The Baloney Detection Kit

[_Some Schmo]

Sure. It's all "magic" when you don't know how it works.

You know, you're onto something with this. You just need to take it one step further.

There are reasonable (scientific) explanations for everything, explanations that don't involve magic, which means there's really no need to invoke a creator at all. The universe just is. Some things seem very magical and mysterious, but once the explanations are understood, they don't seem so mysterious any more.

You don't need a god to create (essentially filling in the gaps of our understanding) when it's far more likely there are reasonable, natural explanations for everything.

[_Morrissey]

I don't believe you understood me, Phaedrus.

As for glowing stones being magical and conflicting with science -- well, maybe:

http://mi.BYU.edu/publications/insights ... um=7&id=72

The Book of Mormon doesn't appear to think that the stones were just run-of-the-mill ordinary things, though, and I, for one, don't know precisely what God can and cannot do, in all cases.

With due respect Daniel, the Book of Mormon refers explicitly to the finger of God touching stones and making them glow--quite a bit different from what you've linked here. If the Book of Mormon had talked about the Bro of Jared finding naturally glowing stones, then you might have an argument, but it does not. The specific reference is to stones transformed through miraculous (e.g. finger of God) means into glowing orbs. As a friendly word of advice, I would not recommend trying this line of argumentation with Shermer. Unless, that is, FARMS can demonstrate the the stones mentioned is this article got that way because God touched them with his finger.

Nice try, but no go.

[_William Schryver]

You don't need a god to create (essentially filling in the gaps of our understanding) when it's far more likely there are reasonable, natural explanations for everything.

I was walking down a trail the other day, near the headwaters of the Potomac River in the Maryland panhandle. I saw several wild turkeys, a large black bear (that thankfully was more frightened of me than I of him) and a number of the most amazing mega-large butterflies I have ever seen. I assume they were some kind of species of Monarch. They were bigger than my fist and would sit peacefully on a twig while I looked them over very closely. The colors, design, and bilateral symmetry of their markings was astounding to me. And, in fact, I am convinced there is a "reasonable, natural" explanation for how they came to be. Indeed, I perceive they were designed by a female intelligence, and that natural processes were employed to arrive at this seemingly perfect end.

You, of course, would suggest that they came to be absent any design or craft or applied technology. I consider your point of view utterly ludicrous and an offense to the capabilities of the intellect of man.

But I am content for you to believe as you choose. Even if you are wrong.

[_Daniel Peterson]

With due respect Daniel, the Book of Mormon refers explicitly to the finger of God touching stones and making them glow--quite a bit different from what you've linked here. If the Book of Mormon had talked about the Bro of Jared finding naturally glowing stones, then you might have an argument, but it does not. The specific reference is to stones transformed through miraculous (e.g. finger of God) means into glowing orbs. As a friendly word of advice, I would not recommend trying this line of argumentation with Shermer. Unless, that is, FARMS can demonstrate the the stones mentioned is this article got that way because God touched them with his finger.

Nice try, but no go.

I disagree. I don't know what God is capable of doing, but am content, at this point, to simply acknowledge that glowing stones do appear to be a possibility. If they're a possibility, and God exists, it's not fatally absurd to suppose that God could make a stone glow. (If he created the universe and resurrects the dead, making a rock shine seems pretty small potatoes by comparison.)

I doubt very much that Dr. Shermer and I will get into this level of specificity. Anyway, if we do, I'm fine with it.

[_Morrissey]

With due respect Daniel, the Book of Mormon refers explicitly to the finger of God touching stones and making them glow--quite a bit different from what you've linked here. If the Book of Mormon had talked about the Bro of Jared finding naturally glowing stones, then you might have an argument, but it does not. The specific reference is to stones transformed through miraculous (e.g. finger of God) means into glowing orbs. As a friendly word of advice, I would not recommend trying this line of argumentation with Shermer. Unless, that is, FARMS can demonstrate the the stones mentioned is this article got that way because God touched them with his finger.

Nice try, but no go.

I disagree. I don't know what God is capable of doing, but am content, at this point, to simply acknowledge that glowing stones do appear to be a possibility. If they're a possibility, and God exists, it's not fatally absurd to suppose that God could make a stone glow. (If he created the universe and resurrects the dead, making a rock shine seems pretty small potatoes by comparison.)

I doubt very much that Dr. Shermer and I will get into this level of specificity. Anyway, if we do, I'm fine with it.

Well, if God exists, and he is indeed possesses supernatural powers, then it is not outrageous to suggest he could cause stones to glow. I disagree with your premises, though. But that goes without saying.

Still, your argument does not help you case much, from where I sit. That is, if one accepts your premises and your conclusion, then there is no reason that I see for FARMS to try to argue that glowing stones is a natural phenom.

And I do not see that you have addressed my primary point--presenting evidence that glowing stones is a natural phenom is quite a different kettle of fish than arguing that God touched stones with his finger and caused them to glow. The former does absolutely nothing to buttress the plausibility of the latter.

I hope for your sake that you do not make similar non sequitur arguments to Shermer.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I hope for your sake that you do not make similar non sequitur arguments to Shermer.

I expect Dr. Shermer to be better at seeing the structure and following the implicit logic of an argument.

You've pretty much missed the point.

[_Morrissey]

I hope for your sake that you do not make similar non sequitur arguments to Shermer.

I expect Dr. Shermer to be better at seeing the structure and following the implicit logic of an argument.

You've pretty much missed the point.

I disagree. I understand your point fully. I just happen to think it is a lousy argument.

I strongly suspect that Shermer would think as little of your argument as I do.

I strongly recommend you do not cite the afore cited FARMS article in your debate. It will only make you look foolish. Shermer has a bit more critical mind than the wavering Mormon faithful to whom this bit of FARMS misdirection is targeted.

[_Some Schmo]

You, of course, would suggest that they came to be absent any design or craft or applied technology. I consider your point of view utterly ludicrous and an offense to the capabilities of the intellect of man.

But I am content for you to believe as you choose. Even if you are wrong.

Absent design? Without question. Same with absent applied technology. But absent craft? Well, that depends on how you look at the word "craft."

If you consider the shape of a river crafted out of the forces of gravity and the path of least resistance, then you can't really say it's absent craft... but that's just playing with semantics for the hell of it.

I will take solace in the fact that you consider my point of view "utterly ludicrous and an offense to the capabilities of the intellect of man." Coming from you, I can think of no greater compliment (I mean that sincerely), given the endless stream of nonsense you've been known to spew.

And, incidentally, it makes no difference to me what you believe... something we have in common. That what you believe is wrong is beyond obvious.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I disagree. I understand your point fully.

Well, I didn't recognize it in what you wrote.

But I'm perfectly happy to grant that you, like most others here, understand what I think and what I believe better than I do. It would be arrogant of me to suppose otherwise.

[_Morrissey]

I disagree. I understand your point fully.

Well, I didn't recognize it in what you wrote.

But I'm perfectly happy to grant that you, like most others here, understand what I think and what I believe better than I do. It would be arrogant of me to suppose otherwise.

Oh puleease! For sheer variety's sake, might I suggest that you try a different tack than suggesting that those who disagree with you necessarily fail to understand you or lack reasoning skills?