God but also have been shown incredibly inconsistent and claims to supernatural intervention that cannot be tested or verified.  And that is better than the scientific method?

Rob needs to put aside all the issues which cannot be verified (or falsified) by the scientific method, and place his focus on those things which can be verified.  The supernatural is not a fit area for scientific investigation, but the byproducts are: If a published narrative account claims to be authentic history, then one is obliged to use normal forensic means of determining whether the contents jibe with real history or are actually no more than poppycock, just as one does in evaluating claims that someone did or did not commit a particular crime.  It boils down to detective work, and serious analysts must be satisfied with the the preponderance of evidence.

 

Opinionated claims that this or that supernatural point of view is silly are impractical for the same reasons that you yourself claim:  You violate your own standards of evaluation by even entertaining them, and show yourself unable to separate natural from supernatural.  Why would you want to do that, Teancum?

Edited December 5, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Rob Osborn]

Huh? I have a bad attitude because I note your arguments are steeped in dogma? How so? My attitude is fantastic. I am open to being persuaded by evidence. But "because I think God says so" is not evidence. Even believers here think your fundamentalist literalism is extreme though at least based on what the LDS scriptures say you are perhaps more honest.

I don't just use secular jargon. I read books and articles by reputable scientists. Based on the best evidence it is clear the earth is very old and humans have been here a longtime as well. It seems difficult for a position towards a literal Adam and Eve.

The bad attitude is yours....one that refuses to look at the evidence rationally.

Evidence rationally eh? What about soft tissue found in dinosaur bones? If they are supposed tens of millions of years old why has soft tissue been found?

What about the layers of the geologic column that span entire continents and more? How come no current geologic process happening today is making deposits of such magnitude?

[thesometimesaint]

Evidence rationally eh? What about soft tissue found in dinosaur bones? If they are supposed tens of millions of years old why has soft tissue been found?

What about the layers of the geologic column that span entire continents and more? How come no current geologic process happening today is making deposits of such magnitude?

 

Here is why. http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

The same geologic processes are still working today. IE; The Himalaya Mountains are rising up about 1 inch per year, and eroding down the same inch per year.

 

Ps;

Edited December 5, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Here is why. http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

 

The same geologic processes are still working today. IE; The Himalaya Mountains are rising up about 1 inch per year, and eroding down the same inch per year.

 

Ps;

Heavily biased conjecture. How can one really know how long iron in blood can truly preserve soft tissue?

 

If the same geologic processes are at work today as they were in the past then how come we do not see sediment layering events that span entire continents? Why is it that we only see very fine layering in sea beds and generally in only very small areas, never anything even close to millions of square miles?

[canard78]

How do you even have conversations with people?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa

(You meant to be funny, right?)

[thesometimesaint]

Heavily biased conjecture. How can one really know how long iron in blood can truly preserve soft tissue?

 

If the same geologic processes are at work today as they were in the past then how come we do not see sediment layering events that span entire continents? Why is it that we only see very fine layering in sea beds and generally in only very small areas, never anything even close to millions of square miles?

 

Iron can act as a preservative. Simple chemistry.

http://news.ncsu.edu/2013/11/schweitzer-iron/

 

No we see varying depth layers dependent on a number of factors no just sedimentation alone. IE; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Appalachians

[Teancum]

Rob needs to put aside all the issues which cannot be verified (or falsified) by the scientific method, and place his focus on those things which can be verified.  The supernatural is not a fit area for scientific investigation, but the byproducts are: If a published narrative account claims to be authentic history, then one is obliged to use normal forensic means of determining whether the contents jibe with real history or are actually no more than poppycock, just as one does in evaluating claims that someone did or did not commit a particular crime.  It boils down to detective work, and serious analysts must be satisfied with the the preponderance of evidence.

 

Opinionated claims that this or that supernatural point of view is silly are impractical for the same reasons that you yourself claim:  You violate your own standards of evaluation by even entertaining them, and show yourself unable to separate natural from supernatural.  Why would you want to do that, Teancum?

Supernatural claims should be subject to scientific investigation. Why do you think they should have special exclusion? Anyone can claim anything supernatural in nature. sure the by product can be some what useful but positive things can come from lies and falsehoods. Thus it is not silly to ask for evidence for supernatural claims.

[Teancum]

Rob Osborn

If you have not read these three books I highly rcommend them. Then perhaps we can discuss evolution and the anthropological development of humans with some degree of intellectual honesty:

The Greatest Show on Eqrth:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Show-Earth-Evolution/dp/1416594795

Your Inner Fish

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=your+inner+fish&sprefix=Your+inner+%2Cstripbooks%2C305

Guns,Germs and Steel

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_5?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=guns+germs+and+steel&sprefix=Guns+%2Cstripbooks%2C313&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aguns+germs+and+steel

Edited December 7, 2014 by Teancum

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn

If you have not read these three books I highly rcommend them. Then perhaps we can discuss evolution and the anthropological development of humans with some degree of intellectual honesty:

The Greatest Show on Eqrth:http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Show-Earth-Evolution/dp/1416594795

Your Inner Fishhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_11?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=your+inner+fish&sprefix=Your+inner+%2Cstripbooks%2C305

Guns,Germs and Steelhttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_5?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=guns+germs+and+steel&sprefix=Guns+%2Cstripbooks%2C313&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Aguns+germs+and+steel

So thats your idea of intellectual honesty eh? No thanks.

[Teancum]

Rob

Have you read the books?nWhy do you not think they are intellectually honest?

Edited December 7, 2014 by Teancum

[Teancum]

duplicate post

Edited December 7, 2014 by Teancum

[Rob Osborn]

Rob

Have you read the books?nWhy do you not think they are intellectually honest?

I could counter with http://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/intelligent-design

on books teaching Intelligent Design. But a requirement for evolutionists to read all of them is not what it takes to have an intellectually honest discussion.

Get the point?

[Teancum]

I'm

I could counter with http://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/intelligent-designon books teaching Intelligent Design. But a requirement for evolutionists to read all of them is not what it takes to have an intellectually honest discussion.Get the point?

So clearly you don't care about intellectual honesty and just something to back up your dogma. And no you have not read the books. Well,it is overwhelmingly clear that scientists of repute understand evolution and the evidence for it is so abundant that it goes without saying, Whether God used evolution to create the world is another discussion. And from what I have read on ID it still needs an old earth to work.

Pure literal young earth creationism is simply unprovable and the evidence screams agains it.

Feel free to stay in the dark ages on this one. I agree with Robert that discussion about this with you is a waste of time.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Teancum

[Rob Osborn]

I'm So clearly you don't care about intellectual honesty and just something to back up your dogma. And no you have not read the books. Well,it is overwhelmingly clear that scientists of repute understand evolution and the evidence for it is so abundant that it goes without saying, Whether God used evolution to create the world is another discussion. And from what I have read on ID it still needs an old earth to work.

Pure literal young earth creationism is simply unprovable and the evidence screams agains it.

Feel free to stay in the dark ages on this one. I agree with Robert that discussion about this with you is a waste of time.

I am not a young earth creationist. You seem pretty deep in your dogmatism

[Teancum]

I am not a young earth creationist. You seem pretty deep in your dogmatism

 

 

No I don't have dogma on this and I am willing to change my views based on the evidence.  Are you?  Tell you what, rather than your little one or two line snippets please explain to me in a paragraph or two what your view is.  It does seem clear that you believe at least humans have only been around 10,000 years or less.   I am interested. I will even look at info that supports your position.   I am learning about the science of this as I go never have been interested in it till a few years ago.

[Rob Osborn]

No I don't have dogma on this and I am willing to change my views based on the evidence.  Are you?  Tell you what, rather than your little one or two line snippets please explain to me in a paragraph or two what your view is.  It does seem clear that you believe at least humans have only been around 10,000 years or less.   I am interested. I will even look at info that supports your position.   I am learning about the science of this as I go never have been interested in it till a few years ago.

I believe the scriptures. The scriptures teach-

1. The temporal age of the earth is to be 7,000 years. This means since life became mortal. Adam and Eve introduced death into the world because of the fall.

2. Adam and Eve were the first humans on this earth roughly 6,000 years ago

3. The flood in Noah's day was a global event from which only 6 souls were saved on the whole earth. All humans on the earth can trace back their lineage to Noah himself and from him to Adam and then to God himself. we are the literal sons of deity.

4. The fossil record is a testimony to the flood from which series of events created the massive layers of the geologic column including all or most of the flood deposits

[Calm]

8 iirc the account correctly, not 6

[Rob Osborn]

8 iirc the account correctly, not 6

Sorry, you are right, typo...

there were 8 people saved by the Ark

[ERayR]

Sorry, you are right, typo...

there were 8 people saved by the Ark

 

I think that would be 8 adults.  Children are not mentioned but I think it may be a safe assumption that some were present.

[readstoomuch]

Young earth science is not predicated by the scriptures.  Only an interpretation that is placed upon them.  The earth is billions of years old and as man evolved from simpler forms of life it took millions of years.  Evolution was the foundation of vertebrate and inter vertebrate zoology, evolutionary science, genetics, molecular biology and biochemistry.  All classes that I took at BYU.  Almost every class was taught by someone LDS.  The lone holdout was Jack Sykes who was catholic.  They were also well taught at BYU, I will add.   

[Rob Osborn]

BYU evolutionary teaching is definitely not LDS doctrine.

[blooit]

I believe the scriptures. The scriptures teach-

1. The temporal age of the earth is to be 7,000 years. This means since life became mortal. Adam and Eve introduced death into the world because of the fall.

2. Adam and Eve were the first humans on this earth roughly 6,000 years ago

3. The flood in Noah's day was a global event from which only 6 souls were saved on the whole earth. All humans on the earth can trace back their lineage to Noah himself and from him to Adam and then to God himself. we are the literal sons of deity.

4. The fossil record is a testimony to the flood from which series of events created the massive layers of the geologic column including all or most of the flood deposits

 

I believe that our interpretation of the scriptures is as inaccurate as it has ever been.  I think there is a lot of information there supporting evolution and a 2 billion or so year old earth.  I am not convinced the flood was global, nor that we are all pure-blooded descendants of Adam and Eve.  It will be very interesting when it is all made known to us, but I think most if not all of us will be surprised what we are taught.  I think one of the most common phrases uttered by God at that time will be "I never said that."  

[Rob Osborn]

I believe that our interpretation of the scriptures is as inaccurate as it has ever been.  I think there is a lot of information there supporting evolution and a 2 billion or so year old earth.  I am not convinced the flood was global, nor that we are all pure-blooded descendants of Adam and Eve.  It will be very interesting when it is all made known to us, but I think most if not all of us will be surprised what we are taught.  I think one of the most common phrases uttered by God at that time will be "I never said that."  

Secularism. When are we gonna chalk up all scripture as fiction?

[thesometimesaint]

BYU evolutionary teaching is definitely not LDS doctrine.

 

I'll alert the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that BYU is teaching false doctrine with their Paleontology Museum.

http://geology.byu.edu/museum/

[Rob Osborn]

I'll alert the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve that BYU is teaching false doctrine with their Paleontology Museum.

http://geology.byu.edu/museum/

Thats why they have the evolution packet which basically informstudents that what they teach about evolution is contradiction of official church doctrine. Have a nice day.