ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_DrW]

It occurs to me that Franktalk looks to be the beneficiary of a great deal of expert, freely given, (and much needed) tutelage here.

What do you want to bet he doesn't even thank those who provided it?

[_Franktalk]

No names but you purposely misspell my name. Then you call an Apostle a fool and a liar. What you should have said that in your opinion he was wrong. But you did not do that.

I'm sure DrW does not consider him to be an Apostle [someone sent by God] or someone who commands our respect. You have to understand that many of us on this board do not believe in the LDS faith and feel that we have been lied to and misled by an organization that claims to be all about the truth. You shouldn't be surprised that those who have left the LDS church often have little respect for that institution or its leaders. As your own prophets have said: there is no middle ground.

A very reasonable post. As in any organization of men it will have problems. Now has the Church gone apostate? I don't know I am a recent member and I don't know much about it. You probably know more than I do. If I do find that it is apostate I will try and fix it. Walking away is an option if there is something better. I would like your opinion on that question.

If indeed DrW thinks Holland should not be a Church leader then make that argument but don't use sea floors to do it. In my opinion the Church is run by the members. If the members sit back and let the leaders fall away then shame on the members. But I won't have a feel for any of this for some time. Like I said I am new. I do know the Bible and have read the Book of Mormon but not in depth. I am doing that now. The doctrines are not odd to me at all.

[_sock puppet]

Sock Puppet,

In my view of reality the physical universe is a part of a much larger reality. Going back in time science was a study of God's creation but recently it has turned into a Godless analysis of the universe. And as defined it does just fine. But many in science treat science as unbounded. I think billions of people on the planet have faith in something that science says does not exist. Obviously the idea or the reality of a spiritual existence has merit for many. But for science to claim that it supplies answers for everything of any importance is wrong. Actually science does not do this but men of science do. Now in my mind I have opened up the investigation of reality to include a spirit world. Something like science 2.0, science with larger boundaries. So within the physical world I accept the scientific method and enjoy new discoveries and experiments. But on theories and projections I balance the wisdom of man with knowledge of the spirit world. I know that what I experience of the spirit world is personal and not testable but for me it is real and solid just like the scientific method. So I have not abandoned science I have expanded it.

As for scripture one either sees value or one does not. I happen to see value. But I have no argument that will lead someone to my view.

How old do you believe the world to be, FrankTalk?

[_Franktalk]

So, once someone like Franktalk addresses the literally thousands or tens of thousands of articles published in these journals, then I will start to listen to him. It seems like he has a lot of work cut out for him.

Many times in history the entire weight of science has been overturned. It will happen again and again. It will not happen by me. That is not my calling. But your implied message is that all these groups know all about nature. If that is true then they should write a book and disband the organizations. Or is it true that new relationships and new data comes in continuously? Is it true that any new data has the potential of overturning existing theories? If that is true and it is seen in any cursory view of the history of science then the weight you speak of is fleeting at best. I am sure you know of many people who developed new ideas or theories that at first were rejected by the weight of science, only to be supported later. You see the organization of science is of men and it suffers the same problems that all men have. Pride being a big one.

I am sure that you feel that you know many things but I will point out that 100 or 200 years ago men thought the same thing. Compared to those men you probably think you are closer to the truth of how things work. But let me point out that in 100 or 200 years from now people will look back at your work and mock your understanding. If you don't see this then you are blind. You are on a thread of understanding and soon will be washed away by future generations. I accept this fate do you?

[_Hoops]

So.

How old do you believe the world to be, FrankTalk?

You don't know. Neither does FrankTalk. I'm not sure how this puts you in any better position.

[_Buffalo]

You don't know. Neither does FrankTalk. I'm not sure how this puts you in any better position.

The age of the earth is known, Hoops. Hate to burst your bubble.

[_Hoops]

You don't know. Neither does FrankTalk. I'm not sure how this puts you in any better position.

The age of the earth is known, Hoops. Hate to burst your bubble.

Do tell.

[_jon]

I don't know I am a recent member and I don't know much about it.

Ta da!

You've joined a religious organisation that requires 10% of all that you earn without knowing much about it.

That's faith at work that is.

[_Buffalo]

The age of the earth is known, Hoops. Hate to burst your bubble.

Do tell.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=age+of+the+earth

[_Chap]

So, once someone like Franktalk addresses the literally thousands or tens of thousands of articles published in these journals, then I will start to listen to him. It seems like he has a lot of work cut out for him.

Many times in history the entire weight of science has been overturned. It will happen again and again. It will not happen by me. That is not my calling. But your implied message is that all these groups know all about nature. If that is true then they should write a book and disband the organizations. Or is it true that new relationships and new data comes in continuously? Is it true that any new data has the potential of overturning existing theories? If that is true and it is seen in any cursory view of the history of science then the weight you speak of is fleeting at best. I am sure you know of many people who developed new ideas or theories that at first were rejected by the weight of science, only to be supported later. You see the organization of science is of men and it suffers the same problems that all men have. Pride being a big one.

I am sure that you feel that you know many things but I will point out that 100 or 200 years ago men thought the same thing. Compared to those men you probably think you are closer to the truth of how things work. But let me point out that in 100 or 200 years from now people will look back at your work and mock your understanding. If you don't see this then you are blind. You are on a thread of understanding and soon will be washed away by future generations. I accept this fate do you?

This view of science as being liable to a total 'overturn' at any moment is odd, and does not really represent that way things have gone on over the last '100 or 200 years'.

Large parts of the science we still use are really very old - such as the system of dynamics established in its essentials by Isaac Newton in 1687. Although we have learned that Newton's system does not represent accurately what happens at high speeds or when very large masses are involved, it is still reliable for all everyday purposes. Maxwell's electromagnetic equations were published in 1861-2, and still do for electric and magnetic fields what Newton did for the motion of masses. In five years' time, general relativity will be 100 years old, and it is still one of the most powerful physical theories we have. Like Newton's dynamics, it may eventually be shown to have its limitations, but that time is not yet, and any competing theory will be in part judged by whether it tells us why general relativity seems to be true in all the tests it has survived so far. We have known about atomic nuclei since Rutherford's paper in 1911. And so on. The science that Franktalk speaks of as entirely provisional and likely to be 'washed away by future generations' isn't the science known to people who actually understand and practice it.