DiscussMormonism.com

Tobin wrote:

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:Then your definition of bad science makes no sense and furthermore misses the point of the thread. Simon was actually pointing out demonstrable errors, not criticizing the use of science to attempt to prove religious claims.

If you think the study has nothing to do with whether the Lamanites, Nephites or Jaredites really existed then I'm afraid you haven't read the Scriptures enough. The Book of Mormon states in multiple places that they spread over the face of the land. Nephi was basically promised that they would still be around in considerable number when the Europeans came. This limited geography model really doesn't work if you actually read the book. That is why the church tought for over a hundred years that the Lamanites were the principal ancestors of the Native Americans. It was science that forced apologists into the limited geography model so how can you claim that these studies don't go to the issue?

You've failed to show that Simon has engaged in bad science.

That is really a silly set of assertions, so let me ask you a question (and let's see if you can answer it). Do you believe the primary job of science is to prove or disprove religious claims? If so, then I can see why you have such a bizarre approach to the topic. If not, then I really don't see why you are wasting my time?!?

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:No, it's not the primary job of science. What does that have to do with anything? So you're saying that if science reaches a conclusion that has the effect of blowing a religious claim out of the water, no one is allowed to point it out? Who is being silly now?

Tobin wrote:You are welcome to point it out what you believe the science is all you wish. However, as you've also noted, that is not what scientists are concerned with. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that. So if you believe your approach is scientific, you are simply wrong. Those engaged in real scientific work simply don't waste their time disputing which religious beliefs are valid or not.

Tobin wrote:Not really. That isn't a scientific journal or anything a real scientist would take seriously. If Keith wishes to engage or not engage Simon, that is up to him. It is ok for Simon to make Keith aware of the issue, but he should then leave Keith alone.

Tobin wrote:

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:No, it's not the primary job of science. What does that have to do with anything? So you're saying that if science reaches a conclusion that has the effect of blowing a religious claim out of the water, no one is allowed to point it out? Who is being silly now?

You are welcome to point it out what you believe the science is all you wish. However, as you've also noted, that is not what scientists are concerned with. Science is not in the business of proving or disproving religious claims. No credible scientist goes around doing that. So if you believe your approach is scientific, you are simply wrong. Those engaged in real scientific work simply don't waste their time disputing which religious beliefs are valid or not.

moksha wrote:

Tobin wrote:Not really. That isn't a scientific journal or anything a real scientist would take seriously. If Keith wishes to engage or not engage Simon, that is up to him. It is ok for Simon to make Keith aware of the issue, but he should then leave Keith alone.

Basically any any all statements made within Church publications or uttered at Brigham Young University are out of bounds for this type of counter analysis or criticism, except on an optional individual basis.

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:Ever hear of Lawrence Krauss...?

Tobin wrote:

GrandMoffTarkin wrote:Ever hear of Lawrence Krauss...?

Yes, and what he does outside of his field of study is his own business. Do you think his peers would feel it appropriate if he published his views on religion with his theoretical physics papers?