Noah's Ark questions

[_EdGoble]

What are you prepared to do, Ed?

I'll keep reading the Book of Mormon and keep up my prayers. It makes me feel good to be obedient.

[_Themis]

Well, the idea of dark matter atoms and dark chemistry is predicted in an actual scientific hypothesis by actual scientists as I showed in the link I provided. This is not scientific evidence, but it is nice where things are going with it.

Actually the hypothesis about dark matter from the scientific community are based on scientific evidence. It's from where they create their hypothesis from.

Yes.

And why your hypothesis is not scientific.

No, that is just the nature of all areas of inquiry, including science. There are many abandoned scientific hypotheses that turned out incorrect.

The difference is real science creates hypothesis based on real evidence. Pseudoscience does not. Hypotheses by there definition lack sufficient evidence, which means many will be proven false or need changed based on new evidence.

Actually they are not. They are based on things that are merely empirically suggestive not proven. Religious hypotheses are similarly based on things that are suggestive. Not always empirically suggestive, but religiously suggestive nonetheless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
Religious hypothesis are not scientific, which is obvious from the ones you have proposed. They have no evidence to begin with, and many with no way to test them. The ones that do fall apart.

I didn't say it was, but its not totally my hypothesis. I gave you an actual scientific hypothesis about a dark matter realm based on dark atoms which has its origin among scientists. And I simply came up with a religious hypothesis that is compatible with that, but that didn't claim to be scientific.

And if future knowledge shows it cannot be a spirit, then you will keep the belief and move to some other hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. Religion attacks science on one hand and wants to use it on the other to hopefully support them.

[_EdGoble]

Lack of evidence here is evidence against the claim being true.

It is only actually evidence that science as it stands at this moment in time is unsupportive.

Not sure why people should be patient that we will see evidence of Bigfoot really exists.

Funny you should bring that up. I do happen to have apostatized from the Squatchers. I no longer believe.

The cement things does not matter since that is an idea from Joseph's Smith time, so it fits with Joseph making up the Book of Mormon story.

Actually it really does matter, because it was predicted by the Book of Mormon and it showed up, and your minimization of it will not change that. It is actually a spear right to the heart of the matter.

What I like to look at is whether good evidence for a defined claim is growing for or against the claim. In the case of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham it is growing against the claims. DNA is a huge one most don't understand.

Nothing that is seemingly against it is unsuperable, and in other areas, the evidence is indeed growing with every shovel-full of dirt dug from Pre-Classic Mayan sites.

[_Maksutov]

And how many fallacies are we supposed to accept in order to become Mormons?

Why would you want to be a Mormon. I like you the way you are. You are a hoot.

Let's start with Moroni's promise. Really, Ed. You can try and have special pleading for everything Mormon but it won't work.

Why? It works for me.

That's why the church feels like it's in a state of siege.

Does it? Only one family in my ward has apostatized over the Google Apostasy. There are others that are affected, but they are still active.

Science DOES have evidence for things that directly contradict Mormonism, including the archaeological record.

Temporarily.

You can't say that science has no evidence there was no garden of Eden; actually it does.

Actually, no, they haven't done an archaeological dig yet at the temple site at Jackson County :)

Likewise, the nonexistence of global flood,

Not a problem.

the ancient Adam and Eve story, Noah, on and on.

Seldom does science have anything to say about specific people in history.

Those stories have actually been disproven as having happened.

I can see why you think that way.

Maybe you can claim that they happened in a universe made of dark matter, but they didn't happen here. Sorry. You haven't found a way to distinguish baby from bath water yet. Save the good things in Mormonism and let go of the old myths. They just alienate many of your best and brightest people.

Actually, a science-friendly Modified Mormonism is precisely that.

You weren't reasoned into Mormonism, so I don't expect that reason will take you out.

It doesn't generally take people out that take the spirit for their guide. Yes. You are right.

You can do as other religious groups do, double down on the ritual observances, pray more. Fill your mind with church images and words and maybe you will keep out the doubts. Or not.

Yes, it will do us well to be more consistent with our obedience, but the obedience only helps us have the spirit. It doesn't help us with information that is needed to create an environment where faith can thrive. That is what good apologetics is for, but in saying this, I do not mean to say that all apologetics as it currently exists is in a good state, or that FAIRMormon is always a very good source. Rather, I mean to say that once we actually start getting rid of bad apologetics, then faith will continue to thrive. Not all people will want to remain, because they won't be willing to stay just because of apologetics. But again, it will create the environment where some will be willing to continue in faith. They are the ones we hope to stay. For those that won't, I wish them well, but I can't help them if they choose to not listen to the spirit.

Well, I see I expended too much effort when all you intended was flippancy. If your responses are going to be this evasive and superficial, you probably aren't going be interested in real discussions. You evade your logical fallacies, you dodge the quite obvious creationist burden, trying to shift it to others, and you persist in trying to adopt forms of pseudoscience ("spirit dark matter") into your 'modified Mormon' system. And the state of siege? You obviously weren't paying attention but, yep, that's why there was a Swedish rescue and the essays that aren't really promoted, that's why Jeff Holland has a melt down on BBC and why, as you point out, excavations ARE NOT DONE at places like Cumorah and Adam-ondi-Ahman. The church could put up or shut up. They won't do either. They're afraid. They bluff and deflect and dissemble. They're just men trying to sell a product that is not trusted or wanted outside the desperate illiterate populations of the Third World.

[_EdGoble]

And if future knowledge shows it cannot be a spirit, then you will keep the belief and move to some other hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. Religion attacks science on one hand and wants to use it on the other to hopefully support them.

The only people that directly attack science are stupid non-science-friendly religious people.
Good thinking religious people never attack science. We may disagree with some of its current positions. Of course I will keep the belief. That is the test of my mortality, to see if I will be faithful to the belief and legacy of my ancestors of their belief.

[_Maksutov]

What are you prepared to do, Ed?

I'll keep reading the Book of Mormon and keep up my prayers. It makes me feel good to be obedient.

Don't forget the blessing of paying tithing. That will make you feel good too. B. F. Skinner would be impressed.

[_Themis]

Lack of evidence here is evidence against the claim being true.

It is only actually evidence that science as it stands at this moment in time is unsupportive.

Sorry but no. I think I explained it well but maybe this will help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

Funny you should bring that up. I do happen to have apostatized from the Squatchers. I no longer believe.

And yet you proposed Mormons should do the opposite.

Actually it really does matter, because it was predicted by the Book of Mormon and it showed up, and your minimization of it will not change that. It is actually a spear right to the heart of the matter.

It was predicted by some they didn't use cement who were ignorant of the facts available. The problem is the idea of ancients using cement was an idea in the early 1800's. So Joseph using it is not a problem for those who think Joseph made up the story. It would be a problem if we had no idea about this, as it would bring up the question of how did Joseph know. Since it did exist we know a way Joseph would think they did.

Nothing that is seemingly against it is unsuperable, and in other areas, the evidence is indeed growing with every shovel-full of dirt dug from Pre-Classic Mayan sites.

And what recent shovel full would that be? I know a little about the Mayans, and it is nothing like the Book of Mormon. Scientific knowledge grows and with it more evidence against the Book of Mormon, and none that I have seen to support it. If I am wrong give me some recent evidence. New DNA research has been devastating to the Book of Mormon even though most are not aware or understand how.

[_EdGoble]

Well, I see I expended too much effort when all you intended was flippancy.

I have always tried to respond as best I can. I am not trying to be flippant, but I do like you.

If your responses are going to be this evasive and superficial, you probably aren't going be interested in real discussions.

I thought that by now that you would consider me a lot more substantial than most Mormons that you have sparred with.

you dodge the quite obvious creationist burden,

I have no burden. Things for me just are in the state they are because I have personal no control over the state of the evidence. I only have control of how I personally respond to the current state of things. I realize that you guys would like to put that burden upon me, but it is only upon me if I accept it. My participation on this forum does not have a prerequisite of my being able to take on a burden that is not in my control or power or responsibility to take, despite your insistence to the contrary.

trying to shift it to others,

It is rightly shifted to others, to those that have the PhD's and who dig in the dirt, who have the callings and responsibilities to find the stuff. If they aren't doing their jobs, or if the will of God is not for them to find what they hope, that is both their problem and God's problem. I exist in the state that I am in in spite of whatever state the evidence is for each and every issue. Your trying to insist that I have this burden does not give me the burden. It doesn't matter what you want to say about that. I don't accept that burden, and I am under no emergency or anxiety just because you are some dude on a message board that wants to insist on something.

and you persist in trying to adopt forms of pseudoscience ("spirit dark matter") into your 'modified Mormon' system.

Yes, I persist in doing what I must to exist and continue in the state that I find myself. I think I have done quite well under the circumstances, and in all actuality, have thrived in the circumstances, because of the personal choices I have made.

And the state of siege? You obviously weren't paying attention but, yep, that's why there was a Swedish rescue and the essays that aren't really promoted, that's why Jeff Holland has a melt down on BBC and why, as you point out, excavations ARE NOT DONE at places like Cumorah and Adam-ondi-Ahman. The church could put up or shut up. They won't do either. They're afraid. They bluff and deflect and dissemble. They're just men trying to sell a product that is not trusted or wanted outside the desperate illiterate populations of the Third World.

You can find fault with them all you want. It doesn't change the fact that they are navigating old Ship Zion through turbulent waters as best they can under the circumstances that they also find themselves, much like the circumstances that I find myself, and they are trying to adapt. Remember, I said, it is about survival of the fittest among us. Mormonism will be a lot more fit after all of this. That is clearly part of God's reason for this *sieve*, not siege. This is the time where Mormons must be sifted. They are not under siege as you claim. Sifted, yes. And for those who choose not to persist, well, their choice is respected.

[_Themis]

And if future knowledge shows it cannot be a spirit, then you will keep the belief and move to some other hypothesis with no evidence to back it up. Religion attacks science on one hand and wants to use it on the other to hopefully support them.

The only people that directly attack science are stupid non-science-friendly religious people.
Good thinking religious people never attack science. We may disagree with some of its current positions. Of course I will keep the belief. That is the test of my mortality, to see if I will be faithful to the belief and legacy of my ancestors of their belief.

Yes a test which makes no sense, and is a test of gullibility. I seriously doubt a God would reward people for gullibility. You dismiss science when it doesn't fit what you want to believe, just as so many others do in other religions. They to will be faithful to their beliefs and legacies of their ancestors. Except for your ancestors who were not Mormon or Christian.

[Guest]

Sorry but no. I think I explained it well but maybe this will help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

I thought you guys didn't consider wikipedia a good source. :)