Native American use of Sacred Metal Tablets

[_spotlight]

Were you required to take calculus for scientists and engineers? If not, then I apologize. If so, then you should have received a failing grade.

Again, I don't accept your apology. It isn't sincere, and you have crossed a line sir.

This sort of posturing is what the "authority" of the LDS position is all about. It's all you have.
So am I to interpret your response to mean that you have not had calculus for scientists and engineers then? Or did you attend a church university and were told that math does not apply to fairy dust?

[_EdGoble]

This sort of posturing is what the "authority" of the LDS position is all about. It's all you have.
So am I to interpret your response to mean that you have not had calculus for scientists and engineers then? Or did you attend a church university and were told that math does not apply to fairy dust?

You no longer merit response as you have no honor and no respect for the dignity of those that you disagree with. Your repeated contrived straw men are as irrelevant to the issue as is anything Themis has stated.

[_spotlight]

You no longer merit response as you have no honor and no respect for the dignity of those that you disagree with.

Not true, but feel free to put me on ignore if you are incapable of addressing the problem in a substantive way.

Your repeated contrived straw men are as irrelevant to the issue as is anything Themis has stated.

Yes, I am aware that reality is a contrived straw man. I've already run into Franktalk.

[_Philo Sofee]

This thread is huge and incredible, so forgive me if I missed something said along these lines however, I simply must ask Ed a serious question....
EdGoble said:
Who was resurrected before JC? Nobody.
Philo asked:
Then, uh... how did the Father of Jesus get *his* body first?!

Ed replied:
Here we go again. Yawn. If our world's biology was created primarily via Evolution (i.e. directed), speculatively, then the body of the Father belongs to a race of humans from that world who have bodies ultimately created similarly through a directed evolutionary process on his world. And then in the resurrection, as Brigham Young indicated in the Adam God discourses, it was by his Savior or Elder Brother that provided him with a resurrection. But it would seem, speculatively, that each immediate family of Gods has a Savior provided to effect an atonement and resurrection for that particular immediate family, so that each person is dependent on his own firstborn spirit brother, that is, as Brigham Young says, if the firstborn does not rebel against the Father of said immediate family of Gods. If he does rebel, then some other elder brother, perhaps the second born takes over as the Only Begotten of said Father God.

What is this? Are we playing a game of can we come up with some conundrum that Ed's speculation can't come up with a good enough speculative answer for?

Philo says:
Evolution is not directed Ed. And the speculation that Evolution on any other world would lead to a human form is entirely unfounded. Because evolution will not always produce the same results across the Universe. Stephen Jay Gould was pretty big on that one. There is no end goal in evolution with the human form being the pinnacle of evolution. We know genetically we are related to an evolved species on this planet alone. There truly is no other evidence for our form anywhere else in the universe. So I think you are dealing with an enormous amount of speculation that is virtually unprovable and unfalsifiable. So while it's fun I can't honestly say it leads to any truth that we have evidence for. Does that make sense?

[_Lemmie]

Or... were [you] told that math does not apply to fairy dust?

That's the crux of the matter to me. If disbelief has already been suspended to the extent that imaginary conditions and systems are being discussed, why do the finer details necessarily have to follow reality?

Notwithstanding, for example, a good sci fi story that begins with a one-time suspension of disbelief in single concept, followed by details that clearly attempt to apply realistic and actual scientific concepts, I'm not aware of any arbitrary requirement that the rules underlying an imaginary concept must be non-imaginary.

It would be satisfying, yes, and probably add to believability, like that good sci fi story, but if one is preaching to a choir that is already convinced of the original imaginary concept, why give up a good thing? Make up anything you want! Why limit your god creation to the mundane Laws of Nature??

Personally, my imaginary world would have laws of physics that could be reversed at will. For example I would invoke gravity up instead of gravity down, collapsible tessaract travelling instead of the shortest distance between two lines, and lungs that morph into gills.

So I think you are dealing with an enormous amount of speculation that is virtually unprovable and unfalsifiable. So while it's fun I can't honestly say it leads to any truth that we have evidence for. Does that make sense?

My point exactly. Fun? Yes. Make sense or lead to actual, verifiable evidentiary truth? Not a chance.

[_EdGoble]

Evolution is not directed Ed. And the speculation that Evolution on any other world would lead to a human form is entirely unfounded. Because evolution will not always produce the same results across the Universe. Stephen Jay Gould was pretty big on that one. There is no end goal in evolution with the human form being the pinnacle of evolution. We know genetically we are related to an evolved species on this planet alone. There truly is no other evidence for our form anywhere else in the universe. So I think you are dealing with an enormous amount of speculation that is virtually unprovable and unfalsifiable. So while it's fun I can't honestly say it leads to any truth that we have evidence for. Does that make sense?

You can make your truth claims for your epistemology all you want, and try as you might, try to apply them to ontological issues, as you guys have continually done, but to me, they are no better than Mormon truth claims are to you. You are as unable to disprove ontological issues with methodological naturalism as Mormons are unable to prove their ontological truth claims in a secular setting with subjective testimony.
Directed Evolution is not a scientific position, but is a very good, ontological, accepted hypothesis by many theologians, notably a lot of Catholic ones.

You don't know that genetically compatible humans do not emerge on other planets through directed evolution.

[_EdGoble]

Not true, but feel free to put me on ignore if you are incapable of addressing the problem in a substantive way.

I have never been compelled to address anything on your terms or on your whims.

[_spotlight]

Not true, but feel free to put me on ignore if you are incapable of addressing the problem in a substantive way.

I have never been compelled to address anything on your terms or on your whims.

Of course not, nor on any rational terms whatsoever.

[_spotlight]

That's the crux of the matter to me. If disbelief has already been suspended to the extent that imaginary conditions and systems are being discussed, why do the finer details necessarily have to follow reality?

Notwithstanding, for example, a good sci fi story that begins with a one-time suspension of disbelief in single concept, followed by details that clearly attempt to apply realistic and actual scientific concepts, I'm not aware of any arbitrary requirement that the rules underlying an imaginary concept must be non-imaginary.

It would be satisfying, yes, and probably add to believability, like that good sci fi story, but if one is preaching to a choir that is already convinced of the original imaginary concept, why give up a good thing? Make up anything you want! Why limit your god creation to the mundane Laws of Nature??

Personally, my imaginary world would have laws of physics that could be reversed at will. For example I would invoke gravity up instead of gravity down, collapsible tessaract travelling instead of the shortest distance between two lines, and lungs that morph into gills.

What I attempt to communicate is the requirement of self-consistency. Make up what you like, it had better be self-consistent or it isn't possible, never mind scientific. It's interesting to watch as members wander their individual paths, each one deciding what parts of the church are non-negotiable and which parts of science they will accept. They all end up at their own unique destinations miles apart from one another like Ed and Frank. You'd think that would be enough to come to one's senses, but apparently not.

[_Lemmie]

Make up what you like, it had better be self-consistent or it isn't possible, never mind scientific. It's interesting to watch as members wander their individual paths, each one deciding what parts of the church are non-negotiable and which parts of science they will accept.

And self-consistency can happen in a totally imaginary setting. I think we're seeing a number of people deciding what the rules of the imaginary universe are, with or without solid science supporting their decision, as well as what's non-negotiable and what has some give. Resulting in this, I agree:

They all end up at their own unique destinations miles apart from one another.