Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _just me »

LittleNipper wrote:Consider the following:

http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/zodiac1.htm


Sorry, they lost me at "Satan's counterfeit."
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_keithb
_Emeritus
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:09 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _keithb »

subgenius wrote:
krose wrote:That's right. When given the choice between two explanations, always choose the one based on stories written down by superstitious tribes thousands of years ago, over the one developed through research and scientific inquiry.

they "observed", and "examined", and through thousands of years of "peer review" determined their results to be valid......too bad about those blinders about your head
but hey, atheists have that great creation story that goes like this:
first there nothing
then nothing exploded and made dinosaurs
and now nothing may either be expanding or contracting
...awesome!


Subgenius,

Does your computer work? Is that by accident? What about your car? Is that by accident?

The same science that goes into dating pottery goes into making this conversation possible via the internet. It's not like scientists have one hat that they put on to talk about science not mentioned in the Bible and another that they put on just to mess with the Christians. It doesn't work that way. It's all the same science, and it was all discovered through the same process.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _LittleNipper »

just me wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:Consider the following:

http://www.prepare-ye-the-way.com/zodiac1.htm


Sorry, they lost me at "Satan's counterfeit."


A counterfeit is something that is not genuine. There is counterfeit money, works of art, and even counterfeit "scripture."The purpose is to misdirect, confuse, and then steal. Sometimes it's for money and other times about manipulating/capturing souls...
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Drifting »

LittleNipper wrote:A counterfeit is something that is not genuine. There is counterfeit money, works of art, and even counterfeit "scripture."The purpose is to misdirect, confuse, and then steal. Sometimes it's for money and other times about manipulating/capturing souls...


So...like Missionary work...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _LittleNipper »

Drifting wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:A counterfeit is something that is not genuine. There is counterfeit money, works of art, and even counterfeit "scripture."The purpose is to misdirect, confuse, and then steal. Sometimes it's for money and other times about manipulating/capturing souls...


So...like Missionary work...


If the missionary is offering the Gospel message, then that isn't counterfeit. If the missionary is peddling addional scriptures to reinterpret/redefine that message then yes...
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Drifting »

LittleNipper wrote:If the missionary is offering the Gospel message, then that isn't counterfeit. If the missionary is peddling addional scriptures to reinterpret/redefine that message then yes...


Not so.
Mormon Missionaries do not tell prospective converts all that they need to know to make an informed decision. Missionaries explain some very basic ideas aimed at getting their mark into the font.
Unless you are saying that secret handshakes and oaths to total consecration aren't part of the Gospel?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_subgenius
_Emeritus
Posts: 13326
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _subgenius »

keithb wrote:Subgenius,

Does your computer work? Is that by accident? What about your car? Is that by accident?

many technological innovations are "by accident"...most of them actually are...you should check out an old television show called "Connections" hosted james burke.

keithb wrote:The same science that goes into dating pottery goes into making this conversation possible via the internet. It's not like scientists have one hat that they put on to talk about science not mentioned in the Bible and another that they put on just to mess with the Christians. It doesn't work that way. It's all the same science, and it was all discovered through the same process.

obviously you confuse science and technology as being interchangeable, a common mistake.

The real issue with "dating pottery" is that it relies on a known date for comparison. This requires preservation of a record that has a high degree of accuracy and integrity. This is extremely difficult with dating items that a thousands or even millions of years old, for the obvious reasons. Science is nothing if not reliant on observation, and without it you really have a bit of speculation and a lot of "hunch". Let us say we think a particular nuclear particle will undergo a physical change over the course of 25,000 years. Obviously there has been no experiment that has "observed" this nuclear particle for 25,000 years and thus we speculate...and worse...assume. A lot can happen, even geologically, in 25,000 years.
Now, as an elaborate example of this point -
Let us consider the nuclear influence that has occurred over the past few decades
WATCH this Nuclear testing video
the influence that each of these explosions will have on the nuclear particles in their vicinity is significant...especially to a scientist 250,000 years in the future that may never be aware they ever took place....this sort of outside influence is exactly what some dating methods rely upon never happening...ever....even over the course of 5 million years.
The point is that the accuracy of the historical record for anything becomes more and more and more and more unreliable and inaccurate as it goes farther in the past....it is folly to hang one's hat on it, as you are.

Additionally, the internet is not reliant on the same "science" that dates pottery...your logic is severely flawed as you try to distill the actions of mankind..a more appropriate conclusion would be to say the internet, like pottery, relies on man.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty
I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them
what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams
If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
_LittleNipper
_Emeritus
Posts: 4518
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:49 pm

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _LittleNipper »

Drifting wrote:
LittleNipper wrote:If the missionary is offering the Gospel message, then that isn't counterfeit. If the missionary is peddling addional scriptures to reinterpret/redefine that message then yes...


Not so.
Mormon Missionaries do not tell prospective converts all that they need to know to make an informed decision. Missionaries explain some very basic ideas aimed at getting their mark into the font.
Unless you are saying that secret handshakes and oaths to total consecration aren't part of the Gospel?


Mormons are not the only ones who have missionaries.
_jo1952
_Emeritus
Posts: 1118
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _jo1952 »

Drifting wrote:Not so.
Mormon Missionaries do not tell prospective converts all that they need to know to make an informed decision. Missionaries explain some very basic ideas aimed at getting their mark into the font.
Unless you are saying that secret handshakes and oaths to total consecration aren't part of the Gospel?


I don't know, Drifting. I've heard many an "alter call" offered in mainstream Christianity during my life time. They do not even offer anything akin to what an investigator is offered by the LDS Church. Alter calls don't even mention the Trinity dogma, any of the Creeds, etc., which the "born again Christian" will be taught AFTER accepting Jesus. Some don't accept the Trinity for a long time after converting simply because they can't understand it. Meanwhile, they are being preached at that they MUST accept it, or they haven't really been saved.....even though at the moment they answered the alter call, the same people promised that they HAD been saved....

Blessings,

jo
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Adam, first man circa 4,000 bc....?

Post by _Drifting »

jo1952 wrote:
Drifting wrote:Not so.
Mormon Missionaries do not tell prospective converts all that they need to know to make an informed decision. Missionaries explain some very basic ideas aimed at getting their mark into the font.
Unless you are saying that secret handshakes and oaths to total consecration aren't part of the Gospel?


I don't know, Drifting. I've heard many an "alter call" offered in mainstream Christianity during my life time. They do not even offer anything akin to what an investigator is offered by the LDS Church. Alter calls don't even mention the Trinity dogma, any of the Creeds, etc., which the "born again Christian" will be taught AFTER accepting Jesus. Some don't accept the Trinity for a long time after converting simply because they can't understand it. Meanwhile, they are being preached at that they MUST accept it, or they haven't really been saved.....even though at the moment they answered the alter call, the same people promised that they HAD been saved....

Blessings,

jo


I'm sure that's the case.
But I was discussing Mormonsim.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Post Reply