ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_DarkHelmet]

LOL. I was about to post a parody about how when it comes to science vs the prophets, I choose to follow the prophets. It looks like franktalk beat me to it. The funny thing is, his version of junk science is taught in church meetings all the time.

[_jon]

Just study erosion enough and you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.

Frank, please can you provide the material that has led you to this conclusion?

Thanks

[_Franktalk]

I happen to believe it is very possible that the breakup of the super-continent happened after the flood. The only thing you must give up is dating methods. It is not hard. Just study erosion enough and you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong. But that is using science against science. It can be done but it leaves out the supernatural. Since I believe in the supernatural then I must either give science priority or give my faith in the supernatural priority. I have decided to give my faith in God my priority.

Franktalk,

Welcome.

Let me succinctly juxtapose what I understand that you have chosen to give priority between the two epistemologies you have identified.
(1) Faith in the supernatural.
(2) Science.
You have chosen to give priority to that which cannot be independently verified over that which may be independently verified. Does that sum up your chosen priority?

The problem is not in verification. Most of science is based on repeatable experiments and direct observation. This is the basis for the scientific method. But there are fields where indirect methods are used in place of direct methods. These indirect methods contain assumptions. If indeed the assumptions are wrong then so are the conclusions based on them. The reason I pointed to erosion is because it is a subject where people feel they can embrace the mechanics and understand the processes back in time without much need for huge assumptions.

This view of science is not new and is not limited to just people with faith in God. If one just steps back and views all of science you can't see a uniform area of research. There are areas that are tied to hard science and the scientific method. Then there are the soft sciences where direct observation is not possible. This has not stopped man from forming all kinds of theories dealing with the soft sciences. The problem comes in when people don't differentiate between the hard and soft sciences. When Newton ran experiments on falling objects those experiments could be repeated in labs all over the world. But when someone comes up with a theory about the big bang there is a long trail of assumptions attached to that theory. And of course it is not possible to go back and directly observe the event. This kind of science deals with trace evidence. But science is not pure and men will be men. Trace evidence can be sorted or selected for a desired outcome. Global warming is a classic example. All early models have been proven wrong as time marched on and the predictions did not happen. But the true believers just change the models to show a new event horizon. Such it is with men of faith. So where does this lead us? It should lead us to trust some areas of science and doubt others. But many in science or at least those who embrace science feel the need to treat all of science as the great collectors of facts. In this they change theories into facts. Anyone who wishes to see this whole picture in this light can study anomalies in science to see all of the hidden data that is being ignored. But don't take my word on it there have been men who spent more time on this subject than I have.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... orliss.pdf

Just to set the stage for my opinions I have provided this link. Those who already know everything need not read it. Just arm wave the opinion away and all of the data that comes along as well. Who needs data when when we all agree. Well at least those who count.

We have to ask our self if science, or the men in science have an agenda? Of course they do. They need a pay check and they want to be respected by their peers. That alone drives the system.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

Here is a link which looks at the work of Thomas Kuhn. He took a critical view of current science and so do I.

So let us start on the right foot in our discussions. Science provides no truth. Facts are few and raw data from direct observation is king. Theories although pleasant to the ear and eye are not fact. I will walk all over them with no respect at all. This will upset some who embrace them.

So to answer your question I do embrace verification. But I suspect I do it in a completely different way than you do.

[_truth dancer]

Calling BCspace.... (smile)

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.
To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

Official doctrine or not?

Current apostle? check
No new revelation to contradict previous doctrine? check
Published by the LDS church? check

Sounds official to me!

Oh dear...

:-)

~td~

[Guest]

Calling BCspace.... (smile)

Holy scripture records that “after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof.” (Ether 13:2.) Such a special place needed now to be kept apart from other regions, free from the indiscriminate traveler as well as the soldier of fortune.
To guarantee such sanctity the very surface of the earth was rent. In response to God’s decree, the great continents separated and the ocean rushed in to surround them. The promised place was set apart. Without habitation it waited for the fulfillment of God’s special purposes.

Official doctrine or not?

Current apostle? check
No new revelation to contradict previous doctrine? check
Published by the LDS church? check

Sounds official to me!

Oh dear...

:-)

~td~

Oh dear is right.

Where is bcspace when we need him?

[_DrW]

Just study erosion enough and you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.

We are just doomed people.

Tarski,

Got a chuckle out of this when I saw it. Sort of like gallows laughter, really - but laughter nonetheless.

Now that I see that Franktalk intends to try to defend his position, I am more stunned than amused.

Well, back to work.

[_Chap]

So let us start on the right foot in our discussions. Science provides no truth. Facts are few and raw data from direct observation is king. Theories although pleasant to the ear and eye are not fact. I will walk all over them with no respect at all.

As Franktalk is no doubt aware, there is an academic discipline called philosophy of science that deals with questions such as these. "Truth", "facts" and "theory" are big words, and we could argue for weeks on a board like this without coming to a common view of how we are to use them. But since this is a conversation and not a graduate seminar, let's try to keep the discussion down-to-earth.

If I want to know what someone's real position on a question is (as opposed to hearing all the possible quibbles they can advance), I like to ask them to think of an important practical decision that relates to the issue under discussion.

How about this one: your child proposes to make an airplane journey that will involve a landing at a busy airport at night, when there will be low cloud and the pilot will therefore have to rely largely on radar. Do you let them go or not? If the answer is 'yes', that means you have trusted your child's life to the scientific theories that tell us that the blips on radar screens do (if the system is functioning correctly) correspond reliably to the positions and velocities of real objects in space. Somehow I doubt that you have a problem with that.

So, do you have "no respect at all" for the scientific theory on which you are willing to let your child's life ride? If you still want to say that, go ahead, but a lot of people will be a bit puzzled. And of course similar examples could be multiplied.

[_Franktalk]

I can not prove there was a flood or separation of the continents any more than anyone else. So if you expect this from me you will not find this kind of argument. What I can show is the overreach of science and the faith in its conclusions. I have faith but come to different conclusions. It really does depend on where you place your faith. Since I can't provide direct observation or testable results I will fail in the scientific method. But I will point out that geology fails this test as well.

I have studied young earth creation from a scientific viewpoint and find that it suffers the same as mainstream science. They also use trace evidence and assumptions to arrive at preset conclusions. What mainstream science and creationist (using science) fail to include are supernatural events. I find it so amusing to hear people say they believe in God and that He created the universe, yet they say there was no flood because some guy down the street said the sediments are in the wrong place. Funny if you ask me.

[_Jason Bourne]

Genesis 10:25 tells shortly after the flood the earth was divided:

25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.

[_Franktalk]

Chap,

Nice strawman. I have already said that science is divided. If you try to use this type of argument it will just waste time. Of course it may serve the purpose it was intended.