[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

I wish that I could convince you to believe in Moroni's promise the same way you view the scientific method. I have just seen it work in my own life yet again. I know you don't know the circumstances of my life..... and perhaps don't care, but I will share with you that I have been fighting against my testimony. So many doubts have been swirling and battling inside of me. I have shared with you before the long months that the Heaven's seemed closed to me. I now believe that this was all a trial of my faith. Lately, I haven't been praying like I should and relying on the arm of my flesh to solve my problems and carry my burdens. I finally humbled myself back to prayer. In two nights of reading and praying, I already feel my burdens lifting and have already felt very specific answers coming into my mind and my heart. I didn't manufacture it. I didn't make it up. Earlier in the last few weeks, I wished that I could deny it!!! Because with knowledge comes responsibility. But I can't deny it. It really happened, and is currently in these very days and moments happening to me again.....as it has my whole life. It is the pattern of discovering truth and communicating with the Almighty. The pattern always works!!!

I understand your position. I so wish you could understand mine. But understand if it can't go that way. What is that scripture in the BofM...."if I don't stumble because of my over-anxiety for you." Hope you will forgive me. :)

And it IS ok, if I am not able to convince you. I couldn't even if I wanted too. It is God who does the convincing anyway. No one but God could have convinced me of the answers I needed. No one!!

At least DS, I hope you know you have friendship here and people who care about your quest to find answers and your inability to recognize one yet.

Please try to have faith. Try to set all of this argument and logic humanness to the side. There is a whole spiritual being inside of you....who has tremendous capacity. Perhaps you know of what I speak. I hope so.

Faith is somewhat of a foreign concept to me, my beliefs require evidence to support them (spiritual or otherwise). You can say that it is a bad thing that I don't have faith, but I could just as easily be a Catholic or a Scientologist if my beliefs were so easily placed.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

A correct understanding of the Fall of Adam would seem to be in order.

We don't think OR reason correctly, due to the Fall of Adam!!! That is the problem!!!

This is why we need to depend upon God to guide us!! He is the only Being in possession of the facts and the only Being able to reveal unto us our actual reality!!

I wish I could impress upon you how desperately we need His influence in our lives!!

You say that we need God's influence and for Him to guide us, but that is not what I have observed in this world. I have done quite well for myself with no help or communication with God. Maybe that message would resonate with me if I weren't doing well in life or felt like something was missing, but it just doesn't feel like I need a higher power guiding me. I say this not out of arrogance but out of honesty. I can't change how I feel any more than you can change how you feel.

I very much appreciate your empathy and determination to help me accept the Gospel, but so far it has simply not shown itself to be true to me. I remain open to the possibility, but until then, the scientific method has already proven to be a valuable tool in determining truth.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

Being blunt at this point, you’re wrong! Sad to see this! Now, reading the last post, it was more revealing and very noticeable over a series of posting, one prides in claiming such vestige over another is revealing. I did expect this was coming eventually. Your own elf-lifting character over others is showing. For now, you are heading down the wrong path [Read Nephi – Tree of Life]. Now, I don't know or perhaps at this point, don't really care to know, what transpired in your life to limit your views with such blindness but as Tom already stated to you, you are entitled to your free agency, to choose your life pursuit, and to post your own beliefs within the forums rules.

"I will testify to you as a servant of GOD, [i would hate to break to you [using your own phrase]], there is only one plan of salvation, one gospel of Jesus Christ, one atoning Savior, one religion, one called prophet, that guides and directs the church on this earth. Standing here as one of a few witnesses, there is no other religion upon this planet but two that remains one of God and the other the Church of Abomination [see 2nd Nephi]. Noting these two great houses, the Godhead is not an author of confusion or never will be. You stand in error.

Whether men of faith or not, be inspired by the Light of Christ or maybe preordained to this earthly [actors] stage, with fields [studies] of endeavor, their calling to that position of life, all light or truths given, comes directly from this same original source. Men are and will be inspired, whether they believe so or not. God’s will be done. Eventually, upon return of the Savior, all worldly dogmas will be corrected, credit will be given to the true author of each area of endeavor.

For I am His witness and His servant and claim no more than what is given by His hand by which is confirm by the Holy Spirit. No matter the contradiction between what is given, God will correct men who draw nigh to HIM. In the name Jesus the Christ. Amen”

Now, this point forward, even though, you have the right to post your own views, when I post, MOVE ON. Neither will I again make comment to you, your post, or bide in open internet conversion. Am I clear on this issue? I hope so.

To others, not to bring any contentious brooding spirit to the thread or to this forum, where there others who are sincerely seeking the truths, I do apologize to who may read this for such a ‘spirit within’ at this time.

It is unfortunate that you are so violently close-minded to other viewpoints. I agree that we are getting no where and should move on.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

I find this reasoning flawed....and this is why. The scientific method is useless in some circumstances. Do you use the scientific method to choose what hamburger to order, or whether or not to tell the truth, or in romancing your sweetheart on Friday night or in comforting yourself after the death of a loved one????

Yes, the scientific method doesn't apply to all circumstances, including the ones you just brought up but none of those have to do with determining the truth of theories which the scientific is absolutely valid for.

I think that you have made the decision that the scientific method is the only reliable method. I think you limit yourself by doing so. I also think you underestimate you ability as a human and child of God to understand more than just science.

The scientific method has proven itself to be a reliable method for determining truth, which is why I use it. Yes we all have feelings, but what makes us intelligent beings is the fact that we are able to use reason and logic to go beyond simply acting directly on our feelings like other animals.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

DS:

From where I stand, it is not a matter of opinion.

For me, it goes back to my witness from God of the divine origins of the Book of Mormon.

Since you lack that witness right now (although I hope this changes), I am not sure you are really in a position to say it is a "purely a matter of opinion."

When you have many different people believing different things based on feelings isn't that the definition of "opinion"? That was the sense I was using "opinion" in.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

Now that was arrogant statement on your behalf, knowing the real gospel of Christ is not to be 'lumped' with the worldly religions or man-made dogmas. I do see you are completely ignorant how 'inspriation' is given to men. Whether the 'Light of Christ' is given to a member or not, it is to be used for the benefit of all. However, "I testify to you, there is NOTHING in this world that has not been done in another world." There is not a direct association of authorship as we can call it but given to those by the Light of Christ to progress man.

Now, we could debate on doctrine on this very topic [inspiration] but seeing your own pride is revealing; for me, just plain stupid at this point.

"Now when a man professes to be greater than it own creator, the creator will eventually remove the man from his high-foot stool."

And saying that if only they followed the Gospel more, they would have accomplished more is just as arrogant of a statement, glad we agree.

I hate to break it to you, but all religions are man-made and all religions claim to be divinely inspired. Saying that yours is so special that it can't be 'lumped' with others is a statement out of arrogance and ego. Whether one or more of them truly is divinely inspired is purely a matter of opinion and calling someone stupid for accepting or rejecting a particular religion is a rediculous claim.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

Yes, reread it and apologized.

Outside the church science community, without personal contact with those individuals, I would be speculating on a person character and his beliefs was used.

Sometimes I look back and think about Newton, Einstein and Tesla and imagine how much more they could have accomplished if they weren't confined to thinking within the bounds of religion. Then I laugh at myself for presuming to know what magic combination produced such genius and being so arrogant as to think that I knew how to improve upon it. :)

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

Both men believe in a supreme being. At what point you can claim they were Atheists is nonsense. Notably, take a closer look in Einstein Biography past and his view on the universe organization and grandeur. I still have the book somewhere in my house. Both men I have deep respect for...some others that I failed to mention are great men of the world.

Thanks for your participation...:)

Read over my post carefully and show me exactly where I say either of them were atheists. All I'm saying is that as far as any studies I've seen have shown, theism and devoutness to whatever God they choose to worship has little to no impact on aptitude for science. You can point out famous atheist and christian scientists all day and it doesn't mean anything other than that some people believe in God and some people don't and their belief doesn't have anything to do with their scientific endeavors.

You also made no comment on the meat of my post other than misinterpreting it, if you have contrary evidence, I'd honestly love to hear it :)

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

DS:

I consider you to be a friend, and you are certainly entitled to your beliefs! I wouldn't have it any other way.

I'll monitor this thread until it seems dead and if I have something more to contribute before then I'll chime in.

Thank you,

Tom

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

I consider you a friend as well, and while I know we don't usually agree on issues, I enjoy our discussions :)

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

I can only imagine if Einstine or Tesla were members of the church and were obedient to the gospel, how far both fields would be now.

Exactly where we are right now? As far as I know there is no correlation between theism and scientific aptitude. In fact I've heard of studies that more scientists are atheists than in the general population but I would gladly retract my statement if you could point to any evidence to the contrary.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

By the time I was done with that rant I realized I was being a bit harsh which is why I apologized at the end, but I still think that it is not a "flaw" that the scientific method does not include a step for asking what God thinks, it is a willful omission that improves method in general.

If every scientist stopped to ask what God thought and let that affect their findings, you would have a mish-mash of conflicting religious ideology supporting whatever the scientist initially thought rather than the conclusion that the results pointed to. The whole point of the scientific method is to remove all preconceptions (including God) and objectively test theories for their accuracy. Throwing God into the method practically negates the whole thing because there are millions of people who believe they are talking to God but getting conflicting messages... there is no reliable consistent way to "talk" to God and so it doesn't belong anywhere in science.

[Daughter questioning her faith]

The fact that she felt good enough to come to you with these concerns speaks volumes to your parenting skills. I don't have kids, but I know many a parent who would punish their kids just for expressing such thoughts and that drives them away faster than anything.

I wish you and your daughter the best of luck. Regardless of what she ends up believing, I respect and admire your approach.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

Sorry for saying so, but your expressed viewpoint is a good description of the problem. The only reason that religion and science come into conflict is our lack of understanding of God's ways, or our unwillingness to bend to His revealed truth (ironically in favor of a flawed scientific method).

And I am sorry for saying so, but I believe your expressed viewpoint is a better description of the problem. The scientific method is flawed? How exactly is it flawed in your expert opinion?

From Wikipedia:

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

Using this method humans have created all the modern luxuries you now enjoy and you casually dismiss it as "flawed" because some of the conclusions it produces do not fit in with your world view?

What do you propose as the new way of gaining knowledge in this world? Find your local preacher, listen to him, read his proposed scriptures and then pray about it until finally get warm fuzzy feelings telling you he is right? If praying is such an accurate method, why can't someone who has had no contact with missionaries or preachers simply pray and get consistent results?

Science is constantly looking to expand our knowledge with observations, experiments and theories always taken new information into account, regardless of preconceptions we may have. The scientific method is what led us out of the superstitious dark ages where people were declared to be witches and of the devil because they were different in some way.

I'm sorry but simply "asking God" and then following the answer you receive requires a suspension of logic given the number of people that ask God and get inconsistent answers and the number of man-made religions that have existed throughout the years.

Religion and science conflict because they require two different ways of thinking to work and there is no way to follow the scientific method to religious conclusions. Let's try really quick.

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations.

Which religion (if any) is correct?

2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.

There are a lot of smart people in the LDS religion, let's go with the theory that it is correct.

3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?

Assuming the church is true, anyone honestly seeking God will receieve the truth.

4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2.

I have attempted to personally ask God which church is true in order to find out which church is true. God has remained silent and either does not exist or refuses to answer. Furthermore many of my fellow man claim to talk to God and that he gives an entirely different message to them.

You can justify the results any way that you want and claim that God does not work that way and that I just need more faith before God will share the truth with me, but thousands of years ago people were just as sure that Zeus existed which leads me to believe that if you have enough faith in anything, you will get warm fuzzy reaffirming feelings that it does exist. While there is nothing wrong with believing those feelings, it is far from a logical endeavour.

Okay rant over. Sorry but I'm just a bit sensitive to people mocking science right now and I'm tired of all the misconceptions about the scientific method floating around this thread.

[How does science fit in with our doctrine?]

Science is the process of examining the world around us through observations and experiments. Religion is the process of answering philosophical questions through non-scientific means. By definition, religion requires a suspension of logic to accept, otherwise it would just be another branch of science.

Occasionally religious revelation and scientific knowledge come into conflict, to predend they never do is more than a little naive. In those instances you are to use your own judgement and reasoning skills (that God presumably gave you) to determine the truth for yourself. Whether the knowledge comes from scientific or religious methods, remember that both go through man and man is most certainly fallable. Examine the evidence (both spiritual and physical) and think for yourself.

[Has the Republican Party left you?]

I've followed George Washington my whole adult life in teaching that political parties, coupled with entangling foreign alliances, will destroy us.

There has never been a substantial difference between the parties. In the long run, each will lead to our destruction.

I agree that parties will be the downfal of this country. Before I moved to Utah, I lived in a town where "republican" and "conservative" were practically insults. Now that I've lived in Utah for a few years, I've learned that people here think "democrat" and "liberal" are considered insults here.

I personally don't particularly subscribe to either political ideology but I find the increasing hostility between the two groups very disturbing.

[Expelled]

In any case I was merely pointing out that believing you are being rational while disagreeing with many experts in their respective fields is a "red flag." Not to say you should blindly follow experts, but it couldn't hurt to re-evaluate the evidence once in a while. I accept the theory of evolution, not because I was told to or because many scientists do, but because of the overwhelming evidence I have seen for it, some of which I have attempted to share here.

So you would follow them even they would jump off the cliff? Sorry, that had me laughing. There are experts in the cause of religion claiming to know Christ. Do I believe them or what Deity revealing their characteristics? Do I believe the claimed Astro-physis when one receives further light and reveals something different? Do I believe those in the evolution field of studies when receiving further light on 'what was'? No. Again, you missed the mark. Our dependencies may of been with those claimed scientist, noting that academic gives one authority, but revelation comes later when Deity corrects those false notions to each individual who desires to know. If you think they have the correct answer more power to you friend.

I can't help but think you completely missed my point somehow. I am well aware that there are many people who are religious which is not a reason to become religious in itself, but does lead me to believe there is a possibility I am missing something which is why I'm here investigating right now. I don't blindly follow anyone, scientists, academics and priests included. I examine evidence and decide for myself what the most likely truth is and even then it is only provisional. If I see more evidence for another theory I will accept that as the likely truth.

[Today is Earth Day!]

Friend, monumental climate change has occurred throughout history, with no human intervention. And, it will continue to occur, with no respect to what we try to do about it.

I suppose in a sense my deep skepticism of the "Earth Day" movement / paradigm comes from examining what the vast majority of such activists propose for "solutions". Essentially, it is communism wrapped in fear driven pseudo-science. Therefore, I reject the premise.

Example of communism disguised as "environmentalism":

I live on the central coast of CA. One of the long time members of my ward (his family goes back at least 4 generations here), owns a large ranch outside of town (probably around 5,000 acres). It just so happens that this ranch has probably the highest concentration of California Salamanders in the world. This type of critter has been give endangered status. So, what did the environmentalists attempt to do? Shut down the ranch from operating? Why, well, to protect the critters from harm... NOW, think!

If his land has the highest concentration of such critters in the area or even perhaps the world, don't you think he is doing something right? Shouldn't the environmentalist applaud?

See, the global movement (and you aren't part of it, I can tell) isn't about the environment, it is about collectivism / communism. It is this same collectivism / communism in the name of the "environment" that is at this very moment causing a REAL global problem "food shortages" of monumental scale, because the largest producer of food in the world (USA) is now burning said food for fuel...It is this same communism that made farmers go under in the Klamath River range because of a fish...and on and on...

So, I'm all for individual choice. I'm all for choosing renewable materials and reusing what we have (by voluntary free market motivations). I'm all for having cleaner air in Pittsburgh from steel mills. I'm all for stopping paper mills from pumping mercury byproducts into local water supplies...etc...These are all local problems, with local solutions. Government is best that is local. Where there are problems, we, as responsible citizens must act.

There are no global environmental problems caused by the activity of man. We are merely participants in natural global cycles of climate change.

And communism disguised as "environmentalism" is not the answer to anything.

Monumental climate change has occured throughout history and there is probably little we can do about it when it happens, but you still have not given a logical argument as to how that leads to the conclusion that it is impossible for us to instigate climate change and we therefore shouldn't worry about it.

I agree with you to the extent that "environmentalism" is taken to wacky extremes in many places, but I believe you are alltogether too paranoid about "communism" and people trying to take away your rights.

[Expelled]

Actually, being a former programer and system engineer, you conclusion is incorrect in regards to your last statement. It is not AI programming for self-learning is the issue, anything that remotely uses digital type application, will not work. Try analog type programming, along with organic computing, with the ability for self-learning, as experiemented in NM lab, still limited and does require high source for additional input. No offense, think again. As to following the world for the world sake because someone claiming something that is not even remotely proven currently, just not happening. Perhaps for you. However, if I am wrong, I will be corrected. Like you, I was wrong...as I pointed out, was corrected. Food for thought.

Now I am curious, what church do you belong too?

Perhaps, if you have that strong desire to know the truth of 'what was', ask Deity for the given truth or lead you in the right direction.

No offense taken, interestingly enough I am a current programmer and system engineer and I disagree with your decision on my conclusion. Assuming something is impossible because we do not have the technology for it right now doesn't get us very far. With a learning software model and fine enough robitics, I think it is reasonable to think that someday we could have machines capable of recreating aproximations of themselves with changes and that system leading to something that looks nothing like the original model and is more adapted to its environment over millions of years.

In any case I was merely pointing out that believing you are being rational while disagreeing with many experts in their respective fields is a "red flag." Not to say you should blindly follow experts, but it couldn't hurt to re-evaluate the evidence once in a while. I accept the theory of evolution, not because I was told to or because many scientists do, but because of the overwhelming evidence I have seen for it, some of which I have attempted to share here.

To answer your question, I do not belong to a church, but I go to the LDS church with my wife from time to time. Also, I have already asked a deity and they haven't seen fit to respond yet, so I go with the evidence :)

[Expelled]

I already did and that is the response. This is where evolutionist fails. Simply put when looking at Darwin’s findings from the single cell to the latest humanoid is not going to work. Not even the environmental conditions will help to progress DNA coding to a higher state. Like a computer program, it requires a outside coder to make changes.

If I place a software app on a computer today and come back in another 20-million years, the software will not advance itself without my input. As I place a single cell living organism in some cesspool pool, it will not develop into a fish or land animal; a land animal will not develop into a humanoid. Simply put, DNA only degenerate or mutate overtime through blending of creatures and the environment places on that element.

Even, we looked at the pure DNA strand from Adam, from him to us will degenerate and muted as it is today; you pointed out. The correction comes from outside source to bring back the original pure DNA coding.

Sorry for the pushing this topic. People need to step back and think it out rationally.

I am looking at it rationally, and I think you really need to take your own advice. Claiming to have the "rational" highground while disagreeing with just about every biologist on the planet is a pretty big red flag to begin with. I have presented evidence for evolution, but instead of addressing it, you go off on a tangent about 'higher lifeforms'. I answer your question to the best of my ability and you seem to have completely ignored the answer.

First of all, modern evolutionary theories have absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's original research. Darwin merely proposed the idea and really had no idea at the time the mechanisms involved in it. Now I will try again to explain this to you in a simplified manner.

-DNA has a chance to contain mutations when it is transcribed

-Mutations that are beneificial give the organism a higher chance of reproducing

-Neutral mutation (the majority of them) do not affect chances of reproducing

-Negative mutations give the organism a lower chance of reproducing

Over time, the genes of the organism become more "complex" through this method with no outside hand guiding it.

To address your example, a computer program lacks the complexity of a living organism and the means to reproduce. As computers become more and more complicated, we could come closer to creating a true AI and give it hardware capable of creating versions of itself with modifications. Leave that alone on a planet for millions of years and it could very well be a race of sentient machines nothing like how you left them.

[Today is Earth Day!]

The problem is that these cycles have occurred throughout time, with no input from man. This is a demonstrated fact.

There is no evidence that we are accelerating this trend. There is no scientific demonstration that any human activity can impact global weather / climate. Yet we can demonstrate without question that the SUN and orbit of the Earth around it has, throughout known time, generate "climate change".

The problem with "Earth Day" is the trend towards globalizing of government to "deal with" these "problems". I've no problem with recycling that is viable in a free market. I've no problem with buying vehicles that get better mileage because that's the cost effective thing to do. The free market will resolve these regional issues. Lack of one, quite frankly, contributes to regional environmental problems.

It is interesting to me that Al Gore, et al, needed to lie in his documentary to support his paradigm of "we're going to die in seven years if we don't introduce globally inforceable governmental solutions to global warming". If the case was so rock solid, there should be plenty of facts to back it up. There isn't.

We don't need global government. What we need is freedom. Free markets. Free Enterprise. What we need in the USA is to return to limited, constitutional government. We don't need to abdicate our soveriegnty to unelected supra-national / communist groups like the UN...

"Less Government, More Individual Responsibility, and, with GOD's help, a Better World"

That is the appropriate means to prosperity for all.

Yes, these cycles have occurred eons before man existed, but that doesn't mean we can simply blame every change in the environment on them without investigating the possible interference we're creating.

So because Al Gore may have lied and exaggerated claims, global climate change is impossible? I agree with you completely that there are global warming zealots out there willing to distort facts to further their agenda and I dislike them as much as you, but that doesn't mean you have to be an anti global warming zealot.

All I'm saying is that it's possible and worth investigating rather than just doing that is best for the market regardless of possible consequences.

[Expelled]

As I stated, DNA simply cannot advance itself into a higher lifeform. To help with the term 'higher lifeform', Humans are at the top of the chain while the basic atom is the bottom.

'Higher' is an incredibly subjective term and really doesn't have much meaning in this context. Is a duck a 'higher lifeform' than a squirrel? Evolution is not a ladder to 'advancing' lifeforms, it is a mechanism for lifeforms to change based on the pressures of their environment. In the process, some branch off and take different evolutionary paths but to say that one is a 'higher' lifeform than another is a meaningless judgement call probably driven by ego.

I've already explained some of the evidence for evolution to the best of my ability. If you really want to ignore it all and ask strangely worded questions, I suggest you take it up with a biologist who would probably do better at correcting your misconceptions.

[Expelled]

I haven't any concept in proving that DNA can progess to an higher state without outside help. DS, is this correct?

Then you should probably talk to more Biologists.

[Today is Earth Day!]

Fortunately, a lot of LDS folk haven't fallen for the globalist montra that is "Earth Day"...

There certainly are regional environmental issues (mainly in nations / areas where there exists no free market)...Those should be resolved by the nations involved...

There exists no human caused, global environmental issue.

In fact, I doubt, speaking scientifically, that absent all-out nuclear war, we could, even if we wanted to, have a global climate impact.

Did you know the SUN puts out 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Watts of power per SECOND? Thankfully only a small portion of that gets to us (or we'd fry like KFC extra crispy). Did you also know that in less than a minute the SUN expels more energy than all of humankind, throughout history has used / created?

Did you know that in the US there are more trees now than there were 200 years ago, by nearly all accounts? Have any of you ever flown in the day over the USA and looked down? More trees / vegetation than we can count...

My friends, not only do we have absolutely nothing to do with global weather / climate, we can't do a darn thing about it. It is the SUN, plus the "wobble" over time of the Earth's axis / rotation / orbit around the SUN, which causes cyclical patterns of change.

We are in one right now. And there is nothing to be done about it.

Earth Day is a means to use fear to enslave people into globalist, socialist / communistic anti-private property systems, ruled by the elite few who are "informed" (AKA Al Gore Zombies)...

Fortunately we have scripture that tells us how absurd the "earth day" paradigm is.

"17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves." Doctrine and Covenants 104:17

If you're right, there is nothing to worry about. If you're wrong, we're contributing to our own extinction. Forgive me if I don't simply take your "expert" opinion that it is not possible for humans to have a global impact on climate rather than the scientists who have reason to believe that it is possible. Yes, there is dispute in the scientific community over global climate change and the reasons behind it, but for now what is so wrong with erring on the side of caution?

And one more thing, even assuming the Earth is a gift from God made specially for us, why are you so opposed to treating that gift with some respect? From my point of view, that is what Earth Day is about, respecting the planet that supports our existance.

[Today is Earth Day!]

Leaving global warming out of the equation...... am I to conclude by this thread that most LDS don't really care much about the environment?

That is the unfortunate impression I got as well.

[who is right the lds or the Flds??]

I don't think there is an objective answer to that question. People who are LDS will say they are right and people who are FLDS will say they are right. As with all religious choices it is a personal decision.