Page 1 of 53

ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:20 am
by _DrW
In 1976 we lived in Europe and for several pleasant years had no Ensigns laying around the house. So I guess I missed this gem in print that was pointed out by cinepro over on MDD.

Jeffrey Holland in the Ensign in 1976:

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.

This is supposedly and educated man. He claims to hold a Ph.D. from Yale for goodness sake. Yet he tells the faithful that the continents of the Western Hemisphere separated from the continents of the Eastern Hemisphere soon after the waters of a global flood of Noah receded as recounted in the Old Testament.

The break-up of the Pangaea super continent and the positioning of the present continents of the Eastern and Western Hemispheres began something like 100 million years ago. The continents of the Earth were essentially in their present positions by about 30 million years ago.

So the Atlantic basin into which the "ocean rushed" (as Holland describes it) was actually formed over more than 100 million years (not exactly a rush) and was essentially as we see it today by about 30 million years ago. It did not occur in a cataclysmic (renting of the Earth) event 4,000 or so years ago as Holland claims.

Two of my sons loved dinosaurs and paleontology when they were young and I would guess they had this basic geologic timeline in their heads by the time they were in Middle School. And Holland, as a supposedly responsible adult, does not know or believe this yet today?

This is not a matter for interpretation or discussion. This is a geological and scientific fact. And Holland must know this. If he does not then he is willfully ignorant and has no business as an apostle of the Church, or an individual to whom people look to for the truth.

If a Church leader is willing to publish well considered truth claims that any high school kid can show are false in less than 5 minutes, why should anyone believe anything he says?

This was not an off-hand comment. This was crucial to the main theme of the article.

I wonder if Holland would stand by this ridiculous made-up piece of bovine scatology today. I would love to hear what he would say if confronted with this nonsensical article in public.

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:31 am
by _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.

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:43 am
by _The Dude
Franktalk wrote:I believe in the supernatural ... I have decided to give my faith in God my priority.


Thus your misuse of "erosion science" is a moot point. No point trying to correct your decided ignorance.

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:47 am
by _Phillip
Oh boy, this is going to be fun to watch ...

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:49 am
by _MrStakhanovite
Welcome FrankTalk!

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:58 am
by _Tarski
Franktalk wrote: Just study erosion enough and you will find that our dating methods are completely wrong.


We are just doomed people.

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am
by _DrW
Franktalk wrote: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.

Then you must also believe in Kolob, Adam-ondi-Ahmen, Zelph, demons, angels, devils, the Three Nephites, the Global Flood of Noah, the Tower of Babel, Egyptian funerary texts can magically turn into the Book of Abraham, that God entrusted the restoration of his gospel to a documented adulterer, polygamist, liar and fraud, and that eight unpowered wooden semi-submersibles with more than 20 people and all manner of livestock on board, including honey bees, spent more than 300 days in ocean transit to the New World and all landed within a few miles and a few days on one another after the journey, and that such an ocean crossing from the Middle East to the New World happened not once but at least twice before 500 BC and that the few people on these vessels eventually spawned a population that numbered in the millions but disappeared without leaving a trace in the pre-Columbian New World genome.

Lucky you. (And Welcome.)

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:37 am
by _Cardinal Biggles
Franktalk wrote: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.


Are these scientific theories your own discoveries, or did you read them in some peer-reviewed scientific journal? If the latter, could you please supply a reference? I am interested in learning more!

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:43 am
by _sock puppet
Franktalk wrote: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?

Re: ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 4:22 am
by _Sethbag
sock puppet wrote: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?

It's worse than that. It's not just the lack of verification that he's saddled himself with. The scientific theories in question have indeed been verified against mountains and mountains of physical evidence. So it's not just that his version of reality isn't verified - it directly contradicts the version that is verified. What does it take to keep such a worldview convincing to people? I'm guessing some combination of ignorance and illogic.