What is creationism?

[Scott C.]

NO Sarcasm needed. Here is the low down, that is not down low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

There is generally no direct support amongst mainstream historians and archaeologists for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.


This means your book has no support for its HISTORICITY


The mainstream scientific consensus about the origin of the ancient Americans and peoples is apparently at odds with the claims put forth in the Book of Mormon, though Mormon apologists have made efforts to reconcile these apparent contradictions.

This means morman apologist cannot accept the academic truth.


The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility

This means your book has NO academic credibility

I don't believe that science has proven that the Book of Mormon is false. However, I acknowledge that there's currently not enough scientific evidence to prove, independent of faith, that the Book of Mormon is true. I don't believe there will ever be enough evidence to prove that it's true, as I believe it's intended to remain in the realm of faith.

When scientific evidence leads some Mormons to change their historical interpretations of the Book of Mormon, they do so out of respect for science. Critics will say that those Mormons are waffling and back peddling on their beliefs. I don't see it that way. We don't claim to know all things religious or secular. What I hold fast, is that the Book of Mormon deals with real people who really lived and it is the word of God. Whether they all lived in what is now Guatemala, or North Dakota, or Punta Arenas, Chile or whether they spanned all of North and South America and whether their descendants are now found in the Americas or Polynesia or whether they all died out, I don't know. Because I respect science, I'm willing to adjust cautiously where I feel it's justified.

But, I'm not going to give up the Book of Mormon, the revelations of Joseph Smith, the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ, or the any other core beliefs. These have not and will not be scientifically disproved.

 

[outhouse]

I don't believe

Non sequitur

We don't claim to know all things religious or secular.

Its not about knowing, they fight these things or ignore them because its your only option since none of your history carries any credibility to the point you have a complete consensus that rejects your mythology and labels it pseudohistory.

I'm not going to give up the Book of Mormon

We don't care what you have faith in.

But we do care when you make historical claims you cannot support because they are biased or faith based.

 

[Scott C.]

We don't care what you have faith in.

Who's we?
Why would you be on a religious forum if you don't care what people believe?
Why not join a science forum instead?
As far as my faith goes, I offer my beliefs. I'll continue to do so here, unless a moderator explains that a religious forum is not the right place for expressions of faith. And that would be weird.

 

[outhouse]

Why would you be on a religious forum if you don't care what people believe?

Because I have a larger passion for the bible then you may. Obviously I do because you don't even follow it and follow your own book

Why not join a science forum instead?

Because science forums often do not need correcting because they do not promote pseudoscience. They carry credibility you refuse.

As far as my faith goes, I offer my beliefs

We don't care what you have faith in.

 

[Jane.Doe]

NO Sarcasm needed. Here is the low down, that is not down low.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

There is generally no direct support amongst mainstream historians and archaeologists for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.


This means your book has no support for its HISTORICITY


The mainstream scientific consensus about the origin of the ancient Americans and peoples is apparently at odds with the claims put forth in the Book of Mormon, though Mormon apologists have made efforts to reconcile these apparent contradictions.

This means morman apologist cannot accept the academic truth.


The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility

This means your book has NO academic credibility

You're not a scientist, are you?

Science by definition, doesn't actually "prove" anything, but simply provides evidence against some testable and falsifiable ideas, and that's with an inherent degree of error. Something like the Book of Mormon (or Bible or most any other religious text) is not a testable hypothesis, and hence outside the realm of science completely.

Spirituality (of any stripe) simply cannot be "proven" by science.

 

[Jane.Doe]

We don't care what you have faith in.

Who is the "we" you keeping talking about? (Echoing Scott's earlier question)

 

[outhouse]

You're not a scientist, are you?

Semi. I focus on marine biology.

Science by definition, doesn't actually "prove" anything

Agreed.

But that does not mean people do not take these findings and factually provide conclusions that do PROVE things in nature and history.

Scholars factually use scientific findings to determine and prove things.

Something like the Book of Mormon (or Bible or most any other religious text) is not a testable hypothesis, and hence outside the realm of science completely.

Factually false here.

many aspects within its pages are not only testable but are completely within the scientific realm.

Not a word you have written refutes the credible scientific conclusions that Mormon dogma has no scientific credibility what so ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

There is generally no direct support amongst mainstream historians and archaeologists for the historicity of the Book of Mormon.


This means your book has no support for its HISTORICITY


The mainstream scientific consensus about the origin of the ancient Americans and peoples is apparently at odds with the claims put forth in the Book of Mormon, though Mormon apologists have made efforts to reconcile these apparent contradictions.

This means morman apologist cannot accept the academic truth.


The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility

This means your book has NO academic credibility

 

[leibowde84]

Who's we?
Why would you be on a religious forum if you don't care what people believe?
Why not join a science forum instead?
As far as my faith goes, I offer my beliefs. I'll continue to do so here, unless a moderator explains that a religious forum is not the right place for expressions of faith. And that would be weird.

It's a debate forum too, so expressing faith is not enough. We all are responsible to provide arguments supporting said beliefs.

 

[Jane.Doe]

Semi. I focus on marine biology.

In a profession capacity or recreational?

Also, what is your faith? Do you feel science or historicity proves your faith in a peer-review journal?

 

[metis]

Spirituality (of any stripe) simply cannot be "proven" by science.

But where a problem often does occur here is when we see "creationists" trying to interject their faith into science.

 

[outhouse]

In a profession capacity or recreational?

Both. Try selling tank raised coral and ignore the scientific methods. cannot be done.


If I perverted science the way some religions do, my coral would all be dead.

 

[Scott C.]

It's a debate forum too, so expressing faith is not enough. We all are responsible to provide arguments supporting said beliefs.

Yes it is a forum to debate religion. But I can't provide scientific proof that God exists, that Jesus Christ is the Savior, or that the Father and Son appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees in 1820. I can't provide scientific proof that an angel delivered the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. I'm trying to figure out how to even engage in this forum without all conversations ending with "prove it".

 

[leibowde84]

Yes it is a forum to debate religion. But I can't provide scientific proof that God exists, that Jesus Christ is the Savior, of that the Father and Son appeared to Joseph Smith in a grove of trees in 1820. I can't provide scientific proof that an angel delivered the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. I'm trying to figure out how to even engage in this forum without all conversations ending with "prove it".

I don't think you should have to prove it. You merely need to explain your reasoning and support that leads you to be confident that these things are true, imho.

 

[outhouse]

I'm trying to figure out how to even engage in this forum without all conversations ending with "prove it".

You cannot using academic knowledge, because they have removed all credibility of any arguments in support.

So you do not have a credible position that proves anything on your side of the coin.

You could stay in the same faith section, and find support. But you will get no support here where we do not believe your theology and mythology.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think you should have to prove it.

This is a debate section where he has tried to prove his position.

Credible evidence is required. Apologetic faith is not a tool in a debate.

This is just like a YEC trying to prove the world is 6000 years old, when it is a fact the earth is not that young.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a debate section where he has tried to prove his position.

Credible evidence is required. Apologetic faith is not a tool in a debate.

This is just like a YEC trying to prove the world is 6000 years old, when it is a fact the earth is not that young.

If he claimed to be able to provide evidence, then you are right. He opened the door.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a debate section where he has tried to prove his position.

Credible evidence is required. Apologetic faith is not a tool in a debate.

This is just like a YEC trying to prove the world is 6000 years old, when it is a fact the earth is not that young.

And, I agree. Scripture that may or may not be accurate is a pitiful excuse for evidence.

 

[Scott C.]

Credible evidence is required. Apologetic faith is not a tool in a debate.

My reason for believing is captured well in 1 Corinthians 2:

But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God...But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

God has proven himself to me by the Spirit spoken of above. I can't prove that he did this. But I'm fully satisfied. This is foolishness to those who do not recognize that Spirit. God lives. Not only does He reveal truth by the Spirit, but also through scientific discovery.

 

[leibowde84]

My reason for believing is captured well in 1 Corinthians 2:

But God has revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searches all things, yea, the deep things of God...But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

God has proven himself to me by the Spirit spoken of above. I can't prove that he did this. But I'm fully satisfied. This is foolishness to those who do not recognize that Spirit. God lives. Not only does He reveal truth by the Spirit, but also through scientific discovery.

Can you explain specifically how the "spirit revealed himself to you" in this way? The passage is rather vague, so it's tough to know what you mean specifically.

 

[Scott C.]

Can you explain specifically how the "spirit revealed himself to you" in this way? The passage is rather vague, so it's tough to know what you mean specifically.

To be clear, I'm not debating at this point, but I'll be happy to explain. I need to reference my scriptures as they explain better than I can. When two disciples were on the Road to Emmaus, they were lamenting the death of Christ. A stranger approached and they didn't recognize him, meaning his identity was somehow hidden. He went to their home. While they were eating, he revealed himself to them and they saw that it was the resurrected Christ. After he left, they commented to each other "did not our hearts burn within us" as we walked with him on the road. In other words, "we had a spiritual witness from God, who this was, but we didn't recognize it at the time." The "burn within us" is not a literal burn, but a deeply spiritual impression, beyond emotion and beyond the physical experience.

The LDS Doctrine and Covenants says "I (the Lord) will tell you in your mind and in your heart by the Holy Ghost which shall come upon you". There's a spiritual and intellectual impression from the Spirit.

The Lord manifested himself to Elijah in 1 Kings 19. There was a great wind, and a great earthquake, and a fire, but it says the Lord was not in the wind or the earthquake or the fire, "but a still small voice". God revealed himself by what the scriptures call the "still small voice".

So we have references to "our hearts burned within us", "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart", and "the still small voice." The intensity varies. I've had these impressions many times. I've had many occasions where the accuracy of the impressions are confirmed by events. These impressions bear witness of spiritual truth. They also give guidance on what to do in certain circumstances. They also give spiritual comfort and peace.

Can I convince others that this is no more than emotion or a self induced experience? Some, but certainly not all. But I've seen enough answers to prayers, and confirmations of spiritual manifestations, throughout my life, that this feeling goes deep into my bones, so to speak.

I fully expect skeptical responses to this post such as "it's all in your head" and "how do you explain that others claim the same experience, but their witness of truth contradicts yours?" It is what it is. I'm fully satisfied that God has revealed himself to me in this way.

As my quote from Corinthians indicates, these things are not naturally discerned by the natural man, but they are spiritually discerned. To those who insist on natural, empirical proof, and deny the Spirit, they are foolishness.

I've scarcely done the subject justice either in doctrine or in describing a lifetime of experience.