Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Meldrum Takes it Up a Notch - Revolutionizes Science Itself


Recommended Posts

On 12/7/2016 at 8:47 PM, waveslider said:

I read your post a little too quickly and didn't realize that you said Oxygen instead of Water. Actually the Sun does produce Oxygen:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/53-our-solar-system/the-sun/composition/200-what-happens-to-the-helium-formed-in-the-sun-beginner

It does not actually. It will one day but it is not currently doing so. It might produce some odd oxygen isotopes right now but they would quickly decay into lighter elements.

Link to comment
On 11/27/2016 at 11:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

The problem is, Pete, that you have never evinced an iota of scientific knowledge or logic on this board.  I'll eat crow or broccoli if you can show me any different.

"Evinced an iota" Wow. Ha ha.

Big words from a guy who promotes a MesoAmerica Theory that claims Joseph Smith was an idiot when it came to the geography of The Book of Mormon. To paraphrase said scientific theory: "Joseph Smith learned - four years before he was murdered - the geographical location of the Book of Mormon from a travel book by John Lloyd Stephens (equivalent to Pres. Monson learning the location of the Lost Ten Tribes from a subscription to the National Geographic) because a science professor at BYU said so." John 3:12 defines a High Priest with your attitude - a Prophet, Seer and Revelator speaks and you brush him aside and look to Dr. John L. Sorenson.

And now Rod Meldrum promotes a science book and everyone here folds their arms and raises their noses at it.

Don't call into question the faithfulness of other posters.  Disagree without getting personal or you'll be banned from the thread.  This goes for everyone.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Have you read it Nehor? Or any parts of it?

I read the summary they wrote about it and that demonstrated the authors are ignorant about the science they claim to be debunking. That they are publishing this book to a minor audience they believe are inclined to agree with them rather then challenging the scientific consensus shows they believe their position to be weak. Also their conclusions are completely nuts.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, Marmonboy said:

... or the fertile imagination of a 20-something uneducated farmer?

I'd think twice about making this claim, Marmonboy.  It's the exact same logic Muslims have used for centuries with regard to Muhammad and the Quran (that Muhammad was uneducated, ergo he couldn't have written it & the latter is of divine origin).  Not only is there the ethical implication of such blatant rip-off, but there may also be copyright issues involved.  Be a black day in the Church Office Building if they had to cut a check for back royalties, don't you think?

;0)

--Erik

__________________________________________

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

--Ecclesiastes 1:9

Link to comment
19 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Have you read it Nehor? Or any parts of it?

I can't speak for Nehor.....nor, I doubt, can anyone else, Anywhere.....but I did listen to the UM presentations available on Youtube. There's enough information there to convince me, as a teacher who taught Secondary School science introduction courses, along with being an avid reader of current science articles, that I will definitely never spend the money to read the UM textbook.

 I don't live in Utah (although I did at one time) so I will never be pressured into accepting this text as some revival creationist text that conforms to Mormon creationist ideas. I don't live in the US so the chances of this text ever being available in Europe, as a school text, are miniscule. I won't even need to spend any time explaining to local school boards why this text lacks the basics of what defines science.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'd think twice about making this claim, Marmonboy.  It's the exact same logic Muslims have used for centuries with regard to Muhammad and the Quran (that Muhammad was uneducated, ergo he couldn't have written it & the latter is of divine origin).  Not only is there the ethical implication of such blatant rip-off, but there may also be copyright issues involved.  Be a black day in the Church Office Building if they had to cut a check for back royalties, don't you think?

;0)

--Erik

__________________________________________

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

--Ecclesiastes 1:9

I have read the Quran. While I understand it is beautiful in Arabic the endless repetition is very grating. I did not enjoy it in English (or Klingon) and do not put it anywhere near the Book of Mormon in narrative complexity. It does tell a story of a civilization except when it is taking stories from the Bible.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I have read the Quran. While I understand it is beautiful in Arabic the endless repetition is very grating. I did not enjoy it in English (or Klingon) and do not put it anywhere near the Book of Mormon in narrative complexity. It does tell a story of a civilization except when it is taking stories from the Bible.

I have a copy of the Qur'an (Saheeh International Translation) on my coffee table (sorry, my postum table) as I write. I've never made it all the way through a reading. I agree with your assessment as to its repetitiveness. Not unlike the BofM with its "And it came to pass" (1400 times).

I am, however, hugely impressed with the fruits of Islam when I have visited countries around the Mediterranean and in Indonesia and Thailand. My wife and I questioned  an elderly man in Marakesh why the streets on the Souk were so quiet and safe late at night. (We had lost our way after a late night out and wandered aimlessly around the center of the city, the Souk, at 2 in the morning. A group of youths saw our plight and courteously guided us back to our hotel (They laughed the whole time, considering our predicament hugely amusing). The elderly man said that consideration of others was required by Islam and that anyone who would threaten or rob a tourist would be violating ground priniciples of his faith.

In Luxor, Egypt, a tourist agent was extremely helpful (we found him working in his office at 11 PM and we stopped in to arrange a trip down the NIle) and he talked quietly about how his life (of obviously long hours at work to provide for his family) was guided by Islam. He had a large guilded lettering placard behind his desk that listed the 99 names of Allah (The most compassionate, the most holy, the granter of security, etc., etc.) He asked about what things we hoped to gain from the trip, then compiled an agenda that more than satisfied our minutest desires. (On the day of the trip (at 5 in the morning) he called our taxi driver three times and checked with us that everything was to our satisfaction)

In Thailand a store owner, again of Islamic faith, closed his shop to help me locate a motorcycle repair shop that I couldn't find. 

In Turkey, Egypt, Tunisian and Morocco we have observed thousands of faithful who take out their prayer mats when the call to prayer from the Minarets have echoed through the streets. One shop owner rolled up his mat at prayers end, then invited us into his shop. While my wife shopped shoes, he made tea for me and we sat and chatted about nothing in particular until my wife had decided that we should move on to another shop.

As I stated, the Qur'an is a literary sleeping pill (Although many have said the fault lies in the translation) but the people I've met, who profess the faith, have left nothing but positive impressions.

Link to comment
On 12/13/2016 at 11:05 PM, PeterPear said:

"Evinced an iota" Wow. Ha ha.

Big words from a guy who promotes a MesoAmerica Theory that claims Joseph Smith was an idiot when it came to the geography of The Book of Mormon. To paraphrase said scientific theory: "Joseph Smith learned - four years before he was murdered - the geographical location of the Book of Mormon from a travel book by John Lloyd Stephens (equivalent to Pres. Monson learning the location of the Lost Ten Tribes from a subscription to the National Geographic) because a science professor at BYU said so." John 3:12 defines a High Priest with your attitude - a Prophet, Seer and Revelator speaks and you brush him aside and look to Dr. John L. Sorenson.

And now Rod Meldrum promotes a science book and everyone here folds their arms and raises their noses at it.

Don't call into question the faithfulness of other posters.  Disagree without getting personal or you'll be banned from the thread.  This goes for everyone.

You pretend to talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk, Pete.  As usual, you substitute ad hominems for science.  Why not keep this on a high level and discuss the science, rather than engage in personal attacks?  I prefer substantive discussion.  How about you?

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You pretend to talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk, Pete.  As usual, you substitute ad hominems for science.  Why not keep this on a high level and discuss the science, rather than engage in personal attacks?  I prefer substantive discussion.  How about you?

It was in reference to a reply you made to me back in April. Something about your disbelief in Joseph Smith's statements.

Merry Christmas! 😊

 

Link to comment

I'll take a small example - an iota - from the UM - in my own words, mind you.

For example, the UM points out how this commonly taught science model about the earth is fake or never been proven:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano1.htm

Magma is a theory. It's existence has never been proven. But has been taught as fact. The UM explains in ONE of its many chapters basically about Neptunism vs Plutonism (my words as I believe the UM may not refer to these specifically by name.)

Neptunism (google it) was the earlier belief that the earth formed out of water - that the Earth's crust/rocks crystallized out of water.

Plutonism is the belief that the Earth formed from molten rock, thus the theory of Magma, theorized from the observation of volcanoes. The latter has been embraced by modern science since, as the UM contends, it contradicts religion. See Gen 1:2,9.

The UM goes to show how the majority of rocks are NOT made from a "melt." When rocks are melted they turn to glass, as observed by volcanoes or the A-Bomb which turned the sands of Alamogordo into glass, or even just taking a blowtorch to a rock. See Trinitite:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

Most rocks on the Earth are quartz which are formed from water. Technologists, for example, can make "man-made" quartz from water solutions, used in radios, watches, etc. (Thus some of your here don't the difference between science and technology.)

And to prove its points, the UM quotes modern scientific journals, research articles, experiments ignored by science because they didn't give the proper outcome expected, etc.

That's a small fraction of an iota in the UM.

But since the majority of you here are Meldrum-haters, because he published books and articles contradictiong your precious MesoAmerica Theory for the Book of Mormon, by the fallacy of association you won't consider the UM and make ludicrous remarks about the UM without ever having read any of it.

But I understand your spirit. You remind me of those people I met during my full time mission in Venezuela who refused to read The Book of Mormon because they were told by their friends that Joseph Smith was a fraud, a charlatan or any other synonym you desire.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, PeterPear said:

It was in reference to a reply you made to me back in April. Something about your disbelief in Joseph Smith's statements.

.................................................

Quote

By Robert F. Smith, April 16
    You may wish to make Brother Joseph into an infallible Pope, or some such nonsense as suits you.  Revelations from God are one thing, offhand comments and opinions...

 

Those Mormons who assert the false doctrine of infallibility of LDS prophets are unable to support that false doctrine with any logical, historical, or factual basis, though a faithful Roman Catholic would have no trouble making such a assertion for a Pope speaking ex cathedra.  In any case, Joseph Smith said that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.  He also asked the Saints to bear with his infirmities, just as he would bear with theirs.  Ignorance of biblical and modern prophecy is a major problem for both anti-Mormons and for a small minority of Mormons.  We should always allow fallible humans (including prophets) to freely express their personal opinions and to make offhand comments.

23 hours ago, PeterPear said:

I'll take a small example - an iota - from the UM - in my own words, mind you.

For example, the UM points out how this commonly taught science model about the earth is fake or never been proven:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano1.htm

Scientists speak of standard science, and some physicists posit a possible Grand Unified Theory (GUTS), but most of science is about modes of interpretation of data and formal theories dealing with different aspects of physics, biology, chemistry, etc.  Geology is merely one specific field of scientific inquiry which has seen vast theoretical changes in my lifetime.  However, there is nothing "fake" about it, and "proof" is not what science does anyhow.  So you make no sense at all here.

Quote

Magma is a theory. It's existence has never been proven. But has been taught as fact. The UM explains in ONE of its many chapters basically about Neptunism vs Plutonism (my words as I believe the UM may not refer to these specifically by name.)

Neptunism (google it) was the earlier belief that the earth formed out of water - that the Earth's crust/rocks crystallized out of water.

Plutonism is the belief that the Earth formed from molten rock, thus the theory of Magma, theorized from the observation of volcanoes. The latter has been embraced by modern science since, as the UM contends, it contradicts religion. See Gen 1:2,9.

The UM goes to show how the majority of rocks are NOT made from a "melt." When rocks are melted they turn to glass, as observed by volcanoes or the A-Bomb which turned the sands of Alamogordo into glass, or even just taking a blowtorch to a rock. See Trinitite:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

Most rocks on the Earth are quartz which are formed from water. Technologists, for example, can make "man-made" quartz from water solutions, used in radios, watches, etc. (Thus some of your here don't the difference between science and technology.)

And to prove its points, the UM quotes modern scientific journals, research articles, experiments ignored by science because they didn't give the proper outcome expected, etc.

That's a small fraction of an iota in the UM.

It is certainly true that the early 20th century saw a major shift from Newtonian to Einsteinian mechanics in physics, and a further shift then took place when Quantum physics came onboard.  There will be other such changes in the future, as research discloses more data and scientists formulate new theories to best account for that data.  In  my lifetime, we have seen the adoption of plate tectonic theory in Geology, and there are still more surprises in store -- as with the recent discovery of "a reservoir of water three times the volume of all the oceans . . . deep beneath the Earth’s surface."  -- Andy Coghlan, “Massive ‘ocean’ discovered towards Earth’s core,” NewScientist, June 12, 2014, online at https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core/ ;  See also https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23231014-700-deepest-water-found-1000km-down-a-third-of-way-to-earths-core/

Quote

But since the majority of you here are Meldrum-haters, because he published books and articles contradictiong your precious MesoAmerica Theory for the Book of Mormon, by the fallacy of association you won't consider the UM and make ludicrous remarks about the UM without ever having read any of it.

But I understand your spirit. You remind me of those people I met during my full time mission in Venezuela who refused to read The Book of Mormon because they were told by their friends that Joseph Smith was a fraud, a charlatan or any other synonym you desire.

The only hater here appears to be you, Pete.  Rod Meldrum is a friend of mine, and I see him regularly at my ward.  There has never been a cross word between us, even though we discuss BofM geography.  He is a great guy, and he is entitled to his opinions -- just as you and I are.  You even accuse the majority of the members of this board of being Meldrum haters.  Is this an example of how you do science?  Wild and irresponsible guesses?!  You might want to consider whether an apology is in order.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Link to comment
2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

I'll take a small example - an iota - from the UM - in my own words, mind you.

For example, the UM points out how this commonly taught science model about the earth is fake or never been proven:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/volcano1.htm

Magma is a theory. It's existence has never been proven. But has been taught as fact. The UM explains in ONE of its many chapters basically about Neptunism vs Plutonism (my words as I believe the UM may not refer to these specifically by name.)

Magma is a theory? You mean the stuff we have run into? In 2009 in Iceland a drill digging a borehole to experiment with geothermal energy hit magma. Also lava and magma are the same thing. We use the term lava when it reaches the surface. So if you have seen lava you have seen magma.

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Neptunism (google it) was the earlier belief that the earth formed out of water - that the Earth's crust/rocks crystallized out of water.

Plutonism is the belief that the Earth formed from molten rock, thus the theory of Magma, theorized from the observation of volcanoes. The latter has been embraced by modern science since, as the UM contends, it contradicts religion. See Gen 1:2,9.

The UM goes to show how the majority of rocks are NOT made from a "melt." When rocks are melted they turn to glass, as observed by volcanoes or the A-Bomb which turned the sands of Alamogordo into glass, or even just taking a blowtorch to a rock. See Trinitite:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite

No hot rocks only become glass when they are superheated and then rapidly cooled. This is why lava creates glass and why atomic weapons produce glass. They superheat the area which then rapidly cools. Beneath the surface of the earth cooling occurs much more slowly (if at all).

The idea that there was a conspiracy in the 19th century to choose a model designed to debunk Christianity is a conspiracy fever-dream. The evidence led to that conclusion.

2 hours ago, PeterPear said:

Most rocks on the Earth are quartz which are formed from water. Technologists, for example, can make "man-made" quartz from water solutions, used in radios, watches, etc. (Thus some of your here don't the difference between science and technology.)

And to prove its points, the UM quotes modern scientific journals, research articles, experiments ignored by science because they didn't give the proper outcome expected, etc.

That's a small fraction of an iota in the UM.

But since the majority of you here are Meldrum-haters, because he published books and articles contradictiong your precious MesoAmerica Theory for the Book of Mormon, by the fallacy of association you won't consider the UM and make ludicrous remarks about the UM without ever having read any of it.

But I understand your spirit. You remind me of those people I met during my full time mission in Venezuela who refused to read The Book of Mormon because they were told by their friends that Joseph Smith was a fraud, a charlatan or any other synonym you desire.

Wrong. The most predominant mineral in the earth's crust is feldspar followed by quartz. Most quartz is formed from magma. There are other sources. Water is not one of them.

Then you try to have it both ways. On one hand mainstream science is a vast conspiracy against the truth but at the same time Meldrum quotes them and you imagine this is evidence in his favor. You can't have it be all wrong and also rely on it for support.

For the record I consider Meldrum's Book of Mormon geography to be more likely to be true then this ridiculous UM theory though I doubt both.

I think Meldrum is a charlatan because I know some science not because my friends told me he was wrong. There is also a fundamental difference between the Book of Mormon and the UM. The Book of Mormon's truth is taught by the Holy Ghost and not by objective observations. At best at the present time archaeology and study of history might make the Book of Mormon plausible but not prove it. Here Meldrum steps on to other grounds. He does not claim the UM came by revelation. He claims it comes from scientific data. He takes this data and, instead of taking this amazing revolution in thought to those best able to analyze it, he sells it at a pretty high cost to a small subset of people in a specific religious faith.

He does not revolutionize science with the equivalent of a jump from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. Instead he calls on old disproven models and hails them as revolutionary. This is the equivalent of a doctor announcing that phrenology is a valid form of mental evaluation.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, PeterPear said:

But since the majority of you here are Meldrum-haters, because he published books and articles contradictiong your precious MesoAmerica Theory for the Book of Mormon, by the fallacy of association you won't consider the UM and make ludicrous remarks about the UM without ever having read any of it.

I wouldn't say, "haters," so much as I would say, "doubters." I have serious doubts about Meldrum's UM theories, even though I haven't shelled out the money to read it, my doubts stem from one of the same reasons as The Nehor said:

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He claims it comes from scientific data. He takes this data and, instead of taking this amazing revolution in thought to those best able to analyze it, he sells it at a pretty high cost to a small subset of people in a specific religious faith.

Unless Meldrum did try, but failed to get anything published in accredited sources like, ''Nature," or something, I find that I side with The Nehor on this point. If Meldrum did try to get published in order to have peers review his work. I sure would love to see what he tried to get published. It might make me take his UM theory a little more seriously.

I'm definitely not a hater by any means, but I do have serious doubts.

Link to comment
On 12/22/2016 at 9:34 PM, PeterPear said:

 

And to prove its points, the UM quotes modern scientific journals, research articles, experiments ignored by science because ......

:blink:

Link to comment
  • 3 months later...

Bump for this letter to the BYU Daily Universe after it published an ad for the "Universal Model":

 

Quote
In defense of peer-reviewed science
Last week, BYU’s student newspaper, The Universe, printed a full-page advertisement on behalf of the “Firm Foundation Expo,” a 3-day expo that bills itself as “faithfully exploring LDS topics of our time.” In the advertisement, all of the 70+ speakers are portrayed as distinguished and as experts in some area or another.
One of those speakers is Dean W. Sessions, the author of the “Universal Model.” Mr. Sessions claims to have disproved several straightforward tenets of modern science, including the basic interior structure of the Earth (which he argues has a core of ice and liquid water) and the mass of the Earth (which he recalculates at about a third of what is known in order to fit his model). He will be speaking about his model on each day of the event.
 
We, members of BYU’s Department of Geological Sciences, cannot accept Mr. Sessions “Universal Model” as it runs contrary to multiple lines of empirical evidence and generations of scientific query. It would not pass expert peer review. Students and the BYU community are reminded that organic evolution, anthropogenic climate change, radiometric dating and a 4.56 billion-year-old age of the Earth are all seriously taught on campus by professors, who are in good standing with the church, in fields directly relating to these subjects. Students may learn more about these subjects through a variety of courses offered by the Department of Geological Sciences as well as from other departments.
 
We, the undersigned, support the honest development of knowledge by way of the scientific method and as vetted through expert peer review.
We are concerned that the presence of the aforementioned advertisement in The Universe may legitimize Dean Sessions’ “Universal Model” in the eyes of some within the community.
Bart Kowallis, PhD, Associate Dean of CPMS; Ron Harris, PhD; Jeff rey Keith, PhD;
Jani Radebaugh, PhD; Eric Christiansen, PhD; Carl Hoiland, PhD; Thomas Morris,
PhD; Sam Hudson, PhD; Stephen Nelson, PhD; Geology master’s degree students:
Kimberly Sowards, Colin Hale, Michael Jensen, William Meservy, TJ Slezak, Collin
Jensen, Matthew Randall, Aaron Holmes, Braxton Spilker, Danielle Spencer,
Rebecca Esplin, Hannah Checketts, Brian Packer, David Tomlinson, Kevin Stuart,
Hanif Sulaeman, Han Deng, Joel Barker; Geology bachelor’s degree students: Torri
Duncan, Jason Klimek, Brett Young, Austin Eells, Hanna Howell, Chelsea Samuelson

 

http://newsnet.byu.edu/pdf/du20170404.pdf

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...