bmy-

It's not apples and oranges at all.. it's a testimony of a mythical creature from people who we have no reason to doubt. Does that validate the theory? They saw something, so why do we doubt them and not the witnesses? When everything else is equal.. perhaps it's because the witnesses testimony agrees with our own. Do not get me wrong.. I am not doubting what they said they saw.. I'm just showing that I did not set up a straw-man :) The internet is a funny thing.. there's a bunch junk to sift through.. but you can find useful information if you look in the right areas. I do think history being written by the victors is not the issue any longer.. now.. it's that the victors control what is taught as history. The truth takes a back-seat to agenda as i've seen in my history books during grade school.

You can't see my posts.. but others can. This is a farce, plain and simple. First.. you posted this.. with an excerpt from the website attached below. Then you posted a quote from Howard W. Hunter implying that you believe in a literal interpretation of the flood, and the Adam/Eve story in Genesis. If you believe in both of those.. is it a far stretch to say that you also believe in the YEC Creation story? Then you posted this.. you do not mention the 'style' of Creation you admit to believing in.. but once again seem to have a literal interpretation of Genesis. That type of interpretation also points towards the belief that the world is ~6,000 years old. So to sum it up.. there's plenty of indications that you interpret Genesis literally. Since you have denied believing in the 6,000 year old earth side of Genesis.. well.. other people can probably understand why i'm confused.

Oh, it's cool. I do believe in localized flooding around that time.. as you said there are to many cultures with the same type of stories. I just do not believe in a flood that literally covered the entire world that killed everything except what was on the boat.

That would be cool but Genesis 1:12 says "For forty days and forty nights heavy rain poured down on the earth." (To be fair it does mention that water flowed forth from the 'great abyss' and that the floodgates of the sky were opened)

Which creation story? The Bible isn't very clear on which one would be the spiritual creation and which one temporal. The Temple version differs from the Biblical creation story as well.

Yes, i'm talking about terraforming a planet or even a large moon. I'm not talking about rounding up chunks of space rock even though that would be ridiculously cool.. just impractical. We've had the technology to do that for quite a while now.. it's an expensive project and a dangerous one though. The best idea i've heard is this.. 1) Send initial crew, tools, and materials to build a 'base' to Mars. 2) Let crew build said small base, take samples and do the lab work. 3) Have crew place machines around that produce greenhouse gas from naturally occurring gas to create stable atmosphere. 4) Robotic devices that were shipped with crew capable of building tools and repairing itself. 5) Said robotic devices build and spread more greenhouse-gas machines around. 6) Ship more raw materials, have robotic devices build, etc. 7) Wait until atmosphere is ready, then move in with the grass and crops.

I think that's an excellent point.. and it's why although we may be capable of some very God-like things.. we are not yet Exalted. You would agree that logic is universal though, right?

In my opinion.. yes, he is bound by the 'laws of science'. God cannot create nor destroy matter, this is why in our doctrine it says that God organizes.. which is much the same thing we do. Just a tidbit of information -- we do have the technology to 'create a world' (think Mars). We are not simply in His image.. we are essentially in the Pupae stage of Godhood. We're of the race of Gods and -not creations- but offspring. Especially when dealing with logic.. the 'laws of logic' should hold true through out this universe. That includes Occam's Razor.

Can anyone explain to me what is up with Hill Cumorah? Anthony W. Ivins (and numerous others) stated the correct location was in fact the NY Hill Cumorah.. but it's pretty obvious that's not entirely truthful. I understand that the 'geography' of the BoM isn't known but we can rule out most areas to give us a general idea.. south of the U.S

I think he was trying to say that Occam's Razor is the philosophy of men and not of God, what I think he failed to realize is that God is a man.

I fired away without thinking, learned my lesson, and decided to help him not make the same mistake I did I don't want to get banned again -- I proof read my posts now. (I really shouldn't post late at night.. I get so cranky )

Just to be blunt: I don't believe for a second that you are LDS. See how easy that was? It doesn't mean a darn thing either. Perhaps you should think before you post.

(Genesis 1:2) "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis 1:11) "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so." ( (Genesis 1:16) "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also." Not all predators hibernate.. in fact.. most do not.

Oh.. imagine that (I was holding my breath.. for a while). In that case.. Believer_1829 is intellectually dishonest..and he/she is also incapable of holding an intelligent discussion. Whew, got that off my chest

Believer, you've yet to address my points.

I can't remember his name -- it was just a reference to man who was exiled from town for teaching that the Father and Christ were one individual. I know his name started with an 'S'.

If only that was a a viable explanation. Numerous digestive issues, etc. Not to mention that an influx of water on the scale of the supposed global flood would kill marine life as well.

My question I would like to ask you is this: How did predators survive in a post-flood world? I created a post on the first page as well.

And sometimes he'll tell you to use your brain and figure it out on your own. To to look at evidence, to test that evidence, and come to logical conclusions. This web page is doomed from the very first paragraph. It's clearly evident that the creation story in Genesis is inaccurate -- and that destroys the entire article from this Young Earth Creationism website.. since this is the first thing I came to in the article.. I'll start with how a literal interpretation of Genesis does not jive with the the accepted evolutionary theory. Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition My question I would like to ask you is this: How did predators survive in a post-flood world?

I think that's just an excuse. Be intellectually honest and engage in debate.. and i'm confident you will find Snow polite enough. He will tell you when you're wrong, that's for sure.. but that shouldn't offend you.

EDIT: There ya go :)

He raises valid questions that you refuse to answer or consider. Snow is an asset to this board. Perhaps if you enter into a meaningful conversation with him and quit avoiding his points.. you would realize that -and- possibly learn something new. Please consider that sometimes.. the hardest questions to answer are the ones you should be asking. Defeat makes men invincible.

The earliest reference i've seen that mentioned teaching of the Father and Christ being one individual was very early 3rd century. A.D 200 I believe. That's not trinitarian but it's getting there.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Grow some skin. If you sincerely believed in what you posted above you would not be leaving this forum. Instead, you would be doing every bit of what you could to "save" us like a 'true' Christian should -- no?

To gain a body of flesh and blood.. to eventually become exalted. Life is eternal with or without God. It's okay for people to get raped because, well, life goes on. No, God doesn't "let" terrible things happen to people for a reason.. nor does he cause the good things that happen either. He cranked the engine and walked away as far as the overwhelming majority should be concerned. I feel it's dishonest to say that God is responsible for the good and not the bad.. so it's simpler to say he is responsible for neither. God has fed people before.. Fish and bread -- why not for these starving children? What better way to bring people to Him then by performing miracles? That's my point.. and like Snow.. most of the time i'm simply thinking out loud in a public forum. I'm glad your friend was working to help those poor children. It's an excellent thing.. and it pains me that people seem to care more about animal abuse than children starving. It drives me up the wall.