Is It Wiser To Listen To The Experts And Researchers?

[Stargazer]

Dieter F. Uchtdorf said,
 

"After a recent medical procedure, my very capable doctors explained what I needed to do to heal properly. But first I had to relearn something about myself I should have known for a long time: as a patient, I’m not very patient.
 
Consequently I decided to expedite the healing process by undertaking my own Internet search. I suppose I expected to discover truth of which my doctors were unaware or had tried to keep from me.
 
It took me a little while before I realized the irony of what I was doing. Of course, researching things for ourselves is not a bad idea. But I was disregarding truth I could rely on"

 
http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng

This question is of particular interest to me because of my late wife's choice to rely upon alternative medical information rather than conventional cancer treatment. My brother pointed out that even conventional treatment enjoys only a 66% success rate (i.e. a 5-year survival rate after treatment only 2/3 will survive colon cancer), so her choice may have made no difference in the end -- with no way of knowing whether it would have or not.

I don't necessarily want to see this discussion restricted to medicine. Any other subject area that can involve experts and researchers is welcome.

But PLEASE don't anyone bring up anthropogenic global warming. I'd rather stay away from that particular rabbit hole.

[Meadowchik]

To me, there has to be a balance of respect and skepticism towards experts. When I had my first child I took her to the doctor much more frequently.  I asked many questions, listened, and asked more questions if I did not understand.  I tried to see the difference between decisions based on expert knowledge and ones based on assumptions, convenience, or something else.

 

There have been OBs who've been known to induce labor of their pregnant patients to try to deliver babies at more convenient times to the doctor. 

 

This is something that has made my university education invaluable to me, despite the fact that I've not worked professionally since receiving my diploma: as a student, I had the chance to study under experts in their fields, where maybe only a handful of people in the world were as familiar with their specialty as them.  I've learned to ask questions and that a real expert can justify their advice or decisions.  I've also learned that they are human and faulty, too, just like the rest of us.  I've also learned that so much of statistics are inaccurately reported or misrepresented.  I've seen instances where the description of a scientific finding was said in a way to imply conclusions opposite to the scientific findings. 

 

When it comes to medicine, I believe that--generally speaking-- I am the primary healthcare provider to myself and my children.  I feed and watch over and decide when it's time to go to the doctor.  I evaluate whether the doctor has all the relevant information that I know of.  For the most part, during their early years and over my lifetime, my choices will be the greatest changeable factor in my and my kids' health.

 

I have friends who struggle with chronic illness and from their end they act as if everything depends on their choices and then work in conjunction with doctors as if the doctors can make the difference needed.  I think this is generally wise.  But they've done and still do their research, they are informed patients, ever-informing themselves.

 

So, do I think your dear wife made a solid choice to seek alternative treatment?  I couldn't say either way, but I can see it as possible.  Cancer sucks and treatment is certainly not a straightforward affair.  I'm sorry for your loss.  I am, however, glad that she had you around during her illness.  Time is a precious gift and it sounds to me like you appreciated it.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Meadowchik

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yes, we should listen to the researchers, not because they have all the answers (they don't), but because they know more than us. When we disagree with them, perhaps it is because they know something that we don't. 

 

http://www.transfigurist.org/2015/02/mormon-scientists-need-to-emulate.html

 

Historians of Mormonism have done a lot to bring more "truth" to LDS history. Their efforts, coupled with the global impact of the Internet, have had a lasting impact on our understanding of our past. Mormon history has evolved from "faith-promoting stories" to actual, factual history. And the work of historians — like D. Michael Quinn, Richard L. Bushman, and John G. Turner — has caused important changes in the Church.

Edwin Gaustad, a noted historian of American religion addressed this very issue: “[Historians] are the scholarly profession with the [LDS Church] ... In no other denomination in American religious life do historians occupy so central, so sensitive, potentially significant a place.”

The work of historians has also resulted in a major reevaluation of how LDS Church leaders view history. In a recent speech at a history conference at Brigham Young University, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf made the following comment: “Truth and transparency complement each other. We always need to remember that transparency and openness keep us clear of the negative effects of secrecy or the cliché of faith-promoting rumor.”

Something similar to the Mormon history "rebellion" needs to happen with Mormon scientists. For example, there are still many members of the Church who believe in a literal Genesis (OT). To do this, one has to reject a lot of science (and history as well). Many Mormons believe that to be a good member of the LDS Church you have to believe in a real-life Adam, Eve, Noah, Lot, etc. That the earth was created in 7 or 7,000 days. That there was no death before the Fall. And that people lived to be 900+ years old.

Mormon scientists need to explain to Church members that there was no Universal Flood, Tower of Babel, curse of Cain (or Ham), pillar of salt, or big fish (whale); that there was death before the Fall (if there was a literal Fall); and that organic evolution is more than a theory. There are no discrepancies between true science and true religion. The two are very compatible.

When individuals see a marked dichotomy between science and religion, and perceive themselves to be religious, they frequently reject scientific observations and discoveries. And conversely when studying science, individuals can lose their faith in needlessly conservative Christianity. Both of these scenarios are bad for the LDS Church. For example, rejecting scientific discoveries can (and has) led to: racism; a disbelief in global warming; a lack of environmental sensitivity; distrust in vaccinations and immunizations; and neo-Luddism. Rejecting conservative Christianity — OT literalism — is leading to a loss of important members, the type of members that the LDS Church needs to be a vibrant, viable organization.

Contemporary LDS scientists like Duane E. Jeffery, David H. Bailey, and William E. Everson are speaking out, but not enough in numbers sufficient to move the LDS Church into the 21st century. Mormon scientists need to look at the example of late Apostle John A. Widtsoe (who died in 1954). He was willing to speak out on important issues related to science and religion. And he himself saw no conflict between the two. 

Much in the Book of Genesis is fiction, myth, allegory, parable, whatever. The Mormon Church needs to deal with this fact in an overt and open fashion. That doesn't mean there aren't important lessons in Genesis, it just means it's not history and definitely not science.

Edited October 15, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Gray]

Medical experts are more likely to be right than fringe alternative medicine practitioners (who generally offer treatments that at best offer a beneficial placebo effect, or at worst prevent people from seeking more effective treatment). But medical experts are not infallible. Medical science is continually advancing and improving.

 

That is not to say that accurate medical information cannot be found online. It most certainly can - you just have to get it from credible sources. 

Edited October 15, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

Dieter F. Uchtdorf said,

 

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng

This question is of particular interest to me because of my late wife's choice to rely upon alternative medical information rather than conventional cancer treatment. My brother pointed out that even conventional treatment enjoys only a 66% success rate (i.e. a 5-year survival rate after treatment only 2/3 will survive colon cancer), so her choice may have made no difference in the end -- with no way of knowing whether it would have or not.

I don't necessarily want to see this discussion restricted to medicine. Any other subject area that can involve experts and researchers is welcome.

But PLEASE don't anyone bring up anthropogenic global warming. I'd rather stay away from that particular rabbit hole.

 

I think President Uchtdorf made a good point when he went on to suggest that when it comes to a search for  "truth" we should ask ourselves the following questions:

 

“Does my life have meaning?”

 

“Do I believe in God?”

 

“Do I believe that God knows and loves me?”

 

“Do I believe that God hears and answers my prayers?”

 

“Am I truly happy?”

 

“Are my efforts leading me to the highest spiritual goals and values in life?”

 

But the analogy falls apart upon other applications of "truth".

 

For example, we're told that the Church leaders are not historians.  So we can't look to them for historical truth about the Church.  We have to go elsewhere.  Many, myself included, did find truths in our online search... truths about the Church that the Church had presented differently in curriculum but are now acknowledging.

 

So, I agree with the point Pres. Uchtdorf was making but I think we have to be careful in applying that analogy elsewhere.

[Zakuska]

TSC:

 

Something similar to the Mormon history "rebellion" needs to happen with Mormon scientists. For example, there are still many members of the Church who believe in a literal Genesis (OT). To do this, one has to reject a lot of science (and history as well). Many Mormons believe that to be a good member of the LDS Church you have to believe in a real-life Adam, Eve, Noah, Lot, etc. That the earth was created in 7 or 7,000 days. That there was no death before the Fall. And that people lived to be 900+ years old.

Mormon scientists need to explain to Church members that there was no Universal Flood, Tower of Babel, curse of Cain (or Ham), pillar of salt, or big fish (whale); that there was death before the Fall (if there was a literal Fall); and that organic evolution is more than a theory. There are no discrepancies between true science and true religion. The two are very compatible.

 

As far as its translated correctly...

 

What type of "death" didn't exist before the fall?

 

If "spirtual death" is being cut off from the presence of the Lord eternally. Then before the "Fall" Spirtual death  did not exist because everything dwelt in the presence of God eternally.

 

Adam and Eve spiritually died the very day they ate the fruit and fell.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Be wise as serpents, but gentle as doves.

[ERayR]

Dieter F. Uchtdorf said,

 

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/10/it-works-wonderfully?lang=eng

This question is of particular interest to me because of my late wife's choice to rely upon alternative medical information rather than conventional cancer treatment. My brother pointed out that even conventional treatment enjoys only a 66% success rate (i.e. a 5-year survival rate after treatment only 2/3 will survive colon cancer), so her choice may have made no difference in the end -- with no way of knowing whether it would have or not.

I don't necessarily want to see this discussion restricted to medicine. Any other subject area that can involve experts and researchers is welcome.

But PLEASE don't anyone bring up anthropogenic global warming. I'd rather stay away from that particular rabbit hole.

 

President Uchtdorf's quote ended on what I regard as the most important part "But I was disregarding truth I could rely on".  I have to be able to rely on it.  This requires I do some serious research myself. 

[BlueDreams]

I don't know. It depends the field for me. When it comes to basic healing like healing a bone or a pulled muscle. The answer is pretty straight forward to me. Wear a cast, rest it off, don't exert yourself and risk damaging it further. And with scientific things that don't include humanity, sure. But once you throw people in, we tend to not be as unidirectional as gravity and energy expenditures.

 

Within my field, I feel people have a tendency to rely too much on expert advice (ie. Therapy). I was just telling someone the other day that I shouldn't be seen as the expert of another's life. They know themselves far more than I ever will. I bring what I know and they bring what they know and then we collaborate together. If i saw myself as the expert, I begin to lose a view of people's individuality. I can lose track of their experience in preference for a template of experience and what should work.

 

In more medical fields, I also think we tend to take the doctor by their word a little too much and doctors can get into expert mode. I don't know enough about cancer to say anything about it. I know of another person who's mom did the alternative route as well and noted that at first it helped but nearer the end it sprung up more complications. Doctors also run on underlying beliefs that direct their practice of medicine. That can be seen a lot in birth. I read through some photojournalism about traumatic births (which for the life of me I can't find now). A lot of the trauma experienced (physical and emotional) were in large part because of medical interventions that were unnecessary and ignoring to women for what they believed to be right. Women, in essence, became procedures and at times unique cases are not what they are experts in. Another example is another friend who had no pain meds during birth. Her first doctor had never witnessed a natural birth. And so he gave her an episiotomy without any local anesthesia or telling her that's what he was about to do.

 

So Doctors aren't always right, even when backed with research. Research, on people are still correlative studies that are working to find the best odds. And the best odds still have a ton of people that won't fit into it.   

 

Still I do feel those that lean to alternative practices can lean too far (like the vaccination folk). And I say this as someone who would really likes to have natural/homebirths one day if possible and prefers natural holistic care for daily things, like yoga and herbal teas.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited October 16, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Rain2]

Yes, we should listen to the researchers, not because they have all the answers (they don't), but because they know more than us. When we disagree with them, perhaps it is because they know something that we don't. 

 

http://www.transfigurist.org/2015/02/mormon-scientists-need-to-emulate.html

I've found the doctor knows more about medicine, but I know more about me. For example, a doctor would tell me I should have 1 unit of insulin per 10 carbs eaten and that will work 99% of the time, but if I eat certain foods it won't be enough even accounting for fat, protein and glycerin index. I know because I have experienced this. My friend has problems that way with different foods.

That can apply to a lot of things. A teacher is an expert in teaching. I'm the expert of my child.

I saw this with my youngest. The experts gave him a battery of tests when he was 4. It was a no brained that he was low on speech expression. During the language test he started not answering correctly. I watched him and realized he was teasing.

I told the expert. The expert didn't agree.

Long story short they discovered, to their surprise that I was correct.

Like Meadow hi I ask a lot of questions of the expert and others. I find most experts don't ask me a lot of questions or sometimes any at all. Without the questions you just have a knowledge of a part, not the whole thing.

If we work with the experts knowledge and combine it with my knowledge and the knowledge Heavenly Father gives to us, it works best.

[Rain2]

BluedDreams - glad you wrote that. You posted while I was writing and talking with the children. I love how yours fits with mine and showing the opposite sides. Not really opposite, just showing both partners.

[DJBrown]

I think it is helpful to understand who is the "expert" in President Uchtdorf's analogy.

 

To me, the experts are the scriptures and prophets.  If we want to know Christ and follow Him, why not follow those who know most about Him and "know" Him (and I believe have even seen Him).  Ultimately, God is the expert in all things.  Man's understanding is limited and imperfect, just like President Uchtdorf's good search on healing.  

 

The questions he suggests we ask (Am I happy, Do I believe in God, does my life have meaning) ultimately depend on personal, spiritual variables that ultimately point to faith.  And it is those expressions of faith that result in true and meaningful lives and progress.  In the same way, by following the prophets and living our lives based upon the scriptures, we will experience the best eternal results.  

 

Do I trust individuals I believe are actual apostles and prophets and a book about which I have a firm testimony (Book of Mormon) or anonymous posters on an internet forum?  Those anonymous posters may have bits of truth and fascinating information, but that doesn't mean I should trust them.

 

Christ is the great Physician.  He is to be trusted most.  And His apostles represent Him.  That is my take.

[mfbukowski]

As far as its translated correctly...

 

What type of "death" didn't exist before the fall?

 

If "spirtual death" is being cut off from the presence of the Lord eternally. Then before the "Fall" Spirtual death  did not exist because everything dwelt in the presence of God eternally.

 

Adam and Eve spiritually died the very day they ate the fruit and fell.

Good point.

Also we have the cessation of "life" as a natural phenomenon- and the name of "life" we have given the process of what an organism does,  and then we have the importance of life which we ascribe to that process.

 

The cessation of life in non-human orgnisms, dinosaurs etc can be seen by humans as part of natural cycles, like the water cycle where water evaporates, returns to the clouds, rains down and the process continues.  We can see a kind of "carbon cycle" in nature, especially as we project back what it may have been like before human life here, in which animals and other organisms derived their carbon from the earth, were eaten by others and returned back to the earth in a cycle like the water cycle.

 

That is a dispassionate way of describing what we call "death".  But when that "organism" is someone dear to you the cycle takes on a new dimension obviously.

 

I think there was no "death" before the fall because there were no humans around to give it importance or weigh its consequences.   There was no linguistic description for "death", no one to mourn, no one with names, just organisms recycling themselves.  In that sense there was no "death" as humans evaluate it before we knew sin and its consequences, and the knowledge of individuals with names.

 

Essentially the concept came with language itself- no language, no word or concept for "death"

 

But clearly that is also true for "spiritual death"- the two are linked.  If one can die physically and live on spiritually, one must also be able to die spiritually.

 

Before the fall no such set of concepts could exist.  There was no understanding of commandments or right or wrong, no concepts of spiritual life or death.

 

That's how I resolve the question- quite similar to your way, I think.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, we should listen to the researchers, not because they have all the answers (they don't), but because they know more than us. When we disagree with them, perhaps it is because they know something that we don't. 

 

http://www.transfigurist.org/2015/02/mormon-scientists-need-to-emulate.html

These guys are essentially fundamentalists and do not understand how to take anything figuratively.

 

It it says "no death before the fall" they take it literally as meaning no organisms ceased activity before the alleged person Adam existed.

 

Taking it symbolically and figuratively, the problem disappears.

 

These are intelligent folks- I do not understand why they are fundamentalists.

 

The kingdom of heaven is within you- not out in the world to be discovered scientifically.  See post 13

Edited October 15, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

So, do I think your dear wife made a solid choice to seek alternative treatment?  I couldn't say either way, but I can see it as possible.  Cancer sucks and treatment is certainly not a straightforward affair.  I'm sorry for your loss.  I am, however, glad that she had you around during her illness.  Time is a precious gift and it sounds to me like you appreciated it.

Your perspective on this is valuable, and for myself that is how I proceed, letting the recognized and conventional experts have their say, and then proceed with what seems to be best course out of the various ones that I find.

My sweetheart had a dear friend who had a good track record of using appropriate alternative therapies to achieve positive outcomes. This friend, Cora by name, once kept an elderly woman who was expected to die within a year, alive and alert and coherent for nearly eight years. She used diet and herbs to achieve what the doctors thought impossible. But my wife went her own way even on that, and wouldn't follow Cora's recommendations. If she had only listened to that particular expert, what might have been achieved. Sigh. No way to know, but I suspect I would still have her with me if only she had been humble enough to do so.

Yes, I was glad to have the time and the honor of succoring her to the end. If it must be, then let the task fall to me, was my determination.

[stemelbow]

Of course it's wise to listen to experts. Of course it doesn't mean every experts opinion is correct. It gives you the best chance of finding the best option if you do though. Then what you got for yourself is an informed decision.

Edited October 15, 2015 by stemelbow

[Jeanne]

All I know is that having lived almost sixty years, I have seen all the things that were good for me..suddenly not good for me..then back again.  Statistics and revalent studies seem to change all the time..and especially when it comes to cancer,  When my mother had cancer,  All of you have probably seen some of the same things.

Vitamins..no vitamins..milk..no milk (and back to milk again) and recent studies in the past decade that totes the great benefits of coffee.  So...what is a doctor to do meaning that it would be hard to find someone absolute on any condition.  I don't know that having internet info available now is such a hoot.  Who can keep up with all the changes in treatment even with the  common cold.  When my kids were younger, I did okay just following my gut and common sense.

 

BTW:  My husband died of thyroid cancer..the female kind..go figure.  But doctors said the smoking had nothing to do with it.  It was caused by exposure to radiation.

 

Meh...just guts and common sense..otherwise we are all confused.

[Stargazer]

 

Something similar to the Mormon history "rebellion" needs to happen with Mormon scientists. For example, there are still many members of the Church who believe in a literal Genesis (OT). To do this, one has to reject a lot of science (and history as well). Many Mormons believe that to be a good member of the LDS Church you have to believe in a real-life Adam, Eve, Noah, Lot, etc. That the earth was created in 7 or 7,000 days. That there was no death before the Fall. And that people lived to be 900+ years old.

 

 

I'm a modern scientifically-oriented member of the Church, and I actually do believe in a real-life Adam and Eve. It's non-falsiable, sure, but so are many other things that are true but for which there's no evidence, one way or another. Even if we found a grave containing a man and a woman with an appropriate carbon-14 dating, whose names were found on carved stone to be Adam and Eve (what language?), we still could not definitively say that that's who they really were. Do we know how to recognize the bones of people who managed to live to age 900 would even look like? Clearly not. We'd say it's impossible, in any case, and wouldn't believe it if we saw it.

The earth is obviously 4.5 billion years old. The matter that make up the earth is at least 13.8 billion years old. It might even be older, if the matter that came into existence at the time of the Big Bang pre-existed the Big Bang in some fashion. And how do you look at a single atom of hydrogen and determine that it is X billion years old or even X² years old? Hydrogen atoms do not have growth rings, or even gray hair.

 

 

Mormon scientists need to explain to Church members that there was no Universal Flood, Tower of Babel, curse of Cain (or Ham), pillar of salt, or big fish (whale); that there was death before the Fall (if there was a literal Fall); and that organic evolution is more than a theory. There are no discrepancies between true science and true religion. The two are very compatible.

 

I can accept the notion that there was no Universal Flood, but it need not have been universal to have been real. There are enough variants on it from different cultures to believe that there must have been something that happened in the Eastern Mediterranean that corresponded to it. Heck, even my northern California Indian tribe has a creation story that sounds suspiciously like a Noah's Ark story!

Can a tower of Babel have existed and we not know about it? I say of course it could have existed, and by some supernatural means humans might have had their languages divided -- but how would it be proven? Again, non-falsifiable, but this doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or something like it didn't happen. Stranger things have happened, and in real history. Consider the creation of the Cherokee Syllabary by Sequoyah. Philologists generally consider alphabets to have evolved over centuries from primitive roots, but Sequoyah worked on his for only 12 years, and very little modification has occurred since then. It is still used today to write Cherokee, and is marvelously well-adapted to the purpose. Far more than Roman letters are adapted to express English.

I've come up with alternative explanations for the genesis of Adam and Eve, and the mechanism of the Fall, that wouldn't be falsifiable but could conceivably be plausible given the application of supernatural power in just the right places. Or maybe not even supernatural power! And that even does not violate the idea of organic evolution. Am I clutching at straws? I cheerfully admit that it might be, but at the same time I claim that God is a pretty smart person and He would certainly be able to do something quite extraordinary and cloak it in allegorical language for telling Moses about it.

I aspire to be a professional science fiction writer. You better believe I could tell the story of Genesis in such a way that would be perfectly plausible scientifically and at the same time make the Genesis story as found in the Bible look plausible as an allegorical expression of the fictional story. And could you prove my story wrong? I'd bet that you couldn't -- non-falsiablity again.

 

 

When individuals see a marked dichotomy between science and religion, and perceive themselves to be religious, they frequently reject scientific observations and discoveries. And conversely when studying science, individuals can lose their faith in needlessly conservative Christianity. Both of these scenarios are bad for the LDS Church. For example, rejecting scientific discoveries can (and has) led to: racism; a disbelief in global warming; a lack of environmental sensitivity; distrust in vaccinations and immunizations; and neo-Luddism. Rejecting conservative Christianity — OT literalism — is leading to a loss of important members, the type of members that the LDS Church needs to be a vibrant, viable organization.

 

Here we go with global warming, but there are a few people who believe in a Flat Earth, too, and so what? Let them! One needn't believe that humans are the primary cause of climate change to believe in climate change. The opposite belief, namely that humans are in fact the primary cause of global warming, leads some people to believe that we can stop global warming. This may in fact be a false notion. If all 8 billion of us held our collective breaths, maybe then we could stop it. Fat chance. My conviction is that we have a snowball's chance in hell of stopping it, so we might as well do what we can to adapt to it. Watch the convicted AGWs go apoplexic if you dare suggest that. It becomes clear after a time that the primary reason they want to do something is that it would require the obtaining of absolute power in order to force people to change their behaviors, and who wouldn't want to be the Hegemon, if push came to shove? It becomes very political. And to quote a famous Mormon scientist, I seek not for power, but to pull it down.

 

 

Contemporary LDS scientists like Duane E. Jeffery, David H. Bailey, and William E. Everson are speaking out, but not enough in numbers sufficient to move the LDS Church into the 21st century. Mormon scientists need to look at the example of late Apostle John A. Widtsoe (who died in 1954). He was willing to speak out on important issues related to science and religion. And he himself saw no conflict between the two.

Much in the Book of Genesis is fiction, myth, allegory, parable, whatever. The Mormon Church needs to deal with this fact in an overt and open fashion. That doesn't mean there aren't important lessons in Genesis, it just means it's not history and definitely not science.

 

I agree.

Maybe I should go and write my science fiction Genesis story now.

[Bee Sweet]

My son is an ICU nurse who deals with cancer patients regularly. He told me of a man who died on his shift from cancer. His feelings were, " Good, his Oncologist can stop torturing him." Cancer treatment is often very painful, with results

that aren't satisfactory. 

 

Mosiah 16:8 " There is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ."

 

I believe in competent medical practice, and I believe in alternative medicine, God can work through both, i.e. a Priesthood blessing can bless the Doctor and patient with knowledge, comfort, advice and healing

through the Holy Ghost.

[canard78]

Surely it was clear that this had nothing to do with listening to doctors or not. It had everything to do with not going to the big bad internet to research church history.

After some of the brilliant talks he has given in the past I found his talks this conference to be a bit disappointing. The leadership can't keep scaremongering the internet and imagine it will work to keep the inquisitive rising generation from looking and reading.

[TheSkepticChristian]

After some of the brilliant talks he has given in the past I found his talks this conference to be a bit disappointing. The leadership can't keep scaremongering the internet and imagine it will work to keep the inquisitive rising generation from looking and reading.

 

There is a lot of science denying in the internet. Good research is usually not free. 

We should look and read in the library. We should read scientific journals, academic journals, good books, and encyclopedias. 

 

Can a tower of Babel have existed and we not know about it? I say of course it could have existed, and by some supernatural means humans might have had their languages divided -- but how would it be proven? Again, non-falsifiable, but this doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or something like it didn't happen. Stranger things have happened, and in real history. 

 

I did not write that, but it is good stuff. That author just happens to mention Global Warming. 

http://www.transfigurist.org/2015/02/mormon-scientists-need-to-emulate.html

 

The tower of Babel as described in the New Testament is probably not real. 

 

 

I believe in competent medical practice, and I believe in alternative medicine,

 

I do not believe in alternative medicine because it doesn't work. 

If you spontaneously get better, it doesn't mean alternative medicine did it. 

 

 

Watch the convicted AGWs go apoplexic if you dare suggest that. It becomes clear after a time that the primary reason they want to do something is that it would require the obtaining of absolute power in order to force people to change their behaviors, and who wouldn't want to be the Hegemon, if push came to shove? It becomes very political. And to quote a famous Mormon scientist, I seek not for power, but to pull it down.

 

There are three solutions

1. Nuclear energy

2 Renewable 

3. Make fusion work 

 

So it means that there are Republican conservative solutions to stop some points of no return, it is not too late. 

Please read some concecuences 

 

"The role of ocean acidification in systemic carbonate mineral suppression in the Bering Sea"

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL048884/abstract

 

Effects of Elevated Temperature and Carbon Dioxide on the Growth and Survival of Larvae and Juveniles of Three Species of Northwest Atlantic Bivalves

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0026941

 

Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6045/1024

 

 

I aspire to be a professional science fiction writer. You better believe I could tell the story of Genesis in such a way that would be perfectly plausible scientifically and at the same time make the Genesis story as found in the Bible look plausible as an allegorical expression of the fictional story.

 

Please do, we need it. 

Edited October 16, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[theplains]

The tower of Babel as described in the New Testament is probably not real. 

 

Do you believe in the Book of Mormon Tower of Babel?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Stargazer]

Do you believe in the Book of Mormon Tower of Babel?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Oh, you are snarky today, Jim! 

 

Speaking for myself, since I do believe the Tower of Babel was a literal, actual tower (and which ziggurat in Mesopotamia was it?), and the referenced event did actually happen, even if the Tower of Babel story were not literally true, but a biblical allegorical tale, there's no reason why the Book of Mormon wouldn't have the exact same allegorical story.  I simply don't have a problem with it, either way.

 

I must warn you, however, that TheSkepticChristian doesn't necessarily believe in the literal miracles reported in the Bible OR the Book of Mormon.  He can feel free to contradict me on that score, of course, but having fought the good fight with him over similar issues, that is my assessment.

[Stargazer]

There is a lot of science denying in the internet. Good research is usually not free.

We should look and read in the library. We should read scientific journals, academic journals, good books, and encyclopedias.

Agreed.

 

The tower of Babel as described in the New Testament is probably not real.

Errr, you mean the Old Testament, right?

"Probably"? Do you have the probability worked out? Is it even possible to calculate the probability? I don't think so, and thus I believe you are expressing wishful thinking.

 

I do not believe in alternative medicine because it doesn't work.

If you spontaneously get better, it doesn't mean alternative medicine did it.

That's a rather flatly absolutist statement, you know, and not worthy of a genuine skeptic. I take skepticism to be a refusal to be taken in by unproven claims or false evidence. Those who say that there is no alternative therapy which works is making a false claim.

There's a lot of alternative medicine information out there, and much is definitely crap on a plate. But not all.

Ever taken an aspirin for a headache? Well, aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid, and the salicylate family of chemicals was originally sourced from (gasp) white willow bark, and was a known cure for aches and pains for millenia. If you are out with the Boy Scouts on a campout, and nobody remembered to bring any aspirin, ibuprofen or tylenol, you can make a working headache remedy by scraping white willow bark into water, and boil it for a bit, then drink the water. One the earliest effective treatments for malaria was quinine, which is sourced from (gasp) the bark of the cinchona tree. A much more effective actual cure for malaria is artemisinin, which (gasp) was originally sourced from sweet wormwood, which has been used to cure malaria in traditional Chinese medicine for over 2,000 years. Far from being a weak alternative treatment as compared to a modern medical treatment for malaria, artemisinin has been found to clear all malarial parasites from a patient within one day. Better than any other treatment available -- although the usual procedure is to use it with another treatment compound.

There are other alternatives out there which work well. And some which do not.

I should let you know that Stargazer is my user name here, but on the rest of the web I go by Cyberherbalist. There are a lot of genuine herbal remedies out there. And there's also crap, but just watch the absolutist claims, dude.

What if you spontaneously get better after chemotherapy? It doesn't mean that the chemo did it. I am dead serious about that. How can you tell if it was spontaneous or not? What does that even mean?

I read an interesting article by a cardiac surgeon years ago. He had been involved in a clinical trial for a surgical treatment that was believed would successfully treat the heart condition that we now use cardiac bypass to treat. They did a blind trial of the experimental surgical treatment where there was a group who received the treatment, a group who received a placebo surgery, and a control group. The placebo group received a chest incision only, but were led to believe that they had received the treatment. The results of the trial were surprising. The placebo group did markedly better than either the treatment group OR the control group! They did abandon the experimental treatment. But given the results of the trial, you could say that simply cutting someone's chest and suturing it back up could cure the condition! In the article, the surgeon proposed actually using the placebo effect when the usual treatment plan didn't work. He proposed that after the usual treatment failed, that doctors tell their patients that there was an alternative treatment which didn't always work, but sometimes did, though no-one knew why, and would they like to try it? And then give them sugar pills (not telling them they were sugar pills, of course).

Are you gasping in shock at that? Now, that's an interesting alternative. I don't think it's been approved by the FDA, yet, however.

 

There are three solutions

1. Nuclear energy

2. Renewable

3. Make fusion work

Another one would be space-generated energy (SBSP). This has been being researched since the 1970's.

 

So it means that there are Republican conservative solutions to stop some points of no return, it is not too late.

Personally, I think we have passed the point of no return. I doubt that even if the human race were to suddenly disappear, the process would continue unabated. That's fatalism, I suppose, but I think we need to plan as if that was the way of it, even while seeing if there's something we can do to fix it.

 

Please read some concecuences

I already know there are consequences. It's impossible to do just one thing.

[TheSkepticChristian]

There are other alternatives out there which work well. 

 

alternative medicine that works is simply medicine. I am talking about the alternative "medicine" not endorsed by medical doctors, we should stay away from them. 

 

 

Personally, I think we have passed the point of no return. I doubt that even if the human race were to suddenly disappear, the process would continue unabated. That's fatalism, I suppose, but I think we need to plan as if that was the way of it, 

 

We already passed some tipping points, but not all of them 

http://www.sef-bonn.org/fileadmin/Die_SEF/Publikationen/Globale_Trends/gt_2010_tipping-points_en.pdf