Law School Discussion

<<< The Book of Mormon

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2007, 09:58:16 AM »
Are you saying that you can definitively prove that those species and items did not exist in the Americas before Columbus?  If that is the basis of your undermining the veracity of the book, I will take your comments with a grain of salt.  Take, for instance, the Therizinosaurid dinosaur.  If it had not been discovered in 2002, would it not have existed?  Just because something hasn't been found surely does not prove it didn't exist.

You've never taken a science course, have you?  Well, not outside of Kansas, I mean.  ::) 

Have fun at Liberty.

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2007, 12:58:05 PM »
Are you saying that you can definitively prove that those species and items did not exist in the Americas before Columbus?  If that is the basis of your undermining the veracity of the book, I will take your comments with a grain of salt.  Take, for instance, the Therizinosaurid dinosaur.  If it had not been discovered in 2002, would it not have existed?  Just because something hasn't been found surely does not prove it didn't exist.

You've never taken a science course, have you?  Well, not outside of Kansas, I mean.  ::) 

Have fun at Liberty.

You must have mastered the LSAT.  You have an impeccable ability to display flawed reasoning.  Now you have resorted to the attacking-the-credibility-of-the-other-person approach.  Well done.  I'm sorry, but I actually won't be joining you at Liberty. 

Hannibal

  • ****
  • 299
  • I love it when a plan comes together
    • View Profile
Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2007, 06:33:09 PM »
I was being kind.  There is no such thing as god.  It's a silly human construct that has been used to explain that which has been unexplainable, socially control the masses, and provide comfort through self-delusion.

I find it mildly amusing that anyone who honestly believes in that B.S. would call someone else out on their logical reasoning skills.  Of course you could be a troll, which I haven't ruled out. 

There are no such things as photons.  It's a silly human construct that has been used to explain that which has been unexplainable.  I find it mildly amusing that anyone who honestly believes in that B.S. would call someone else out on their logical reasoning skills.

I'm sorry, but this is the basis for every scientific theory we have created, all of which attempt to describe something that we don't really understand (gravity, relativity, wave/particle theory, Heisenberg's unceratinty principle).  Scientific theories stand if experimental evidence tends to support them until they are proven false or inadequate, such as when Einstein's mechanics replaced Newton's after over 100 years.

Religion and science should be the exact same thing.  The scientific method and the principle of Faith are the same.  Both are the systematic search for truth.  If something is true, then both religion and science will eventually come to the same conclusion.

Some scientists try to claim an imaginary intellectual high ground by belittling those that believe in God.  Almost all that I work with, however, realize that both sides are necessary to discover the truths of the universe.

Hannibal

  • ****
  • 299
  • I love it when a plan comes together
    • View Profile
Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2007, 06:37:44 PM »
LOL.  Yes, I've read it, mostly to laugh at its absurdity...

More absurd than Native American culture and traditions?

I usually try to avoid MBW-usurped threads...

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2007, 08:19:46 PM »
LOL.  Yes, I've read it, mostly to laugh at its absurdity...

More absurd than Native American culture and traditions?

I usually try to avoid MBW-usurped threads...

I can see why.  By the way, I agree with your previous post.

Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2007, 09:05:56 PM »

There are no such things as photons.  It's a silly human construct that has been used to explain that which has been unexplainable.  I find it mildly amusing that anyone who honestly believes in that B.S. would call someone else out on their logical reasoning skills.

I'm sorry, but this is the basis for every scientific theory we have created, all of which attempt to describe something that we don't really understand (gravity, relativity, wave/particle theory, Heisenberg's unceratinty principle).  Scientific theories stand if experimental evidence tends to support them until they are proven false or inadequate, such as when Einstein's mechanics replaced Newton's after over 100 years.

Religion and science should be the exact same thing.  The scientific method and the principle of Faith are the same.  Both are the systematic search for truth.  If something is true, then both religion and science will eventually come to the same conclusion.

Some scientists try to claim an imaginary intellectual high ground by belittling those that believe in God.  Almost all that I work with, however, realize that both sides are necessary to discover the truths of the universe.

I agree with you that if religion wants to claim to be the search for truth then religion and science are the same things.  That's not the case.  Religion, at least the major western ones (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) do not concern themselves with claiming ignorance to that which they don't know, making hypothesis as to how the world works, and seeking evidence and testing those hypothesis and revising those theories as new evidence is made available.  Unlike science, it makes claims that are devoid of any testable hypothesis so that such claims can be made. Religion has already stated what it believes to be true and requires the masses to accept it on faith alone, devoid of any real systematic search to validate or invalidate those claims.   

Science (and myself included) will not claim that there is no God (and yes I did not fully qualify my statement before).  Just like it won't claim that there is no such thing as witches who can use magic to turn people into frogs.  However it will say that the probability of such an existence is so low, and in the absence of any reliable evidence to support the claim that its so remote as to be considered reliably untrue. 

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: <<< The Book of Mormon
« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2007, 09:33:16 PM »
LOL.  Yes, I've read it, mostly to laugh at its absurdity...

More absurd than Native American culture and traditions?

I usually try to avoid MBW-usurped threads...

Interesting, Hannibal.  I addressed this thread as an archaeologist.  You take issue with that, as well as my writing about Indian issues?

Ho hum.   ::)