DiscussMormonism.com

Tobin wrote:Do you think Lawrence Krauss's peers would feel it appropriate if he published his views on religion with his theoretical physics papers? I believe that is essentially what Simon is doing.

Has Simon ever published any professional papers in which the Mormon Church was even mentioned? I doubt it.

Arrakis wrote:

Tobin wrote:Do you think Lawrence Krauss's peers would feel it appropriate if he published his views on religion with his theoretical physics papers? I believe that is essentially what Simon is doing.

Has Simon ever published any professional papers in which the Mormon Church was even mentioned? I doubt it.

Tobin doesn't seem interested in the fact he is complaining about Simon's blog post rather than a professional submission for peer-review while defending a professional "publishing" his views on religion in relation to his expertise on a subject in a propaganda video. Given Simon is effective acting as Crandall's peer in this case, one has to wonder which side Tobin is taking.

Not a particularly well thought out position.

honorentheos wrote:Tobin doesn't seem interested in the fact he is complaining about Simon's blog post rather than a professional submission for peer-review while defending a professional "publishing" his views on religion in relation to his expertise on a subject in a propaganda video. Given Simon is effective acting as Crandall's peer in this case, one has to wonder which side Tobin is taking.

Not a particularly well thought out position.

I wholeheartedly agree. Tobin seldom thinks through anything he writes. I seriously doubt that Tobin has the capacity to do so. He seldom demonstrates any subject area knowledge or understanding, and seldom says anything worth considering. His main purpose on this board seems to be to act as a childish narcissistic contrarian and a troll.

This was an interesting and productive thread until Tobin decided to jump in with another demonstration of his abject ignorance of the subject matter at hand.

It would be best if folks simply did not engage Tobin, especially on threads that have anything to do with scientific issues. Because when they do, it invariably results in a massive waste of everyone's time and a derailment of the thread.

Tobin should only be engaged on threads about Joseph Smith or space aliens, and then for no more than two responses per counter party.

Tobin wrote:
Scientists concern themselves with determining how old the Earth really is. They are not concerned with what certain religious people believe about how old the Earth is.

That's why Tobin, these unconcerned scientists go to places like the Creation Museum and hold protests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHP3UCYoeYU

or testify in courts of law against groups who believe the Creation Story should be taught in our schools. That's why, Tobin these scientists are becoming more vocal, offering websites, conferences, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyFkAf ... 10&index=2

dryfly wrote:

Tobin wrote:
Scientists concern themselves with determining how old the Earth really is. They are not concerned with what certain religious people believe about how old the Earth is.

That's why Tobin, these unconcerned scientists go to places like the Creation Museum and hold protests. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHP3UCYoeYU

or testify in courts of law against groups who believe the Creation Story should be taught in our schools. That's why, Tobin these scientists are becoming more vocal, offering websites, conferences, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyFkAf ... 10&index=2

The sign of true intellect dryfly is indicated by showing the capacity to understand and then engage the points the other side is actually making. So do you believe it is appropriate for scientists to seek to prove and disprove religious issues in their professional pursuits? Or if these scientists are merely voicing their opinion (and not in a professional role), do you think it is appropriate that they be censured by their peers for doing so as Simon is attempting to do to Crandall?

Now, I understand there are people in this forum that are so biased and unthinking that they are simply unable or unwilling to grasp these issues. I hope you'll surprise me and try to engage them.

Hasn't Tobin ever heard of Dr. Michael Coe?

“Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples between about 2000 B.C. and A.D. 421. They believe that Smith could translate hieroglyphs, whether ‘Reformed Egyptian’ or ancient American.... Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group.... The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of the early migrants to our hemisphere”
(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973, “Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View,” pp. 41, 42, 46).




To make Book of Mormon archaeology at all kind of believable, my friend John Sorenson has gone this route: He has compared, in a general way, the civilizations of Mexico and Mesoamerica with the civilizations of the western part of the Old World, and he has made a study of how diffusion happens, really very good diffusion studies. He's tried to build a reasonable picture that these two civilizations weren't all that different from each other. Well, this is true of all civilizations, actually; there's nothing new under the sun.

So he has built up what he hopes is a convincing background in which you can put Book of Mormon archaeology, and he's a very serious, bright guy. But I'm sorry to say that I don't really buy more than a part of this. I don't really think you can argue, no matter how bright you are, that what's said in the Book of Mormon applies to the peoples that we study in Mexico and Central America. That's one way of doing it -- to build up a kind of convincing background, a kind of stage set to this -- but there's no actors. That's the problem. ...

...

In the case of the Book of Mormon, you've got a much bigger problem. You really do. We have another part of the world where the archaeology is really very well known now; we know a lot about people like the Maya and their predecessors. So to try to find unlikely evidence in an unlikely spot, you've got a problem. And of course none of the finds that biblical archaeologists are rightly proud about, no finds on that level have ever come up for Mormon archaeologists, which makes it a big problem.

How do they cope with this? I'll be the first to admit I don't know; I really don't. I don't really know how my friends that are Mormon archaeologists cope with this non-evidence, the fact that the evidence really hasn't shown up -- how they make the jump from the data to faith or from faith back to the data, because the data and the faith are two different worlds. There's simply no way to bring them together. ...

(http://www.pbs.org/Mormons/interviews/coe.html)

Brackite wrote:Hasn't Tobin ever heard of Dr. Michael Coe?

Engaging in bad science should not be excused, no matter who is doing it. I'm shocked by the lack of principles on display by the critics on this forum. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Tobin wrote:Scientists concern themselves with determining how old the Earth really is. They are not concerned with what certain religious people believe about how old the Earth is.

Tobin wrote:The sign of true intellect dryfly is indicated by showing the capacity to understand and then engage the points the other side is actually making. So do you believe it is appropriate for scientists to seek to prove and disprove religious issues in their professional pursuits? Or if these scientists are merely voicing their opinion (and not in a professional role), do you think it is appropriate that they be censured by their peers for doing so as Simon is attempting to do to Crandall?

Now, I understand there are people in this forum that are so biased and unthinking that they are simply unable or unwilling to grasp these issues. I hope you'll surprise me and try to engage them.

Where specifically has Simon Southerton sought to prove or disprove issues of religion within his profession? All I've read is his blog post. Has a professional paper regarding the subject been published in a professional journal, or is he merely using his experience in genetics and offering an opinion? Someone showing the intellectual capacity of discernment would understand the difference.

dryfly wrote:

Tobin wrote:Scientists concern themselves with determining how old the Earth really is. They are not concerned with what certain religious people believe about how old the Earth is.

Tobin wrote:The sign of true intellect dryfly is indicated by showing the capacity to understand and then engage the points the other side is actually making. So do you believe it is appropriate for scientists to seek to prove and disprove religious issues in their professional pursuits? Or if these scientists are merely voicing their opinion (and not in a professional role), do you think it is appropriate that they be censured by their peers for doing so as Simon is attempting to do to Crandall?

Now, I understand there are people in this forum that are so biased and unthinking that they are simply unable or unwilling to grasp these issues. I hope you'll surprise me and try to engage them.

Where specifically has Simon Southerton sought to prove or disprove issues of religion within his profession? All I've read is his blog post. Has a professional paper regarding the subject been published in a professional journal, or is he merely using his experience in genetics and offering an opinion? Someone showing the intellectual capacity of discernment would understand the difference.

As I've said before, Simon seems to be using his professional credentials to legitimize his attacks on Mormonism (a religion). For example, he is not above using studies not aimed at proving or disproving Mormon claims, but instead chooses misrepresent what those studies are meant to show and does so in seemingly his professional capacity as a scientist. Now, if he is simply offering his opinion, it seems rather disingenuous that he feels other scientists such as Crandall can't also offer their opinions and advocates they be censured for it.

Tobin wrote:As I've said before, Simon seems to be using his professional credentials to legitimize his attacks on Mormonism (a religion).

No, he is using his specialized knowledge about certain issues to show certain claims, religious or not, are incorrect. This is what people should be doing if they know or believe certain claims are not correct. His advantage over you is he knows the subject, and backs up what he thinks is accurate. This is why no one takes you seriously.

For example, he is not above using studies not aimed at proving or disproving Mormon claims, but instead chooses misrepresent what those studies are meant to show and does so in seemingly his professional capacity as a scientist.

Scientific knowledge has no boundaries, so if they are relevant to religious claims then people should not be quiet about them, even if some like Tobin don't like it. Your claim of misrepresenting is just your continued dumb assertions you never back up. It's not possible for you to back them up because you are one of the most lacking posters when it comes to knowledge about these issues. ldsfaqs is possibly the only person who posts here that may know less then you.

Now, if he is simply offering his opinion, it seems rather disingenuous that he feels other scientists such as Crandall can't also offer their opinions and advocates they be censured for it.

CFR. I have never seen Simon suggest Crandell cannot offer his opinions. He only says, and shows why, that he thinks he is incorrectly advocating certain positions the science does not support. Since he has communicated this to him, he can at any time show how he thinks is is correct.

You on the other hand just attack him without even a hint you know anything about the subject. This is why your participation is at the level of trolling, and Simon knows enough not to engage this kind of biased ignorance.