Chap wrote:I have to say that if I was the organiser of a seminar series in which a talk like that was given I would be profoundly embarrassed. Either Nibley was incapable of facing such an issue directly and addressing the evidence analytically, or he was simply trying to obfuscate the question.
My impression of Nibley is that he goes off into erudite sounding free association and ends up saying nothing.
Newspaper Rock is beautiful isn't it? I haven't seen it in person in a long time, but its hard to get a sense of the depth of the drawings from some of the photos online. The images are scratched into a natural patina that builds up over time, thus the earlier images have now darkened and the most recent ones are the lighter ones you can see in these images.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Ray A wrote:I've discussed tis elsewhere. The idea there were no horses in more modern times is dogma. But if I provided the links you'd say this was "propaganda", though the evidence is provided by a non-Mormon scholar. There is so much dogma in science it just isn't funny! Frankly, I'm tired of addressing it. The key is being more openminded. What truly amazes me is how former Mormons who reject "LDS dogma", swallow scientific dogma so willingly.
It seems you have no concept of the scientific method. What truly amazes me is how Mormons accept LDS dogma while rejecting empirical evidence and logic. The key is being more openminded? Are you kidding me? Did you read your own post after you typed it? The scientific method allows for open-mindedness, change in theory, and adaptation based on new evidence. It is not constrained by dogma. Your religious realm of inquiry does not allow for this.
Gazelam wrote:In your opinion, would the horse drawing be pre or post Spaniard?
Oh I have no idea, Gaz, about interpretations of specific petroglyphs on that site.
I honestly don't see much evidence for Book of Mormon period horses in the Americas, but that's the least of my problems with the religion.
It did always strike me, though, that Mormonism started out as a religion which untraditionally embraced "science," "history," and empirical evidence, confident that such things would endorse it and later, as they failed to, evolved into a more traditional religion of faith, recent internet apologia notwithstanding.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
Ray A wrote:I've discussed tis elsewhere. The idea there were no horses in more modern times is dogma. But if I provided the links you'd say this was "propaganda", though the evidence is provided by a non-Mormon scholar. There is so much dogma in science it just isn't funny! Frankly, I'm tired of addressing it. The key is being more openminded. What truly amazes me is how former Mormons who reject "LDS dogma", swallow scientific dogma so willingly.
It seems you have no concept of the scientific method. What truly amazes me is how Mormons accept LDS dogma while rejecting empirical evidence and logic. The key is being more openminded? Are you kidding me? Did you read your own post after you typed it? The scientific method allows for open-mindedness, change in theory, and adaptation based on new evidence. It is not constrained by dogma. Your religious realm of inquiry does not allow for this.
The scientific medhod does not "allow it". That is the true scientific method. Some people, not just your whipping boys the "TBMs", do not always "allow it". If you were or are a member of the Rationalist Assoc. , anywhere, you'd know how they cling to dogma. A friend of mine who belonged to this Assoc in the late 80s described them thus: "Religion might be blind, but they (the rationalists) worship the Holy Trinity of Freud, Marx and Darwin."
Ray A wrote:The scientific medhod does not "allow it". That is the true scientific method. Some people, not just your whipping boys the "TBMs", do not always "allow it". If you were or are a member of the Rationalist Assoc. , anywhere, you'd know how they cling to dogma. A friend of mine who belonged to this Assoc in the late 80s described them thus: "Religion might be blind, but they (the rationalists) worship the Holy Trinity of Freud, Marx and Darwin."
I'm not sure what the statement I noted in bold is referring to. I don't see TBM's as "whipping boys" and am not sure why you attribute this to me. As for the rest, have you been reading William Dembski again?
By the way, I don't think that Nibley was a fool. He was a very intelligent individual. I just don't agree with his apologetics. This video is a good example of Nibley trying to obfuscate the horse issue.
silentkid wrote:I'm not sure what the statement I noted in bold is referring to. I don't see TBM's as "whipping boys" and am not sure why you attribute this to me. As for the rest, have you been reading William Dembski again?
Never read Dembski, but I have read Denton (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis), and Philip Johnson's Darwin On Trial. A review by a chemistry professor:
In my view Phillip Johnson has not succeeded in his attempt to unseat the theory of evolution as the dominant view of the development of life on earth. There is some merit in his claim that atheistic evolutionists have so much at stake in maintaining the theory as the only acceptable creation account in town. I do wish he had spent more time discussing the views of Christian scientists who have found in the theory of evolution a reasonable explanation for the origin and diversity of life. These scientists may be able to be more objective because for them the metaphysical stakes are not so high.
silentkid wrote:By the way, I don't think that Nibley was a fool. He was a very intelligent individual. I just don't agree with his apologetics. This video is a good example of Nibley trying to obfuscate the horse issue.
I'm breathless. A positive comment. The horse is not a dead or settled issue, but it's pointless arguing that here.
