LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 7:59 am**

thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:43 am
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:37 am
thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:30 am
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:17 am If one were to tell an anthropologist that in America's ancient past there was a war between two warring nation's and a couple million soldiers on one side we're killed they would laugh you to death. And yet this is what LDS believe happened. I have never accepted mainstream science when they have tried to piece together the ancient past. Not only do they get it wrong, they are off so far it borderlines on the completely ridiculous.
No disrepect but the reason they laugh is the same reason you are mocking them: each side is so firmly engrained in their belief of the truth that they are unwilling to entertain the notion the other may be correct. That doesn't make you any better than they, it just makes you the same as them. A truth seeker who is humble will consider ALL available information. You are only willing to consider a supposedly ancient text that came to light in 1830 and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. They laugh at you because you are unwilling to consider the scores of factual evidence that supports the book is not an ancient text or that America's history shows no trace of those civilizations. You mock them because they are unwilling to look beyond the facts of science and see the spiritual pearls of wisdom that are found within the text and conclude that alone merits some credibility.

Have an open mind. Perhaps a reconciliation between the two sources of truth is possible.
Look in the mirror when you speak, it appears your mind is already closed.
Yeah. At times I close it. But I try to keep it open. Its a work in progress.

Years ago I did a lot of studying with the ancient Mayan civilization. The conclusions I came to were rather startling. I came to the conclusion that much of the Yucatan was a sprawling metropolis of which the likes we're unmatched in most of the ancient world. Just recently with the help of LiDAR technology they are finding that the city centers, now ruins under the covered jungle brush, were more of a megolopolis. It's my firm belief that as time proceeds forward they are going to find that the Book of Mormon was spot on. The two lines are actually converging on proving the BoM is true.

(BTW, I actually believe the Mayans were the Jaredites)

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 1:06 pm**

There are structures built in Turkey that date to about 10,000 BC. I contend they were built just after the flood. I also do not believe all peoples are descended of Noah.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 1:31 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:20 am . . . . . . . and if it doesnt fit, then either the facts/evidence of the secular world are incorrect . . . . . or the doctrine is incorrect or INCOMPLETE. Our doctrine teaches we receive God's knowledge line upon line and precept upon precept. The doctrine leaves open the possibility for more light and knowledge.

Or our understanding of the doctrine/scriptures is incomplete or not quite correct, in some cases involving problems w/translation from the originals.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 1:36 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:37 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
I bought one of Rod Meldrum's DVDs on this topic - haven't watched it yet though. He explained it to me in my brother's kitchen while we snacked on refreshments - that the conditions to create fossils are intense pressure and heat .. and water. IIRC

Super awesome guy - he's actually a little taller than I. =\

Sorry Alaris, but Meldrum's summary is quite incomplete and black-and-white. He seems to be addicted to that type of thinking. But he is talented, and has created a powerful 'meme' out of Ed Goble''s Heartland Model. That shows good ability. You can give him that.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 1:41 pm**

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm Cheetos, please forgive my abrupt snarkiness.
I jump the gun when I see the word believe with respect to science.

In what regard, that the person "believes" science, or that the person does not "believe" science?

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 1:43 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:00 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?
How could you verify the age of any fossil when they all supposedly predate the written record?

The dating is accomplished by a few techniques, the results of which are mostly concordant; especially results from the overlapping radiometric methods. Also the principle of stratigraphic superposition strongly supports relative dates among various types of fossils. So, you are right, determining relative ages of fossils (older vs. younger) is a no brainer.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 1:49 pm**

Rand wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:41 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm Cheetos, please forgive my abrupt snarkiness.
I jump the gun when I see the word believe with respect to science.
In what regard, that the person "believes" science, or that the person does not "believe" science?

I think I would prefer the word "accept" to "believe". Although I feel like I may be opening a semantic pandora's box.

Belief makes it sounds like there are various alternatives that you pick and choose from as you like. On the other hand science is science. True one can choose not to accept it but that says more about them than the science. One could not accept that the earth is not flat. That is their choice, I just wouldn't know how to communicate or deal with such a person.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 1:51 pm**

Rand wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:41 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm Cheetos, please forgive my abrupt snarkiness.
I jump the gun when I see the word believe with respect to science.
In what regard, that the person "believes" science, or that the person does not "believe" science?

Scientists will be the first to admit that they're just beginning to crawl like a baby when it comes to understanding the Universe. On the other hand, they'll behave that treating current scientific understanding as anything other than gospel is preposterous which is very large and spacious building-y. Don't fall for it. They're right about the baby crawling aspect - the mocking & vehement rejection of anything that doesn't fit the current day models, or anything that tries to introduce God into the equation, well you can know with a perfect knowledge as the day is light and the dark is night who is the source of that large and spacious attitude.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:00 pm**

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:59 am
thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:43 am
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:37 am
thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:30 am

No disrepect but the reason they laugh is the same reason you are mocking them: each side is so firmly engrained in their belief of the truth that they are unwilling to entertain the notion the other may be correct. That doesn't make you any better than they, it just makes you the same as them. A truth seeker who is humble will consider ALL available information. You are only willing to consider a supposedly ancient text that came to light in 1830 and has no supporting evidence whatsoever. They laugh at you because you are unwilling to consider the scores of factual evidence that supports the book is not an ancient text or that America's history shows no trace of those civilizations. You mock them because they are unwilling to look beyond the facts of science and see the spiritual pearls of wisdom that are found within the text and conclude that alone merits some credibility.

Have an open mind. Perhaps a reconciliation between the two sources of truth is possible.
Look in the mirror when you speak, it appears your mind is already closed.
Yeah. At times I close it. But I try to keep it open. Its a work in progress.
Years ago I did a lot of studying with the ancient Mayan civilization. The conclusions I came to were rather startling. I came to the conclusion that much of the Yucatan was a sprawling metropolis of which the likes we're unmatched in most of the ancient world. Just recently with the help of LiDAR technology they are finding that the city centers, now ruins under the covered jungle brush, were more of a megolopolis. It's my firm belief that as time proceeds forward they are going to find that the Book of Mormon was spot on. The two lines are actually converging on proving the BoM is true.

(BTW, I actually believe the Mayans were the Jaredites)

Good investigation on your part, in my view. Most recent LIDAR work (published on in Jan 2018) in northern Guatemala shows incredibly dense population centers, fortifications, pens for domestic animals, etc., all in an are half the size of Utah Valley. When I get time, I'll link you to a former post of mine on this and on the article itself.

There are several actual investigators who agree with you on your Mayan/Jaredite identity. However, w/the time that has passed, they are undoubtedly thoroughly mixed up w/all the rest: 'Nephites', 'Lamanites', Mulekites and any other group in the mix.

Mayan remnants actually wrote things (mid 1500s) which they attested as true, that they descended from 7 tribes, they had a younger brother who helped them cross the ocean, they came from Civan Tula (which means a land of Bountiful in a Ravine; which exactly fits Khor Kharfot) which was in the regions of Babylonia, and that they were descendents of Abraham and Jacob, etc. These things came from two Quiche Mayan documents; Popol Vuh, Title of the Lords of Totonicapan; and one from the Cakchiquel Mayans: The Annals of the Cakchiqueles . . . as well as other actual Mayan, etc., documents.

You will hear and read about these things much more, in years to come.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:02 pm**

larsenb wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 2:00 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:59 am
thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:43 am
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:37 am

Look in the mirror when you speak, it appears your mind is already closed.
Yeah. At times I close it. But I try to keep it open. Its a work in progress.
Years ago I did a lot of studying with the ancient Mayan civilization. The conclusions I came to were rather startling. I came to the conclusion that much of the Yucatan was a sprawling metropolis of which the likes we're unmatched in most of the ancient world. Just recently with the help of LiDAR technology they are finding that the city centers, now ruins under the covered jungle brush, were more of a megolopolis. It's my firm belief that as time proceeds forward they are going to find that the Book of Mormon was spot on. The two lines are actually converging on proving the BoM is true.

(BTW, I actually believe the Mayans were the Jaredites)
Good investigation on your part, in my view. Most recent LIDAR work (published on in Jan 2018) in northern Guatemala shows incredibly dense population centers, fortifications, pens for domestic animals, etc., all in an are half the size of Utah Valley. When I get time, I'll link you to a former post of mine on this and on the article itself.

There are several actual investigators who agree with you on your Mayan/Jaredite identity. However, w/the time that has passed, they are undoubtedly thoroughly mixed up w/all the rest: 'Nephites', 'Lamanites', Mulekites and any other group in the mix.

Mayan remnants actually wrote things (mid 1500s) which they attested as true, that they descended from 7 tribes, they had a younger brother who helped them cross the ocean, they came from Civan Tula (which means a land of Bountiful in a Ravine; which exactly fits Khor Kharfot) which was in the regions of Babylonia, and that they were descendents of Abraham and Jacob, etc. These things came from two Quiche Mayan documents; Popol Vuh, Title of the Lords of Totonicapan; and one from the Cakchiquel Mayans: The Annals of the Cakchiqueles . . . as well as other actual Mayan, etc., documents.

You will hear and read about these things much more, in years to come.

I'd be interested to read these or look at any sources you can point me to. Feel free to PM me. Thanks in advance.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:06 pm**

thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 2:02 pm
larsenb wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 2:00 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:59 am
thestock wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 7:43 am

Yeah. At times I close it. But I try to keep it open. Its a work in progress.
Years ago I did a lot of studying with the ancient Mayan civilization. The conclusions I came to were rather startling. I came to the conclusion that much of the Yucatan was a sprawling metropolis of which the likes we're unmatched in most of the ancient world. Just recently with the help of LiDAR technology they are finding that the city centers, now ruins under the covered jungle brush, were more of a megolopolis. It's my firm belief that as time proceeds forward they are going to find that the Book of Mormon was spot on. The two lines are actually converging on proving the BoM is true.

(BTW, I actually believe the Mayans were the Jaredites)
Good investigation on your part, in my view. Most recent LIDAR work (published on in Jan 2018) in northern Guatemala shows incredibly dense population centers, fortifications, pens for domestic animals, etc., all in an are half the size of Utah Valley. When I get time, I'll link you to a former post of mine on this and on the article itself.

There are several actual investigators who agree with you on your Mayan/Jaredite identity. However, w/the time that has passed, they are undoubtedly thoroughly mixed up w/all the rest: 'Nephites', 'Lamanites', Mulekites and any other group in the mix.

Mayan remnants actually wrote things (mid 1500s) which they attested as true, that they descended from 7 tribes, they had a younger brother who helped them cross the ocean, they came from Civan Tula (which means a land of Bountiful in a Ravine; which exactly fits Khor Kharfot) which was in the regions of Babylonia, and that they were descendents of Abraham and Jacob, etc. These things came from two Quiche Mayan documents; Popol Vuh, Title of the Lords of Totonicapan; and one from the Cakchiquel Mayans: The Annals of the Cakchiqueles . . . as well as other actual Mayan, etc., documents.

You will hear and read about these things much more, in years to come.
I'd be interested to read these or look at any sources you can point me to. Feel free to PM me. Thanks in advance.

Will do. RIght now, I've got cement work calling me. Remind me if I forget.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:13 pm**

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:48 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?
Fossil dating is bad "science." It's like me telling you how old you are because of how old your city is. The city you live in was founded 400 years ago; therefore, you are between 300 and 400 years old. When they "date" fossils, they're not dating the animal. They're "dating" the earth the animal came to rest in and around (quotes around dating because I'm also not sold on the dating methods themselves).

EDIT: editing the rest of this out. I don't like my tone.

Your last two statements are generally true, but not always. Their are 'fossils' that can be directly dated.

Your first statement is simply not true. The various methodologies have been proven again and again, within certain limitations, agreed; but both methodologies and the results are 'good science' . They are subject to misuse and the effects of contamination, however.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:17 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:51 pm
Rand wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:41 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm Cheetos, please forgive my abrupt snarkiness.
I jump the gun when I see the word believe with respect to science.
In what regard, that the person "believes" science, or that the person does not "believe" science?
Scientists will be the first to admit that they're just beginning to crawl like a baby when it comes to understanding the Universe. On the other hand, they'll behave that treating current scientific understanding as anything other than gospel is preposterous which is very large and spacious building-y. Don't fall for it. They're right about the baby crawling aspect - the mocking & vehement rejection of anything that doesn't fit the current day models, or anything that tries to introduce God into the equation, well you can know with a perfect knowledge as the day is light and the dark is night who is the source of that large and spacious attitude.

" they'll behave that treating current scientific understanding as anything other than gospel is preposterous which is very large and spacious building-y. Don't fall for it."

Yes, there is too much of this attitude. It certainly isn't science. It's what I'm beginning to understand as 'meme'-type thinking. The 'meme' that science is the true religion and scientists are its high priests.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:21 pm**

Rand wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:41 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm Cheetos, please forgive my abrupt snarkiness.
I jump the gun when I see the word believe with respect to science.
In what regard, that the person "believes" science, or that the person does not "believe" science?

Science is a logical method of inquiry/investigation of our reality, mainly physical. Not believing in the method, is cutting off your nose to spite your face . . . . in effect denying something very straightforward and logical.

The results of some 'science' or claims of 'science', are another issue . . . . .

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:30 pm**

larsenb wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 2:21 pm
Rand wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:41 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm Cheetos, please forgive my abrupt snarkiness.
I jump the gun when I see the word believe with respect to science.
In what regard, that the person "believes" science, or that the person does not "believe" science?
Science is a logical method of inquiry/investigation of our reality, mainly physical. Not believing in the method, is cutting off your nose to spite your face . . . . in effect denying something very straightforward and logical.

The results of some 'science' or claims of 'science', are another issue . . . . .

The use of the scientific method is wonderfully useful. But, what we typically call science in our time is not very scientific in my view. I recently had a Psychiatrist tell me his practice was scientific. Uhm, nooooo! Medicine as a whole is not scientific at all. The application of any drug nor procedure has ever been validated on that individual under those circumstances. There is some basis of science behind the "practice" of medicine, but there is very little if any science in the actual practice.
What science has shown is so small it is like mass in the context of space. Much more is extrapolated than actually known. One of my pet peeves is people using the term science to justify their practice and to criticize some other practice. It is a very poorly applied system in our time, in my opinion.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 2:49 pm**

larsenb wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 2:13 pm
i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:48 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm

I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?
Fossil dating is bad "science." It's like me telling you how old you are because of how old your city is. The city you live in was founded 400 years ago; therefore, you are between 300 and 400 years old. When they "date" fossils, they're not dating the animal. They're "dating" the earth the animal came to rest in and around (quotes around dating because I'm also not sold on the dating methods themselves).

EDIT: editing the rest of this out. I don't like my tone.
Your last two statements are generally true, but not always. Their are 'fossils' that can be directly dated.

Your first statement is simply not true. The various methodologies have been proven again and again, within certain limitations, agreed; but both methodologies and the results are 'good science' . They are subject to misuse and the effects of contamination, however.

It's not good science if it depends on false assumptions (uniformitarianism and sans the flood), gets inaccurate results, and is shoved down everyone's throats like it's incontrovertible truth. If a methodology produces a result that a given fossil is a million years old, but it's actually only 5000 years old, how is that not bad science? I'm going on the bias that their "science" isn't giving us accurate results. You aren't. To me, this is bad science.

I'd like to further explore "direct" dating of organic matter, especially how the flood could have affected it, similar to how it affected organic matter the flood killed off. Do you have any links to published information on it? It seems like I've researched this before...can't remember now...

Note to self: check on whether the fossils researchers are now creating with water, pressure, and heat have shown similar dating figures.
If we can create fossils in a lab under the conditions that would have been present during the flood, I wonder if scientists would be willing to be more accepting of the flood and its effects.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 9:11 pm**

The one that always gets me is when scientists find dinosaur soft tissue and try to make up all these stories how cells can last millions of years...

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 9:18 pm**

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 9:11 pm The one that always gets me is when scientists find dinosaur soft tissue and try to make up all these stories how cells can last millions of years...

The cave was really, really, I mean realllly dry. Plus there wasn't any oxygen.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 9:28 pm**

i'mnotspecial wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 7:48 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?
Fossil dating is bad "science." It's like me telling you how old you are because of how old your city is. The city you live in was founded 400 years ago; therefore, you are between 300 and 400 years old. When they "date" fossils, they're not dating the animal. They're "dating" the earth the animal came to rest in and around (quotes around dating because I'm also not sold on the dating methods themselves).

EDIT: editing the rest of this out. I don't like my tone.

Well I thought you said a lot of on point things.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 9:37 pm**

Alaris wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 9:18 pm
Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 9:11 pm The one that always gets me is when scientists find dinosaur soft tissue and try to make up all these stories how cells can last millions of years...
The cave was really, really, I mean realllly dry. Plus there wasn't any oxygen.

I thought they explain it away with “iron” being present helps prevent DNA decay? Shrug

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 10:00 pm**

The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 9:23 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:39 pm
The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.
So how old would that make the oldest fossils? And all fossils are the same age? hmm?
It would make the oldest fossils and the newest fossils all about 4500ish years old. Carbon dating is invalid on fossils in that case, yes, because it doesn't take into account the heat, pressure, and water that changed the organic matter into a fossil.

I don’t remember many details, but I know I’ve seen a graph indicating how much they’ve had to adjust carbon decay for each year. That is, to get really good results, they really have to calibrate the results for each year. To do that, they have to take something of known date and carbon date it. So the calibrated dates only go back a couple thousand years. And the graph that shows the calibrations shows how far off the carbon decay theory they had to go for each year for the past, oh, I don’t know, 2k years. But again, they can’t calibrate much beyond that. It was a very interesting graph anyways.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 10:02 pm**

The Airbender wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 6:27 pm
justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 11:10 am I just saw a headline from the Wall Street Journal about a fossil jaw found in the Himalayas belonging to a vanished human species.

It got me wondering how this forum responds to or feels about such findings.
I believe all fossils that are found on earth were created during the Great Flood. Dinosaurs, homowhatever, big and small, whatever.

I’m with you there. I don’t think *all* the fossils are necessarily from the flood, but the vast majority, yes.

Posted: **May 2nd, 2019, 10:27 pm**

Cheetos wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 9:11 pm The one that always gets me is when scientists find dinosaur soft tissue and try to make up all these stories how cells can last millions of years...

I do not doubt that cells from soft tissue could last millions of years under the proper circumstances, what I do doubt is twofold, 1) The proper circumstances and 2) That there are any cells laying around on this planet that are millions of years old, basically due to number 1 and potentially due to when things were actually created on this planet since we do not know when that happened.

Posted: **May 3rd, 2019, 9:00 am**

Quick question. Is oil and other fossil fuels really fossils? If so how old are they? If all fossils are only around 5000 years old does that mean oil is also? If so why doesn't it contain carbon 14 since the half life is around 5000 years old?

Posted: **May 3rd, 2019, 9:17 am**

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:00 am Quick question. Is oil and other fossil fuels really fossils? If so how old are they? If all fossils are only around 5000 years old does that mean oil is also? If so why doesn't it contain carbon 14 since the half life is around 5000 years old?

I personally think that at a bare minimum you can date everything on earth from about 13,000 years ago going forward and that is a bare minimum since we have no idea what the real timeline is. Radiocarbon dating (my opinion again) is worthless due to too many factors that could and do impact it, it's unreliable and not a good basis for figuring out what God did nor when He did it. Not really being able to figure out what the atmosphere was like is one of the monumental challenges to the radiocarbon dating theory and all the work that has been done to figure that out and the results of it I question greatly. Way too many holes, again, to say with certainty "this happened then" instead of "we think this may have happened then." The arrogance of the belief in radiocarbon dating is truly bothersome, it is a religion in itself.

LDS Freedom Forum

Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites

Re: Pre Adamites