The LDS members and the Kingdom of God

[_Franktalk]

You're definitely not consistent. The only thing you are consistent is dismissing any scientific knowledge that disagrees with your religious beliefs.

Since scientific knowledge changes over time then I have picked a more solid foundation. Many can not see this truth. They are instead blinded by the world. They seek to understand things which can not be known by examining parts of the creation. Many in science seek to understand nature which I think is a great quest. But many go way beyond and speculate about things in which huge assumptions are made to make leaps of faith guesses about the past and far removed processes. I will not make those leaps of faith which show the universe making itself or life making itself. If you wish to make nature your god of creation then do so. But to do so you take away the purpose for life. It becomes an accident with no direction and no goal.

[_Themis]

Since scientific knowledge changes over time then I have picked a more solid foundation. Many can not see this truth. They are instead blinded by the world.

You are blinded by your beliefs. Science does not change as mush as you think, and it tends to change with new information. Something you are not willing to do. I am not sure how you think consistently sticking with a certain belief makes it true. Can the same be said for those who have beliefs about Wicca?

They seek to understand things which can not be known by examining parts of the creation.

Which parts are those?

Many in science seek to understand nature which I think is a great quest. But many go way beyond and speculate about things in which huge assumptions are made to make leaps of faith guesses about the past and far removed processes.

It's called research. The attempt to learn about the universe. Try it sometime.

I will not make those leaps of faith which show the universe making itself or life making itself.

Yet you make bigger leaps of faith with things that are shown to be wrong. Scientists are not really looking into the question of God, but looking inot how the universe came into existence, or shall we say the mechanisms. Maybe if you could understand this you might not have so much hatred for science.

If you wish to make nature your god of creation then do so.

As long as they include fertility Gods it's sounds much better then your Gods.

But to do so you take away the purpose for life.

You create your own purpose.

It becomes an accident with no direction and no goal.

If you want to belief whatever you like, go ahead. It won't change anything about whether it was a random act or some first cause which is a logical fallacy. I don't mind scientists trying to answer any question. It's not going to change my life either way.

[_Franktalk]

You are blinded by your beliefs. Science does not change as mush as you think, and it tends to change with new information.

You are the poster boy for all that I speak of. Your words are programmed by a very powerful force on the earth. It is very tempting to join with that force and wrap yourself with its delights. I will tell you that as I move away from that world it is only now becoming clear what I have left. I too once could not see another reality except the creation. I could not see beyond my physical eyes. Even now it is so hard to maintain a connection with anything outside the physical senses.

This world is like an anchor, the weight is hung around our neck and pulls us down. What you must come to realize is the mind is a tool and not the driver. The soul can drive and can extend its reach. It is very limited but the glimpse into the greater reality can be a life changing event. But those waters are also filled with powers of darkness which some choose to embrace. Yet another distraction that many fall prey to.

[_Themis]

You are the poster boy for all that I speak of. Your words are programmed by a very powerful force on the earth.

Well show how dating methods have changed so much. I bring up dating methods since they are the ones you will have to completely dismiss to protect false beliefs about the age of the earth and global flood.

I too once could not see another reality except the creation.

You still can't, even if some of your beliefs are obviously wrong.

I could not see beyond my physical eyes. Even now it is so hard to maintain a connection with anything outside the physical senses.

You have no idea what yor physical sense or body are capable of producing. You always ignore this.

This world is like an anchor, the weight is hung around our neck and pulls us down. What you must come to realize is the mind is a tool and not the driver.

Again you don't know this and keep ignoring it to protect what you want to believe.

The soul can drive and can extend its reach. It is very limited but the glimpse into the greater reality can be a life changing event. But those waters are also filled with powers of darkness which some choose to embrace. Yet another distraction that many fall prey to.

I am not against the spiritual experience, and think it can be valuable and enlightening, but it has it's limits. I like how you want to describe darkness to those who will come up with different meanings behind there spiritual experiences.

[_Franktalk]

Well show how dating methods have changed so much. I bring up dating methods since they are the ones you will have to completely dismiss to protect false beliefs about the age of the earth and global flood.

Let us use the scientific method shall we. We make an experiment based on what we think may happen and then analyze the results. Or by direct observation we note what we observe in real time. Please tell me how you have directly observed decay rates 500 million years ago? Please tell me how the experiments you performed 500 million years ago compare with the experiments you performed yesterday? If you can not then you are guessing about the past. You may feel your guess is better than my guess but neither of us can prove a thing. Like I said you are the poster boy for the standard line as taught by worldly men. How does it feel to be a parrot?

[_Drifting]

Well show how dating methods have changed so much. I bring up dating methods since they are the ones you will have to completely dismiss to protect false beliefs about the age of the earth and global flood.

Let us use the scientific method shall we. We make an experiment based on what we think may happen and then analyze the results. Or by direct observation we note what we observe in real time. Please tell me how you have directly observed decay rates 500 million years ago? Please tell me how the experiments you performed 500 million years ago compare with the experiments you performed yesterday? If you can not then you are guessing about the past. You may feel your guess is better than my guess but neither of us can prove a thing. Like I said you are the poster boy for the standard line as taught by worldly men. How does it feel to be a parrot?

Frank, let's be clear about what you are saying, which is:
The feeling in your tummy when you read and place your own interpretation on words in the Bible Trump's the findings of every scientific discipline.

[_Themis]

Well show how dating methods have changed so much. I bring up dating methods since they are the ones you will have to completely dismiss to protect false beliefs about the age of the earth and global flood.

Let us use the scientific method shall we. We make an experiment based on what we think may happen and then analyze the results. Or by direct observation we note what we observe in real time. Please tell me how you have directly observed decay rates 500 million years ago? Please tell me how the experiments you performed 500 million years ago compare with the experiments you performed yesterday? If you can not then you are guessing about the past. You may feel your guess is better than my guess but neither of us can prove a thing. Like I said you are the poster boy for the standard line as taught by worldly men. How does it feel to be a parrot?

We don't need to personally observe to see the evidence available. Lets stick with more recent dating methods like dendrochronology, ice core dating or C14 dating. One of the things that helps us see if they are accurate is to see how well they correlate with each other. In this instance all three are independent of each other.

Another example radiometric dating of the sea floor in the Atlantic comes up with similar dates if you extrapolate back in time the same rate of continent drift we see today. It's gets worse if we bring in magnetic reversals. It's not really guess work that is involved here. Assumptions are made, and then tested.

The real problem is not the science, but you. You dismiss them not because the science is faulty, but because you think your religious beliefs require you to. Now with a young earth or global flood many and maybe most Christians believe in Jesus but don't take the Noah's story as literal, or the creation story so literal. Many and maybe most LDS today don't believe in a global flood or young earth. Most apologists certainly don't. Have you asked them why? They will give you many of the same reasons I would.

[_Franktalk]

Frank, let's be clear about what you are saying, which is:
The feeling in your tummy when you read and place your own interpretation on words in the Bible Trump's the findings of every scientific discipline.

I am saying that the scientific method works when someone can directly observe an event or set up an experiment to observe an event. I don't find anywhere in the scientific method where it says that things are known by any other method. So if we can't know them then we can make guesses. Just because this does not fit your agenda is no cause for you to consult my tummy. I don't use my tummy to direct me to truth. And since every scientific discipline is a volume of data to immense to comprehend I doubt if your statement could be true. So your sad attempt at discrediting me just shows your lack of understanding.

You might want to read what science says about itself before you speak for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[_Drifting]

Frank, let's be clear about what you are saying, which is:
The feeling in your tummy when you read and place your own interpretation on words in the Bible Trump's the findings of every scientific discipline.

I am saying that the scientific method works when someone can directly observe an event or set up an experiment to observe an event.

So, seeing is believing.

I guess that means, seeing as how you believe in God, you must have seen Him with your own eyes, yes?

[_Franktalk]

So, seeing is believing.

I guess that means, seeing as how you believe in God, you must have seen Him with your own eyes, yes?

From a scientific point of view seeing is believing. Like a solar flare can be seen by many people and the events do repeat. Coupled with this the repeatable experiment. This is knowing in a general sense. But knowing at a personal level science does not attempt to define or embrace. A personal experience is valid for that person but not in a general sense. Science deals with things that can be known in a general sense. Your attempt to mix general experience with personal experience and then flavor with the scientific method is not appropriate. But you know this so I wonder what was the purpose of your comments?