Contradiction in the Book of Mormon?

[_gdemetz]

I have tried it Themis.

[_Themis]

I have tried it Themis.

tried what? You might do well to quote what you are responding to.

[_Themis]

There are scientists who do believe there was a global flood, as well as scientists who believe that the methods used to "date" the age of relics are flawed. No scientist, from either side, is able to prove that their interpretation of data is correct. Both sides are really just giving their best-guess opinion, since the scientific method cannot be used because a repeatable experiment cannot be performed on the past, or from direct observation of the past.

I would have thought that with all of your superior wisdom and knowledge you would not have been afraid to admit this. I suppose you did not present both sides because you didn't want to. Therefore, you only presented the side which agrees with what you believe, because you like it.

Almost every scientist in the relevant sciences would disagree with you in a major way. Feel free to be=ring up what science you like. Dating methods are actually very good. An example would be dating of the ocean floor in the Atlantic. It is done with radiometric dating as well as measurement of the yearly movement of the ocean floor from the mid Atlantic ridge. A third one is also involved which look at magnetic reversals. I doubt you will recognize the significance of three separate and independent dating method being in agreement means. I suspect you also don't know the problems of the continents separating in a matter of years to where they are today. It's to bad people won't try to learn some science from the actually scientific community instead of running to pseudo science.

Since it is the Book of Mormon which anti-LDS are trying to disparage in this thread, I am going to try to keep the playing field fair by asking that the Bible be able to stand up to the same standards being used against the Book of Mormon. I have even gone so far as to use passages from the Bible as the measuring stick for a fair and unbiased chronological comparison.

Now, if you believe the Bible is also just made up, I hope that you are giving equal time to other Christian apologetic websites. It would be a shame to use your wisdom and knowledge only for anti-LDS purposes.

Could you be specific on how this is suppose to help you. I don't spend time on other sites since I am LDS and I am interested in my culture more then other ones. I am just not a believing member. Many Christians don't believe many of the claims of the Bible.

[_ludwigm]

I have tried it Themis.

tried what? You might do well to quote what you are responding to.

To quote? That hellish tricky thing?

[_jo1952]

Almost every scientist in the relevant sciences would disagree with you in a major way. Feel free to be=ring up what science you like. Dating methods are actually very good. An example would be dating of the ocean floor in the Atlantic. It is done with radiometric dating as well as measurement of the yearly movement of the ocean floor from the mid Atlantic ridge. A third one is also involved which look at magnetic reversals. I doubt you will recognize the significance of three separate and independent dating method being in agreement means. I suspect you also don't know the problems of the continents separating in a matter of years to where they are today. It's to bad people won't try to learn some science from the actually scientific community instead of running to pseudo science.

Meh.....the majority rules method of taking sides in interpreting scientific data does not impress me. Many times they are the ones who end up being the fools. Meanwhile the minority who were called fools by the majority are avenged when more data surfaces. I will repeat that the best either side can do is give a best-guess opinion.

Could you be specific on how this is suppose to help you. I don't spend time on other sites since I am LDS and I am interested in my culture more then other ones. I am just not a believing member. Many Christians don't believe many of the claims of the Bible.

It seems you are willing to deceive both readers and yourself in these discussions. You only present the side of scientific interpretation which you agree with and pretend it is the only view; thus presenting your view as truth, which deceives the reader. You also have admitted to being a non-believing LDS. Hence, I would say that you aren't really LDS after all, which indicates you are deceiving yourself.

I agree that many Christions do not believe many of the claims of the Bible; this is also the case with many LDS Christians (who are still believing LDS).

I like to try to keep a fair and open playing field so that readers can come to a more informed decision about what they will choose to believe. It has been my experience that most anti-LDS do NOT test their own beliefs with the arguments they use against the LDS. It is an extremely dishonest way to have a discussion; especially since they are trying to prove that what they believe is called "Truth".

Blessings,

jo

[_jo1952]

To quote? That hellish tricky thing?

Ludwigm,

Where DO you find all of these cartoons???!!! Even if I don't agree with the side of an issue that they take, they make me laugh anyway, as they are so very cleverly and intelligently portrayed! Please keep them coming!!

Blessings,

jo

[_Themis]

Meh.....the majority rules method of taking sides in interpreting scientific data does not impress me. Many times they are the ones who end up being the fools. Meanwhile the minority who were called fools by the majority are avenged when more data surfaces. I will repeat that the best either side can do is give a best-guess opinion.

It isn't just the majority which would be over 99.9 %. I bet you can only find a handful of scientists, and that they will all have major religious agendas as you have. Some of the scientists who make up this vast majority are Christians themselves. Now I brought up a specific example, but I see you don't want to get into actual science.

It seems you are willing to deceive both readers and yourself in these discussions. You only present the side of scientific interpretation which you agree with and pretend it is the only view; thus presenting your view as truth, which deceives the reader. You also have admitted to being a non-believing LDS. Hence, I would say that you aren't really LDS after all, which indicates you are deceiving yourself.

I am LDS, but I am sure your have your own little definition for LDS that would exclude me. So what. Not really relevant. I am a cultural Mormon.

I agree that many Christions do not believe many of the claims of the Bible; this is also the case with many LDS Christians (who are still believing LDS).

Many don't take the Bible literally. The post you quoted from me was getting on gd for not backing up his source even though I asked him to many times. He is terrible for not providing where he gets his sources. His source is isn't even close to the events and does little to support what the issue was, which is whether there was a signed copy.

I like to try to keep a fair and open playing field so that readers can come to a more informed decision about what they will choose to believe.

I love to be fair and look at the whole picture, which regarding the 8 and 3 witnesses is a major problem for some like whyme and gd.

I It has been my experience that most anti-LDS do NOT test their own beliefs with the arguments they use against the LDS.

I know few anti LDS, so I cannot comment on them except maybe Ed Decker who is not honest. As for me and most non-believers I see here they are the most fair and are looking for answers, even if they don't support the LDS beliefs we want to believe.

[_gdemetz]

Hello Themis? I tried exactly what you asked me to try! Did you forget?

Hello Ludwigm! Keep those funny cartoons coming! LOL!

[_Themis]

Hello Themis? I tried exactly what you asked me to try! Did you forget?

Maybe, but until you show what you are talking about I can't help you.

[_gdemetz]

Hello Themis! I suggest that in the future you look at the question you gave me in your last post and then look at my answer.