Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

Establishing answers to the unknown is amusing?   OK.   I don't find it funny.  I do find it intellectually stimulating.   I find scientific research and study of the divine go hand in hand.  The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.   Scientific research is looking for light and truth as well.  I fully believe God expects us to search and discover how the Universe works.  To me it is divine. 

So what happens when science and the scriptures don't agree?  You pray for additional understanding.  And sometimes it comes right away and sometimes it takes a long time.  I have not got the understanding about the flood.  Science and the scriptures don't meet.  What is the truth about the flood?  I don't know, but I certainly haven't had confirmation that the bible account is true, but I haven't had confirmation that some kind of flood didn't occur either.  And maybe it isn't important to my salvation to know the answer.

I think it important to modify it to say- "what happens when the philosophies of man and scripture don't agree?" Science itself is a means of study in search of truth. But, it's highly subjective in the interpretation of evidence. It's that subjective part that I find so amusing.

[Lost Boy]

19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think it important to modify it to say- "what happens when the philosophies of man and scripture don't agree?" Science itself is a means of study in search of truth. But, it's highly subjective in the interpretation of evidence. It's that subjective part that I find so amusing.

OK.  I don't find it highly subjective at all.  Certainly there are numerous theories about things that we are just discovering.  But many things have a long history of high repeatability.  Basically everything you use throughout the day... cars, lights, electricity, computer, A/C, etc all come from scientific discovery.  Discovery that was a process.  Discovery that wasn't fully understood at the time.  Nevertheless they scientists pursued the understanding.  I am sure some were somewhat wrong at first and had to re-evaluate.  So what?

These are not "philosophies of men"  They are theories which have required validation.  Some are highly validated, some are not.  Some need further understanding.   I don't see anything wrong with that.  

[Guest MormonGator]

On 6/2/2018 at 12:01 PM, Lost Boy said:

I suspect no one has changed their mind,

Has anyone ever had their mind changed via an argument/discussion/debate over the internet? 

[Lost Boy]

25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Has anyone ever had their mind changed via an argument/discussion/debate over the internet? 

I have.  But certainly not on this topic.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I have.  But certainly not on this topic.

Oh. I've never seen it before, but I guess I've seen it now .

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

OK.  I don't find it highly subjective at all.  Certainly there are numerous theories about things that we are just discovering.  But many things have a long history of high repeatability.  Basically everything you use throughout the day... cars, lights, electricity, computer, A/C, etc all come from scientific discovery.  Discovery that was a process.  Discovery that wasn't fully understood at the time.  Nevertheless they scientists pursued the understanding.  I am sure some were somewhat wrong at first and had to re-evaluate.  So what?

These are not "philosophies of men"  They are theories which have required validation.  Some are highly validated, some are not.  Some need further understanding.   I don't see anything wrong with that.  

Discovery comes about through a myriad of processes. Scientific discovery is often the result of honest scientific inquiry. But, often times, discovery isn't really found upon the premise scientists hope for but they stick with their story anyway. This is where philosophies of men get thrown in. Pretty much turns into a fairytale. That's the part I'm talking about. Cavemen are just one of those fairy tales that I am both amused and embarrassed by. Amused in that they really have no solid evidence, and embarrassed in that my fellow man could actually dream up such a fairytale and call it science.

[NeuroTypical]

What's wrong with the notion that some groups of people lived in caves?  How is that somehow antithetical to revealed biblical history?

I've spelunked.  Caves are cool.  

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

What's wrong with the notion that some groups of people lived in caves?  How is that somehow antithetical to revealed biblical history?

I've spelunked.  Caves are cool.  

I'm sure lots of folks lived in caves over the years and many still do. The notion of a lower form of man that lived in caves and evolved into who we are is preposterous. There's no evidence. You can't find drawings in caves where ape-like bones are found and build an entire fake history and call it fact.

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Has anyone ever had their mind changed via an argument/discussion/debate over the internet? 

Yes. If a person is able to produce something that truly causes a prick of the heart, then yes.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Yes. If a person is able to produce something that truly causes a prick of the heart, then yes.

I'm sorry, I don't believe it.

I highly doubt someone who is pro life (picking an issue out of the sky here) debates on the internet than suddenly says, "You know, those pro choicers are right. I'm switching sides." Same with gun rights. "I used to be radically anti gun, but gosh, Billy here convinced me otherwise. I'm getting an AK-47."  

Edited June 13, 2018 by MormonGator

[Lost Boy]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Discovery comes about through a myriad of processes. Scientific discovery is often the result of honest scientific inquiry. But, often times, discovery isn't really found upon the premise scientists hope for but they stick with their story anyway. This is where philosophies of men get thrown in. Pretty much turns into a fairytale. That's the part I'm talking about. Cavemen are just one of those fairy tales that I am both amused and embarrassed by. Amused in that they really have no solid evidence, and embarrassed in that my fellow man could actually dream up such a fairytale and call it science.

I am confused here.  There is plenty of evidence that shows man to be at least 100,000 years old.  How do you explain the evidence?  Is science just not being honest here?  What is their motivation for being dishonest?

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Oh. I've never seen it before, but I guess I've seen it now .

 

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I highly doubt someone who is pro life (picking an issue out of the sky here) debates on the internet than suddenly says, "You know, those pro choicers are right. I'm switching sides." Same with gun rights. "I used to be radically anti gun, but gosh, Billy here convinced me otherwise. I'm getting an AK-47."  

I'm confused

I don't believe it happens while on the board, it will occur when a person has been pricked, and they begin to think outside of the forum conversation about what was said and a change may or may not occur.

This happened with me regarding all dogs evolving from the wolf. At first, it didn't make sense, and argued against it. With more conversation, with more thought, I am open to the possibility. It is probably though due to my love for dogs like have similar features to the wolf though.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

 

I'm confused

I don't believe it happens while on the board, it will occur when a person has been pricked, and they begin to think outside of the forum conversation about what was said and a change may or may not occur.

This happened with me regarding all dogs evolving from the wolf. At first, it didn't make sense, and argued against it. With more conversation, with more thought, I am open to the possibility. It is probably though due to my love for dogs like have similar features to the wolf though.

I was kidding when I said "I've seen it now." 

So no, I don't believe it. Changing your views comes from within, even if we aren't aware of it. Could someone say something that might make you think twice? Sure. Could it lead to complete swing to whatever side you are on? Doubtful. 

These are people who have been thinking of issues for years, sometimes decades. They aren't going to say " @MormonGator or @Anddenex explained it to me, and now I get it. Thanks guys, wow was I wrong."  It doesn't work that way, matter how big the ego of @MormonGator and @Anddenex are, or how much we think our persuasive skills are superior, or how right we both are on every single issue. After all, if we were that wonderful, why aren't we arguing cases in front of the supreme court and getting everyone to agree with us? 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by MormonGator

[Lost Boy]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I was kidding when I said "I've seen it now." 

So no, I don't believe it. Changing your views comes from within, even if we aren't aware of it. Could someone say something that might make you think twice? Sure. Could it lead to complete swing to whatever side you are on? Doubtful. 

These are people who have been thinking of issues for years, sometimes decades. They aren't going to say " @MormonGator or @Anddenex explained it to me, and now I get it. Thanks guys, wow was I wrong."  It doesn't work that way, matter how big the ego of @MormonGator and @Anddenex are, or how much we think our persuasive skills are superior, or how right we both are on every single issue. After all, if we were that wonderful, why aren't we arguing cases in front of the supreme court and getting everyone to agree with us? 

 

I changed my mind regarding health care.  I was opposed to universal health care..  The good republican stance.

After what I considered to be good arguments, I opened up to a universal health care system.  That said, I wasn't totally convinced of the implementation that was being discussed, but I could certainly be open to a universal system that was implemented well.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I changed my mind regarding health care.  I was opposed to universal health care..  The good republican stance.

After what I considered to be good arguments, I opened up to a universal health care system.  That said, I wasn't totally convinced of the implementation that was being discussed, but I could certainly be open to a universal system that was implemented well.

Look, it's clear that I'm skeptical that after reading a few online posts someone can come to great revelation and forgo their past views. I don't believe it, sorry. If it was that easy,  it would have happened to many more people. Life isn't like that. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by MormonGator

[Lost Boy]

5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Look, it's clear that I'm skeptical that after reading a few online posts someone can come to great revelation and forgo their past views. I don't believe it, sorry. If it was that easy,  it would have happened to many more people. Life isn't like that. 

Yeah, this was not an opinion that changed over a couple of posts.  This was over the course of several weeks.  And me mulling it over quite a bit.

It isn't often that opinions change due to a forum, but it does happen..  And maybe the change isn't completely due to a forum, but perhaps the catalyst was there.

[lostinwater]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm sorry, I don't believe it.

I highly doubt someone who is pro life (picking an issue out of the sky here) debates on the internet than suddenly says, "You know, those pro choicers are right. I'm switching sides." Same with gun rights. "I used to be radically anti gun, but gosh, Billy here convinced me otherwise. I'm getting an AK-47."  

Agree.

People change their minds only in safe environments. 

Most internet debates are not safe places.  More like people walking around looking for a stray thread of thought that they can wrap around the neck of your world view.  It's next to impossible to begin to unravel the thoughts that create a perception while maintaining any sort of stability.

It certainly gets the juices of righteous indignation circulating (a very stimulating experience), which is fine for what it is - but as far as potentially bringing someone about,  from what i've seen, it's extraordinarily ineffective.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Agree.

People change their minds only in safe environments. 

Most internet debates are not safe places.  More like people walking around looking for a stray thread of thought that they can wrap around the neck of your world view.  It's next to impossible to begin to unravel the thoughts that create a perception while maintaining any sort of stability.

It certainly gets the juices of righteous indignation circulating (a very stimulating experience), which is fine for what it is - but as far as potentially bringing someone about,  from what i've seen, it's extraordinarily ineffective.

Thanks @lostinwater. 

For the record, I do think people change their minds. Goodness knows that I have on many issues. But it's more due to my own curiosity and me reading anything I can get my hands on. It's not because someone I know convinced me. 

[lostinwater]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Thanks @lostinwater. 

For the record, I do think people change their minds. Goodness knows that I have on many issues. But it's more due to my own curiosity and me reading anything I can get my hands on. It's not because someone I know convinced me. 

Yeah, same here.  i've had people i know convince me, but very rarely with words - and never with 2-way dialogue.  It's always interesting to see just how much utility another person's viewpoint has in their own life.  It's like, "oh, that's why you had to believe that.  because you would have been driven to madness with the pain and confusing inconsistency of trying to justify what i believe as truth given your circumstances".  

Sadly, that doesn't tend to stop me from making snap judgments and inferring malicious intent or willful disobedience most of the time .  

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Yeah, same here.  i've had people i know convince me, but very rarely with words - and never with 2-way dialogue.  It's always interesting to see just how much utility another person's viewpoint has in their own life.  It's like, "oh, that's why you had to believe that.  because you would have been driven to madness with the pain and confusing inconsistency of trying to justify what i believe as truth given your circumstances".  

Sadly, that doesn't tend to stop me from making snap judgments and inferring malicious intent or willful disobedience most of the time .  

I hear that. I'm very, very blessed. One of my best friends is very left wing (I playfully call him a communist) as is my brother. My other close friend is as far to the right as you can get-dude makes Ayn Rand look like a liberal-and I'm in the middle of all of them. I can see why they think the way that they do, even if I don't agree with them on certain issues. None of them have changed my mind, and I've not changed theres-but we can at least see why we think the way that we do. 

[Rob Osborn]

11 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I am confused here.  There is plenty of evidence that shows man to be at least 100,000 years old.  How do you explain the evidence?  Is science just not being honest here?  What is their motivation for being dishonest?

There's really no evidence of something 100,000 years old. There are theories or ideas things may be that old but the problem is that dating things outside of a knoqn established historical marker are rather fruitless. Dating is based off of assumptions of which cannot be verified or known with any degree of validity or reliability. 

Scientists are not really honest with validating the dating portion. Dates that do not agree with assumptions are disregarded. Some things are not dated by carbon dating as they fall outside of a pre assumed date such as dinosaur fossils even though dinosaur fossils that have been carbon dated show thousands, not millions of years in age. Is it dishonest? Absolutely! When anomalies show up, as they always do, such as dinosaur soft tissue still intact they rewrite their own story to account for what they previously deemed impossible. Is this changing the goalposts? Absolutely! 

There is horrendous motivation by secularism to promote these fairytales. Pride, above all, rides their paradigm. Not only that but what's the alternative? That there really is a Creator, that there really is truth in scripture, that Jesus lives, that God created the cosmos and controls it by priesthood power, that we have a divine birthright and are not evolved animals. Secularism is the great tool of the devil. Satan destroys God by removing him from education, from the real truth. 

[BJ64]

Deuteronomy 12:8 ...every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

[Lost Boy]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There's really no evidence of something 100,000 years old. There are theories or ideas things may be that old but the problem is that dating things outside of a knoqn established historical marker are rather fruitless. Dating is based off of assumptions of which cannot be verified or known with any degree of validity or reliability. 

Scientists are not really honest with validating the dating portion. Dates that do not agree with assumptions are disregarded. Some things are not dated by carbon dating as they fall outside of a pre assumed date such as dinosaur fossils even though dinosaur fossils that have been carbon dated show thousands, not millions of years in age. Is it dishonest? Absolutely! When anomalies show up, as they always do, such as dinosaur soft tissue still intact they rewrite their own story to account for what they previously deemed impossible. Is this changing the goalposts? Absolutely! 

There is horrendous motivation by secularism to promote these fairytales. Pride, above all, rides their paradigm. Not only that but what's the alternative? That there really is a Creator, that there really is truth in scripture, that Jesus lives, that God created the cosmos and controls it by priesthood power, that we have a divine birthright and are not evolved animals. Secularism is the great tool of the devil. Satan destroys God by removing him from education, from the real truth. 

You speak of them being dishonest, yet you say there really is no evidence of something 100,000 years old.

There is no motivation to promote fairy tales at least not regarding how old the Earth is and how longs humans have been here.  I asked you what the motivation is for them and you did not mention any.

There is nothing wrong in believing in a creator and believing the Earth is 4 billion years old.  It doesn't change his greatness.  I does provide insight into what it means to be divine.  I still believe the cosmos was created by priesthood power.  I just don't believe it was poofed here in a few days or a few thousand years.

God is a God of order.  Scientific theory explains much better how God created the universe than what the bible does.  And if God created humans through an evolutionary process...  so what.  Would that make him seam any less powerful in your eyes?  If he didn't just poof Adam and Eve here??  That it does match exactly what scripture says?

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

You speak of them being dishonest, yet you say there really is no evidence of something 100,000 years old.

There is no motivation to promote fairy tales at least not regarding how old the Earth is and how longs humans have been here.  I asked you what the motivation is for them and you did not mention any.

There is nothing wrong in believing in a creator and believing the Earth is 4 billion years old.  It doesn't change his greatness.  I does provide insight into what it means to be divine.  I still believe the cosmos was created by priesthood power.  I just don't believe it was poofed here in a few days or a few thousand years.

God is a God of order.  Scientific theory explains much better how God created the universe than what the bible does.  And if God created humans through an evolutionary process...  so what.  Would that make him seam any less powerful in your eyes?  If he didn't just poof Adam and Eve here??  That it does match exactly what scripture says?

The false dichotomy of thought is a problem.

1) Either it was through many years (million, billions, like the arm of flesh says), or evolution

2) Or "Poof" it was hear.

God doesn't need to create Adam and Eve through a "poof" -- magical puff -- in an instant. It doesn't need to take millions or billions of years. The Bible doesn't talk about a "poof" of creation. This is the Atheist argument -- poof, which isn't the Biblical nor the Pearl of Great Price story. We know from other sources matter was organized, how quickly God is able to command the elements, now there is the question. If God is able to make a mountain into a valley -- at his command -- and it would be done. If God is able to have a prophet tell a mountain to remove, and it is done. It is not a "poof" theory. 

[Lost Boy]

12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The false dichotomy of thought is a problem.

1) Either it was through many years (million, billions, like the arm of flesh says), or evolution

2) Or "Poof" it was hear.

God doesn't need to create Adam and Eve through a "poof" -- magical puff -- in an instant. It doesn't need to take millions or billions of years. The Bible doesn't talk about a "poof" of creation. This is the Atheist argument -- poof, which isn't the Biblical nor the Pearl of Great Price story. We know from other sources matter was organized, how quickly God is able to command the elements, now there is the question. If God is able to make a mountain into a valley -- at his command -- and it would be done. If God is able to have a prophet tell a mountain to remove, and it is done. It is not a "poof" theory. 

I don't think your answer is helping me here.  When I say "poof"  I am talking about a very short period of time.

And removing a mountain is very different from making a living breathing person.  Men remove mountains all the time and they build mountains as well.  But they have yet to build a living organism like a human other than through sperm and egg fertilization.