Is science the friend of Mormonism?

[_asbestosman]

Where is the geological evidence of very large parts of the Earth's mass suddenly converting into water?

According Old Testament some people, the Grand Canyon is evidence of the flood. But as for me, I don't think so. I do, however, wonder whether the lack of evidence couldn't also reasonable be seen as a side-effect of another intention God had -- not that God wanted to deceive us, but that there was a higher purpose in mind which as an effect means we have no evidence of a global flood.

What I'm saying is that there is still not enough material in terms of raw mass to do what you suggest.

I disagree. I think God could easily use processes such as fision and fusion to produce enough water from other materials on the earth. He could have borrowed material from inside the earth's core (waters of the great deep and all).

(And no, I don't really believe it worked that way, but I suppose it could have)

Then why post something that stupid in the first place?

It's fun to come up with counter-proposals, especially creative ones. Come on, didn't you at least laugh at the TARDIS refence?

Furthermore I really wish to keep science and religion as two separate domains as much as possible. I hope that religious believers can put on their science hats and conclude there was no global flood. What they think when they put on their religious hats is their business. They must not try to put it in public schools or other such nonsense. Rather they must keep science as science and religion as religion. How they reconcile the two is up to them, but I insist they do not reconcile it such that science must be taught according to their faith. Similarly I prefer people not to use science as a tool to disprove religious beliefs (yes, even the belief that the earth is flat). All I ask is that flat-earthers don't teach their stuff as science.

Fair enough?

[_Sethbag]

Where is the geological evidence of very large parts of the Earth's mass suddenly converting into water?

According Old Testament some people, the Grand Canyon is evidence of the flood. But as for me, I don't think so. I do, however, wonder whether the lack of evidence couldn't also reasonable be seen as a side-effect of another intention God had -- not that God wanted to deceive us, but that there was a higher purpose in mind which as an effect means we have no evidence of a global flood.

Just a quick comment on the whole "Grand Canyon as proof of Noah's Flood" meme. I don't know what percentage of the Earth's surface is comprised by the Grand Canyon, but it's got to be a very small fraction of a percent. If the Grand Canyon is such great evidence of the Flood, how come 99.99% or whatever of the earth doesn't look like that?

The second part of your comment there leads inevitably to "God wanted to test us", which is just plain bad thinking. That idea can justify literally anything, therefore it has no meaning, no added value. Wouldn't you expect an Almighty God who did all these miraculous things, and yet left us with so much evidence in the earth of so many other things, not to go around massaging the data and hiding the evidence just to keep us in some kind of test we cannot possibly win, except by checking our brains in at the door?

[_Mr. Coffee]

I do, however, wonder whether the lack of evidence couldn't also reasonable be seen as a side-effect of another intention God had -- not that God wanted to deceive us, but that there was a higher purpose in mind which as an effect means we have no evidence of a global flood.

Which is completely speculative. You have no evidence for any of that, instead you give another "Well, what I think is" argument.

I disagree. I think God could easily use processes such as fision and fusion to produce enough water from other materials on the earth. He could have borrowed material from inside the earth's core (waters of the great deep and all).

It doesn't matter what process was used. There isn't enough free oxygen or hydrogen on the Earth to create the volume of water needed. The mass required simply does not exist.

Saying that "He could have used material from the core" is even more retarded. Do you have any idea of the global geological effects or destabilization to the magnetosphere that would cause?

It's fun to come up with counter-proposals, especially creative ones. Come on, didn't you at least laugh at the TARDIS refence?

In a thread that asks if Science and Mormonism (And by extension any religion) can be reconciled, coming up with wild arsed guesses and half-baked hypothesis only serves to futher demonstrate that the two are often incompatible.

Furthermore I really wish to keep science and religion as two separate domains as much as possible. I hope that religious believers can put on their science hats and conclude there was no global flood. What they think when they put on their religious hats is their business. They must not try to put it in public schools or other such nonsense. Rather they must keep science as science and religion as religion. How they reconcile the two is up to them, but I insist they do not reconcile it such that science must be taught according to their faith. Similarly I prefer people not to use science as a tool to disprove religious beliefs (yes, even the belief that the earth is flat). All I ask is that flat-earthers don't teach their stuff as science.

I can agree with the first part of that, but the second I can't jive with. Religion makes so many rediculous claims and irrational leaps of reasoning that those that subscribe to that non-sense need a serious reality check. Especially the fundimentalists that ignore clear evidence when it's staring them in the face.

[_asbestosman]

Saying that "He could have used material from the core" is even more retarded. Do you have any idea of the global geological effects or destabilization to the magnetosphere that would cause?

Last I checked, the earth's magnetic poles have switched polarity several times (and yes, I know that evidence also points to the fact that the earth is very old).

I can agree with the first part of that, but the second I can't jive with. Religion makes so many rediculous claims and irrational leaps of reasoning that those that subscribe to that non-sense need a serious reality check. Especially the fundimentalists that ignore clear evidence when it's staring them in the face.

Well, I hope tolerance isn't a one-way street. I guess I don't object to allowing people to challenge others at least as far as free speech goes and all. I say that on message boards it's free game for free speech. I say that in meeting someone fact to face, while you still have free speech, it should be frowned upon as bad manners to use science as a tool to bash religion. Just my $.02

[_Mr. Coffee]

Last I checked, the earth's magnetic poles have switched polarity several times (and yes, I know that evidence also points to the fact that the earth is very old).

You missunderstand me, AM. What I am saying is that if you removed a signifgant portion of the earth's core it could have serious effecxts on the earth's magnetosphere, and the resulting void would cause massive geological upheaval. That has nothing to do with the magnetic poles creeping over time.

Well, I hope tolerance isn't a one-way street. I guess I don't object to allowing people to challenge others at least as far as free speech goes and all. I say that on message boards it's free game for free speech. I say that in meeting someone fact to face, while you still have free speech, it should be frowned upon as bad manners to use science as a tool to bash religion. Just my $.02

Freespeach is well and good. I've got no problem with it at all. It's every American's right to express their opinion. What I do have a problem with are people that would try to force their beliefs on others. For example, proponents of Creationism or I.D. that think that 1. Creationism/I.D. is actually a scientifically viable theory, and 2. want it to be taught along side actual science in schools. Those people I have a grand old time browbeating with the flaws in their "theories". In that regard, science isn't used as a tool to "bash" religion. It's science being used to defend actual science from mrons that actually believe that the Earth is less than 7000 years old and that we are all decended from 8 people (Noah, his wife, their three sons and thoise son's wives).

Anyone that actually believe that the "wisdom" of cattle sacreficing primitives Trump's centuries of empherical evidence and scientific advance deserve to be ridiculed.

[_asbestosman]

You missunderstand me, AM. What I am saying is that if you removed a signifgant portion of the earth's core it could have serious effecxts on the earth's magnetosphere, and the resulting void would cause massive geological upheaval. That has nothing to do with the magnetic poles creeping over time.

I'm not sure what kind of geological upheaval such a change would cause. I do know that removing the earth's magnetosphere would have devastating effects for life when we end up without that extra protection from the sun's radiation. Some might claim that messing with the earth's magnetosphere would be the cause of our continents separating (in the days of Peleg) but I know that such a notion is rather far-fetched. For one I think it's a misreading of the Bible to assume that it was referring to continents.

Freespeach is well and good. I've got no problem with it at all. It's every American's right to express their opinion. What I do have a problem with are people that would try to force their beliefs on others. For example, proponents of Creationism or I.D. that think that 1. Creationism/I.D. is actually a scientifically viable theory, and 2. want it to be taught along side actual science in schools. Those people I have a grand old time browbeating with the flaws in their "theories". In that regard, science isn't used as a tool to "bash" religion. It's science being used to defend actual science from mrons that actually believe that the Earth is less than 7000 years old and that we are all decended from 8 people (Noah, his wife, their three sons and thoise son's wives).

Anyone that actually believe that the "wisdom" of cattle sacreficing primitives Trump's centuries of empherical evidence and scientific advance deserve to be ridiculed.

I think we're in agreeement there. Although I will say this, I don't think that ridiculing I.D. is effective. I think the best thing to do is to patiently point out where I.D. fails. There are many failings, but my personal favorite is point out the flaw in using a Universal Probability Bound and to explain why I think that Fisher's method is not applicable in the case of I.D. even though it is in the case of double-blind scientific experiements. But then again, my personal talents tend to lie in mathematics, not biology.