ScienceWhopper:Natural History According to Jeffrey Holland

[_Sethbag]

Again as Chap pointed out, some of the most important theories we have today, those that we recognize as fundamentals of nature, including electromagnetics, relativity (and I dare say evolution) were developed in the 19th (or early 20th) century and are at least 100 years old.

By contrast, 19th century LDS Church prophets, claiming inspiration from God, assured humankind that the sun received its light from Kolob and that both the moon and the sun were inhabited.

Talk about overturn.

The talk that Jeffrey Holland gave that has proven to be (and, really, already was) utterly wrong was given only 35 years ago.

In a similar vein to Tarski's "Kuhn therefore Nephi" tactic, we see in this thread something we might call "Science's convergence toward truth implies changes to theories, therefore Creationism". Surely someone's already thought up a better name than that for it.

Oh yeah, and Frank, will you state for the record that you acknowledge that your "Erosion disproves Geology" claim was overhyped and undersupported? Let me remind you of this statement in one of your earlier posts:

If indeed my erosion post is as wrong as you imply then it should be a no brainer to point out exactly where the error is.

I hate to sound like a broken record here, but you have this habit of trying to deflect the conversation away from you when you realize you're losing the argument, and I won't let that happen here.

So, again, will you please acknowledge that your "Erosion disproves geology" claim is dead in the water because it assumes a static landscape subject only to erosion, when in fact other processes are also at work, some of which build up the landmasses?

[_Phillip]

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.

It looks like I'm approaching all of this from a different direction then you are Frank. Like many other posters on this board, I was born into a Mormon family, served a mission, went to BYU, married in the temple, etc. Eventually I came to the conclusion that the LDS church was not what it claimed to be and so, a great personal cost, I left the church. Unlike some posters on this board, I have retained a belief in God and in Christianity in particular. From my perspective I don't view the LDS church as having gone apostate, but rather that it was not divinely inspired from the get go. I now reject the idea of a 'Great Apostasy' in early Christianity. So for me it was not a question whether to stay and try to fix the LDS church. It became more a question of seeking out the historic Christian faith.

Sorry for going off topic on your thread, DrW.

[_SteelHead]

From wikipedia (the lesser deity of knowledge, less powerful and omnipresent than the major deity of all knowledge... google)

Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science, has both similarities and differences with the empirical sciences (the natural and social sciences). It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods. The formal sciences, which also include statistics and logic, are vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws, both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

Consider the discovery of calculus and the proofs of various lemmas, I think they "exist" and then are discovered. But I could be wrong.

But still a science ;)

[_Phillip]

From wikipedia (the lesser deity of knowledge, less powerful and omnipresent than the major deity of all knowledge... google)

Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science, has both similarities and differences with the empirical sciences (the natural and social sciences). It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods. The formal sciences, which also include statistics and logic, are vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws, both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

I'm ok with that definition, since it makes the distinction between the empirical sciences and mathematics. When I hear the word 'science' I usually have the empirical variety in mind.

[_Gadianton]

It is true that most of acquired knowledge in science over the last 100 years has been added to or modified slightly. But let us look at potential massive changes. If we consider multi-universes with each having it own set of laws then this universe would seem a subset of a larger reality. This idea came from science. Or if humans develop the ability to change matter at will by as yet unknown forces. Let us call it supernatural for lack of of a better word. That would cause a rethink of the source of forces in reality. And the list goes on and on. I find it odd and telling that you did not come up with these. I have found that those who are buried in science have a great deal of trust in science. That trust has been pushed on the general public. I will tell you that if the world ever really falls hard the masses will hang scientist from trees. History does have a way of repeating itself. And sometimes on larger scales.

Hi Frank. It seems to me you have a substantial trust in science if it's somewhere between speculative and fringe, what happened to your distrust of anything that couldn't be subjected to a lab?

[_Phillip]

Consider the discovery of calculus and the proofs of various lemmas, I think they "exist" and then are discovered. But I could be wrong.

It can be viewed as either discovery or invention (or both?) depending on one's philosophical leanings. I am comfortable with the discovery view, but some people are not.

[_Some Schmo]

"As a result of their research, Dr. Rudge and his colleagues believe that Earth is approximately 4.467 billion years old. Previously, scientists believed the planet was 4.537 billion years old."

The Bible is true after all!

Buffalo made the claim. He's wrong. His error has no relationship to the Bible.

LOL... well lookie here... a quibble over precision. Who'd have guessed?

What an idiot.

[_Franktalk]

For those who think science is just getting more refined all of the time.

We used to think that all things in nature were continuous or had absolute precision. This led to determinism. Then one day quantum mechanics shows that probability exist at some level of reality.

The vacuum of space has nothing in it. Then came Casimir Pulaski.

We used to think that at absolute zero things would not jump around. But it turns out we have a ZPE which refuses to stop jumping around.

We used to think that the Earth is the center of the universe. Then came, well you know.

We used to think that we could observe all parts of nature. Then came dark energy and dark mass.

Now you guys can all believe these are refining but I see them as reversals. The real issue is why did science make the leap saying they understood something when they really did not. Is science doing the same today?

[_Hoops]

I don't believe you have read the original Nature paper, which I am in fact looking at now, as I type. If you had, you could not have said 'it disagrees with Buffalo's statement' because it doesn't.

Okay. I read the article on the website, and the news articles when they had come out. And I read the paper to get a feel for the conclusions he/they made.

But prove me wrong: tell me the two values of the quantity in Myr given in the final sentence of the paper. If you can do that, I shall pay you the compliment of simply assuming you don't read scientific prose too well. If not, I am afraid you will look as if you are telling porkies.

Lol.

[_sock puppet]

DrW,

It is true that most of acquired knowledge in science over the last 100 years has been added to or modified slightly. But let us look at potential massive changes. If we consider multi-universes with each having it own set of laws then this universe would seem a subset of a larger reality. This idea came from science. Or if humans develop the ability to change matter at will by as yet unknown forces. Let us call it supernatural for lack of of a better word. That would cause a rethink of the source of forces in reality. And the list goes on and on. I find it odd and telling that you did not come up with these. I have found that those who are buried in science have a great deal of trust in science. That trust has been pushed on the general public. I will tell you that if the world ever really falls hard the masses will hang scientist from trees. History does have a way of repeating itself. And sometimes on larger scales.

And if monkeys fly out of Madonna's butt... . What if's are good for developing hypotheses to explore scientifically, but they do not necessarily pan out and they do not until backed by significant data and analysis constitute scientific knowledge.