Bible verse by verse

[_maklelan]

It occurs to me that the doctrine of a Global, Literal flood taking place circa 2,300BCE is a pretty fundamental teaching of the Church.

I would disagree, and I know many, many Latter-day Saints who would do the same.

Your lack of acceptance of this teaching seems to place you somewhere on the spectrum of apostasy (and I'm really not trying to offend or deliberately provoke you).
Is there some official clarity on what does or what does not constitute something that is so fundamental that not believing it marks you out as an apostate?

The temple recommend interview questions regarding belief are really the only thing that spring to mind, but even there it's a grey area.

[Guest]

Please see: http://www.kjvbible.org/greenland_ice_sheet.html

http://www.icr.org/geological-strata/

http://thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/3/257.htm

As I stated, these things are only evidence for people who don't understand the science. For instance, one of your articles states the following:

Granular, water-charged sediment flows result in very rapid stratification. Dilute flows produce thick sequences of plane beds, graded beds, and crossbeds by sustained unidirectional flow. Such flows also produce thick sequences of hummocky beds by sustained bidirectional flow.

Concentrated sediment flows produce thick strata sequences by abrupt deposition from liquefied suspension or evenly bedded strata by flow transformation to a tractive current.

These and many other obvious processes are leading many geologists to construct a global flood model for earth history.

And there are men of Science who disagree with the agnostic doctrine of Uniformitarianism ---- whose skepticism is for people who do not stick to the scientific formula of repeatability and observation, and do not even encourage others to disagree with their atheistically inspired dogma ---- to the point of labeling any disagreement as "unscientific."

And this is pure and utter nonsense. The sediment strata show long periods of calm. There are footprints. There are floral prints. There are erosion marks. Rapid stratification is just utter nonsense, and no one with even an undergraduate level understanding of geology can know the evidence and honestly think there is any actual evidence for the flood. There are also not "many geologists" constructing a global flood model. That's pure and utter BS. One final time: no one who understands the science can look at the evidence and honestly take the deluge tradition seriously. Full stop.

[_maklelan]

And there are men of Science who disagree with the agnostic doctrine of Uniformitarianism ---- whose skepticism is for people who not stick to the scientific formula of repeatability and observation, and do not even encourage others to disagree with their atheistically inspired dogma ---- to the point of labeling any disagreement as "unscientific."

And those are not men of science, but men of dogmatism, and I imagine there are also women among them, so try to work on less sexist categories. The scientific principle of uniformity is observable, Nipper, and has never been shown to fail. Calling it an "agnostic doctrine" and rejecting it for no reason whatsoever is just pure and simple fundie dogmatism.

[_Gunnar]

The Gospel of Judas was not written by Judas. The Coptic manuscript seems to date from the third or fourth century.

Irrelevant. The actual authorship of the 4 canonical gospels is also highly questionable. Even some faithful, Christian scholars admit that much.

[_LittleNipper]

Do you mean Joseph Smith or Barrack Obama?

No, I don't, because A) it's clear you don't consider Joseph Smith to be a Christian, and B) while Barrack Obama may indeed be involved in a certain degree of political fraud, he's not involved in any pious fraud that I'm aware of.

Do you consider it to be a "positive attribute" when a Christian is willing to engage in pious fraud?

Just consider Obama's stance on marriage. He certainly wants to shove something down the throat of the American people, and he wants it to be socially acceptable.

[_LittleNipper]

And there are men of Science who disagree with the agnostic doctrine of Uniformitarianism ---- whose skepticism is for people who not stick to the scientific formula of repeatability and observation, and do not even encourage others to disagree with their atheistically inspired dogma ---- to the point of labeling any disagreement as "unscientific."

And those are not men of science, but men of dogmatism, and I imagine there are also women among them, so try to work on less sexist categories. The scientific principle of uniformity is observable, Nipper, and has never been shown to fail. Calling it an "agnostic doctrine" and rejecting it for no reason whatsoever is just pure and simple fundie dogmatism.

They are both men and women of science who simply have found that there are other possibilities surrounding the data that is being found. They happen to believe in God, and consider His revelation as additional data that secular scientists totally ignore. HOWEVER, secular scientists are not without bias, because they are under the belief that all events are natural.

[_LittleNipper]

And there are men of Science who disagree with the agnostic doctrine of Uniformitarianism ---- whose skepticism is for people who not stick to the scientific formula of repeatability and observation, and do not even encourage others to disagree with their atheistically inspired dogma ---- to the point of labeling any disagreement as "unscientific."

And those are not men of science, but men of dogmatism, and I imagine there are also women among them, so try to work on less sexist categories. The scientific principle of uniformity is observable, Nipper, and has never been shown to fail. Calling it an "agnostic doctrine" and rejecting it for no reason whatsoever is just pure and simple fundie dogmatism.

They are both men and women of science who simply have found that there are other possibilities surrounding the data that is being found. They happen to believe in God, and consider His revelation as additional data that secular scientists totally ignore. HOWEVER, secular scientists are not without bias, because they are under the belief that all events are natural.

[_maklelan]

They are both men and women of science who simply have found that there are other possibilities surrounding the data that is being found.

Show me.

They happen to believe in God, and consider His revelation as additional data that secular scientists totally ignore. HOWEVER, secular scientists are not without bias, because they are under the belief that all events are natural.

There's no reason to conclude otherwise, Nipper. There's a huge difference between the biases you adopt because of the evidence and the biases you adopt because of dogmatism. They are not created equal.

[_LittleNipper]

They are both men and women of science who simply have found that there are other possibilities surrounding the data that is being found.

Show me.

They happen to believe in God, and consider His revelation as additional data that secular scientists totally ignore. HOWEVER, secular scientists are not without bias, because they are under the belief that all events are natural.

There's no reason to conclude otherwise, Nipper. There's a huge difference between the biases you adopt because of the evidence and the biases you adopt because of dogmatism. They are not created equal.

You may wish to read the following ----- if you are unbiased: https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-sc ... s-science/

[_maklelan]

You may wish to read the following ----- if you are unbiased: https://answersingenesis.org/what-is-sc ... s-science/

Yeah, that's full of ignorant and anti-academic nonsense. For instance:

Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe.

Completely false. The foundations of the scientific endeavor are located in Classical antiquity.

If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature.

Utter and complete nonsense.

Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.

The history of science is one of increasing understanding, and as we grow in our understanding of the universe and its functioning, we need to appeal to the divine less and less. As we come to know more, creationism fits less and less. In our day and age, creationism is completely and totally precluded. The notion that we should arrive at certain conclusion out of respect for "scientific history" is utter nonsense.

In its original form science simply meant “knowledge.” When someone says today that they work in the field of science, a different picture often comes to mind. Science, in the view of an outspoken part of the scientific community, is the systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe by allowing only naturalistic or materialistic explanations and causes. The quote on page 19 reflects this attitude. Science in this sense automatically rules out God and the possibility that He created the universe because supernatural claims, it is asserted, cannot be tested and repeated. If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. The denial of supernatural events limits the depth of understanding that science can have and the types of questions science can ask.

This is a phenomenally ignorant misrepresentation. Science does not rule out God, science acknowledges that the supernatural is mutually exclusive from the natural, and we therefore have no way to test and verify the supernatural. You and Ken Ham every other young earth creationist on this planet also appeals regularly to the principle of falsifiability, since that's the only way you can attack non-fundamentalist religious traditions like Islam, Buddhism, Wiccan, Mormonism, Catholicism, etc. If you demand that the supernatural be accepted and falsifiability be rejected, you have to accept all the claims to the supernatural from other traditions. You wouldn't let that happen in a billion years. Creationism is ignorant and hypocritical dogmatism. Post as many links as you want. You will never stumble across one that does not make a laughably ignorant case.