Re: [ZION] Guns, Germs and Steel
At 19:16 11/4/2002 -0700, M Marc wrote: Anyone here remember that old cartoon about the swing? There are about half a dozen ridiculous drawings of a simple swing in ridiculous configurations, which go from: what the salesman booked, what the marketeer spec'ed, what the engineer built, and so on, until the final one was a simple rope with a tire at the end, labelled what the customer wanted. It was, in fact swinging through my mind when I read it. Till / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 00:59:01 -0900 John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with: Archaeology also shows that Jericho didn't have the walls tumbling down when Joshua fought it. I don't believe archaeology knows what it is talking about. The scriptures say that the walls came tumbling down, so they did. And that's that. So how do we reconcile the fact that the archaeological remains down show a tumbled down wall. I think it can be reconciled in a couple of ways. 1) Archaeologists may have the wrong ruins, that is, they are excavating a town that is not Jericho. 2) The have the right town, but all of the tumbled wall was used as building materials for constructing another wall and building homes. 3) After the walls tumbled, and the town was destroyed, it was rebuilt in another location keeping the same name. Whatever the case, there has to be a reconciliation. Or are we to suppose that the bible could be wrong about so simple a thing? If we can't trust the bible on so simple a thing as the destruction of Jericho, why should we believe the story of the parting of the Red Sea, or the story of Joshua stopping the sun in the sky, or the parting of the waters of Jordan, or manna falling from heaven? I consider it far more likely that archaeologist are wrong than it is that the scriptures are wrong. I agree with you on this issue, John. They are digging in the wrong place and have the levels all out of whack. The chronology as understood by modern man is in grave error. Egyptologist David Rhol has made excellent points (with real facts) on how they are digging in the wrong level--in the wrong time. It all goes back to the misdating by modern science. The book Pharaohs and Kings by David Rhol offers compelling reasons to rethink how things have been dated. He has also done a documentary that was on TV. It might be in your library. I doubt you have time or interest but his website is (in case any one is interested and has heard of his work): http://www.nunki.net/ But, to save you time, I wrote a small scholarly paper reflecting (exact points) David Rhol's book regarding some key points of interest on how Egyptologists have assigned too many years to some of the dynasties of late. I highly recommend you read it because it will introduce you to his work which has become a significant force in the world of psedo Egyptology. David Rhol is not religious at all but has interest in showing how the Bible has gotten a bum rap by modern science. His work is extremely compelling! http://www.myegyptology.net/file/id51.htm Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Guns, Germs and Steel
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
against known evidences. That does not yet make it a fact, as future
evidence can always refute a theory. Without theories, we would not
advance in science or knowledge. The danger comes when we convince
ourselves that a theory is a fact, when in fact, it isn't.
So basically what you are saying is that I can forward any way out weird
theory, maybe like something that Velikovsky or von Daniken might write,
and the burden of proof is on us to use evidence to showing how wrong
headed my theory is.
A theory has to be based on observable data, and it has to show its own
falsifiability criteria, which is to say, this is what it would take to prove
the theory wrong:. (Darwin did this in Origin of Species, for instance, when he
said that if intermediate forms were not found in the fossil record this would
present a major stumbling block to his theory. That intermediate forms continue
to be found all the time shows that his theory works, or in scientific parlance,
that it is true. But that doesn't mean true in the ultimate, religious sense,
as tomorrow another theory could come along which explains the data better and is
better at predicting behaviour of the physical model. Velikovsky's problem was
that he didn't indicate how Venus and Mars could have changed their orbits from a
harmonic orbit with Earth (for which there is a precedent; namely Neptune and
Pluto) to their existing near-circular orbits. It also didn't account for the
thermal effects close flybys would create in the Earth, therefore it has been
rejected by scientists.
I disagree that a person can responsibly postulate a theory and then expect
it to be accepted unless someone can disprove it. Even a theory needs to
be supported with some kind of evidence. Otherwise it isn't even a theory,
just a wild speculation.
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
You know what would make a good story? Something
about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's
real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy
===
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
[ZION] Archaeology breakthrough--dramatic transitional forms
Archaeologists have recently discovered fossil evidence of evolutionary transitional forms of modern sheep species. Of course, these illustrations are not being promoted as absolutely accurate renderings, science being the forever tentative discipline that it is. --- Mij Ebaboc [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.com/~jcobabe When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less. _ Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN. http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote: Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Well, I see it like this. If my religious experiences are all in mind, and the real world plays by different rules, I stick with my own little invented world. The world invented in my mind by thes chemicals include a caring God who loves me and has provided a way to inherit all that He has. He has provided me with a personal Saviour who has attoned for all my sins if I will just follow a few simple rules. He promises me Love and gives my life a meaning. If it is all a figment of my chemically altered imagination, I hope I never stop imagining because a world without these things is a real horror story in action and I don't want to be part of it! Scott -- Buttered bread always lands butter side * Would YOU mistake these as down (Unless it sticks to the ceiling!) * anyone`s opinions but my own? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott McGee) Web: http://scott.themcgees.org/ -- http://fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.? Stacy. At 07:36 PM 11/05/2002 +, you wrote: At 15:23 11/3/2002 -0600, St Paul (not Minnesota) wrote: Also, maybe our whole religious experience is self induced with naturally occurring chemicals in our brains that make us wishy washy? Maybe the whole thing is a joke? Well, I see it like this. If my religious experiences are all in mind, and the real world plays by different rules, I stick with my own little invented world. The world invented in my mind by thes chemicals include a caring God who loves me and has provided a way to inherit all that He has. He has provided me with a personal Saviour who has attoned for all my sins if I will just follow a few simple rules. He promises me Love and gives my life a meaning. If it is all a figment of my chemically altered imagination, I hope I never stop imagining because a world without these things is a real horror story in action and I don't want to be part of it! Scott -- Buttered bread always lands butter side * Would YOU mistake these as down (Unless it sticks to the ceiling!) * anyone`s opinions but my own? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott McGee) Web: http://scott.themcgees.org/ -- http://fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002 / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] The veil
On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:03:17 -0800, Stacy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: How does one get an arranged marriage if one might wish one? I'm mad it seems it can't be done in this culture. The trick to arranged marriages is that you don't do your own arranging. That makes it pretty hard to accomplish for you. Now, if you wanted to try to arrange a marriage for your kids, you might be able to manage, but it would be exceedingly hard. The couple I knew who married as an arranged marriage were from India. I worked with him and we were good friends. We talked a lot about his feelings when his parents wanted him to go back to India to meet the woman they had basically engaged him to. He wasn't excited about the prospect but was willing to meet her for their sake. He came back with a different attitude and they made a really nice couple. Unfortunately, we both changed employers and states a while after and I have been unable to find him since. Scott -- Buttered bread always lands butter side * Would YOU mistake these as down (Unless it sticks to the ceiling!) * anyone`s opinions but my own? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott McGee) Web: http://scott.themcgees.org/ -- http://fastmail.fm - The holy hand grenade of email services / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] The veil
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 18:05:35 -0500, Valerie Nielsen Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Oh Dear Scott: I had no idea what you have been through. I get off of ZION for a few years, and everything falls apart!! That's right, so don't you leave again! You hear me? As I read between the lines, I see a great deal of suffering and sorrow and am reminded of what Eve said in the Garden--that we must needs pass through sorrow in order to know joy. Man is that he might have JOy! Anyway, as I sat listening to that in the temple on Friday, it really meant more to me then it ever has before in my life. It was sad when my dad died--I cried and thought that was the worst. But in a couple of months, I was doing pretty good. I remember appreciating little things a lot more. But, losing my spouse has been much worse. I have never experienced greater sorrow than losing Tom. Imagine the pain of losing your spouse, several of your kids, someone taking a large chuch of what's left of your income, and you don't even get to morn the loss of your spouse as she left you and took the other. It's like having a spouse die, but you are contantly reminded of them. Even have to talk to them at times. You can't morn them, but have to learn to not love them, whatever that means. Even now, after having dealt with all that, there is this person who has just as much say as I do in my kids lives, but no longer respects any of the values that I have always tried to raise them by. Someone who tries to (and in once case, succeeded) in subverting their love and loyalty to you. My youngest daughter just turned 10 a couple of weeks ago, and has never been baptized. My heart aches to know how much she is missing out. I went for over a year without ever seeing my youngest two daughters at one point. The pain of death is indeed devistating. I still feel the death of my grandmother who died six years ago. On the other hand, we know that they are someplace better, and that we will join them one day. The pain of betrayal and divorce never ends. My children are hurt by it now, years after. I suffer constantly over what their mother teaches them, and from not seeing them grow up. Worse, she still has the potential for financially devistating Jo and I now! It doesn't mean there won't be greater sorrows ahead, but for me, right now, this is it. It's been a bit over 7 months, and I still am not doing very well. However, I must say that the gospel, the teachings, the scriptures, have made this transition for me MUCH easier. I cannot imagine going through this without it. Ah, that is what got me through it too, and continues to strengthen me. The love a truly caring wife helps too. I was not ready--emotionally or financially--and trying to rebuild both at the same time is a real struggle. (of course, when it rains it pours--in June I was doing the good Mormon mother thing and taking my inactive boys to see the Nauvoo Temple open house when my van's tranny died and there I was, stranded in the middle of Illinois. $1600 for repairs, $300. for car rental etc. etc. ) I cannot tell you how grateful I am for a ward family who stepped up, and continues to step up, to help me out. (Not to mention the ward members in Ottawa, Illinois who housed us and fed us. What a relief. We did make it to the Open House, and in fact did almost everything I had planned.) Even my cynical teenage son has been impressed at how connected we are through the gospel. It's more than just a church connection--it's much deeper. I believe that most members of the Church truly mourn with those that mourn, comfort those that stand in need of comfort and bear one another's burdens that they may be light. I've experienced it first-hand and am still in awe of how incredible it is. I know, I've rambled--my heart is just full and I wanted you, Scott, to know how much we care about you and that we DO feel the pain of what you've been through--maybe not as intensely, but we do know and understand it. Thank you for your words and thoughts. Very truly, this list was instremental for me getting through that period. The unexpected blessing of finding a wife here was incredible too. The Lord sometimes will hit you with the most amazing blessings! Scott -- Buttered bread always lands butter side * Would YOU mistake these as down (Unless it sticks to the ceiling!) * anyone`s opinions but my own? Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott McGee) Web: http://scott.themcgees.org/ -- http://fastmail.fm - Send your email first class / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to:
Re: [ZION] Reconstructing the Clinton legacy
At 20:21 11/5/2002 +, Goodfriend Scott wrote: On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 15:01:45 -0500, Elmer L. Fairbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: At 19:30 11/5/2002 +, Goodfriend Scott wrote: On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 07:39:36 -0500, Elmer L. Fairbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: At 18:04 11/2/2002 +, Gib Mij wrote: I'm always confused by this peculir application of the term women's rights. I'd kinda like to know exactly what constitutes the analogous men's rights. The right to work, pay taxes and die. Yeah! What Till said! Except he forgot to mention alimony and child support too. Alas, my friend, you make me feel guilty that I don't have these. Am I a substandard American male? No, my friend Till, you are the deluxe edition without these negative features! Kind of like Monopoly with gold plated pieces??? Till who is still waiting for that pickup call from the Syracuse Airport / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: People think Churchill's remark that sometimes a truth is so precious that it has to be protected by numerous lies is a cynical reading of history, but there's a lot of wisdom to that. It doesn't matter when Jericho's walls came tumbling down. It's pretty certain that they didn't tumble when Joshua's account said they did, but so what? That's not the point. I think it makes a lot of difference whether or not Moses was a liar. It also makes a lot of difference whether or not we may rely upon the Bible for anything. I understand the qualifier in the Article of Faith. But if the story of the wall tumbling is not to be taken literally, perhaps we shouldn't take the story of the Israelites in Egypt seriously either. Maybe the resurrection of Christ was just a figure of speech. I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally true. And we need to remember that just because something is symbolism, doesn't mean that is not also literally true. Literal facts can serve as symbols. I would like to see a thread on how we separate the figurative from the literal in scripture. Do we just automatically assume a thing is only a figure of speech if it doesn't fit in with our naturalistic interpretation of the human past? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.? Maybe they are all part of my vivid dream? --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
The resurrection of Christ is not a figure of speech -- there is no slippery
slope here. One just has to realize what the difference between sacred and
secular history is.
John W. Redelfs wrote:
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
People think Churchill's remark that sometimes a truth is so precious that
it has
to be protected by numerous lies is a cynical reading of history, but
there's a
lot of wisdom to that. It doesn't matter when Jericho's walls came
tumbling down.
It's pretty certain that they didn't tumble when Joshua's account said
they did,
but so what? That's not the point.
I think it makes a lot of difference whether or not Moses was a liar. It
also makes a lot of difference whether or not we may rely upon the Bible
for anything. I understand the qualifier in the Article of Faith. But if
the story of the wall tumbling is not to be taken literally, perhaps we
shouldn't take the story of the Israelites in Egypt seriously
either. Maybe the resurrection of Christ was just a figure of speech.
I think we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water when
we start labeling as figurative those things that might be literally
true. And we need to remember that just because something is symbolism,
doesn't mean that is not also literally true. Literal facts can serve as
symbols.
I would like to see a thread on how we separate the figurative from the
literal in scripture. Do we just automatically assume a thing is only a
figure of speech if it doesn't fit in with our naturalistic interpretation
of the human past?
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described
intellectuals --Uncle Bob
===
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] Guns, Germs...
Scaffolding is another good term -- thanks. We are given a wide variety of toolsets with which to learn. To confuse the toolsets with the structures they build is a mistake, imo. John Widstoe wrote a lot about this issue, and had some very thought-provoking suggestions as to how to approach apparent discrepancies. But what they all boil down to is that the history in a secular sense isn't as important as the spiritual message that's carried -- n.B. my example of Isaiah and how to read the confusing references to winepresses and the like. It's not winepresses that are important (although it's interesting to note that Gethsemane comes from a word meaning winepress but I digress), but the atonement of our Saviour. The language doesn't automatically lead us to this conclusion anymore because we're not familiar with the language. But when read with the Spirit, the message will come through even without secular scholarly tools. I've personally found that those scholarly tools make the Spirit's job easier. It's as if you're called on to fire arrows. The more arrows you have in your quiver, the better an archer you are, as you have more that the Spirit can choose from, and say, Select this one. Gary Smith wrote: I look at such ideas as a way to expand possibilities and learning in my own life. Joseph F Smith said it should all be considered scaffolding used to help build the actual building of true knowledge. Since we don't have exact information on how long the creation took for example, we really don't know what the exact process is that God used. So, we can often get the same uncertainty in the scriptures as we find in science. I don't turn away from science. I use it as scaffolding to help me learn to understand the things in this world. I understand that it is based upon theory, so it doesn't phase me when it blatantly contradicts the scriptures. I know there will be unanswered questions. Rather than run away from it, I do as JFS suggested, and use it all as possible scaffolding. God doesn't condemn us for keeping an open mind on non-doctrinal things. Now, we could argue on what denotes doctrine, however as individuals we each must make that determination for ourselves. I think there are too many members who run away from learning, because it would force them to consider new ideas that may help them accept the gospel on a higher level. I don't consider you one of those people, John, otherwise you wouldn't be on these lists discussing such things. An example: are the proper names for Jesus and God really Jehovah and Elohim? They have been standardized as such in the church for about 80 years (since 1919). However, in Joseph Smith's day, the name Jehovah was a title that was used interchangeably for Father and Son (see how Joseph used Jehovah in the Kirtland dedicatory prayer, DC 109). Most members never learn that God truly is nameless, as no name can contain all He is. The most we can do is use name-titles to describe him. I love science, as someday I will have to use it (along with math, language, art, etc) to form my own worlds. Developing and testing theories helps me to develop my critical thinking skills. These I believe are necessary to recognize truth from error, but also to help me in problem solving (which God obviously does much of). So, even though science may be far fromthe truth in some areas, accepting some ideas as theoretical scaffolding allows me to use those theories until a greater truth is found. K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 juno.comhttp://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe JWR: Part of the reason I turned away from science to religion is because I despaired of learning anything with any certainty when the foremost authorities in almost every field disagree with fellow scientists about really basic things. I have a real need for at least some questions to have conclusive answers. Otherwise, life is just a constantly changing dream bound by no laws and consequently all over the map. I know very little for sure, but what little I do know I have learned from the scriptures, the modern prophets, and the testimony of the Holy Ghost. Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a world of
Re: [ZION] The veil
Scott McGee wrote: Man is that he might have JOy! == Grampa Bill comments: Sorry! Letty's woman enough for me! Love y'all Grampa Bill in Savannah / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Archaeology breakthrough--dramatic transitional forms
One must be careful to note, however, that if it were my ancestors who made those drawings, they had better not depend upon their accuracy. If I were to draw a picture of modern sheep today, it could definitely be used to prove that there was an evolutionary transition which occurred today! Jon Jim Cobabe wrote: Archaeologists have recently discovered fossil evidence of evolutionary transitional forms of modern sheep species. Of course, these illustrations are not being promoted as absolutely accurate renderings, science being the forever tentative discipline that it is. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Do as we say, not as we do, US tells Israel
The US has opposes Israeli attacks against individuals, even as a US
missile killed al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen:
http://www.globeandmail.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021105/wyem2115a/Front/homeBN/breakingnews
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade;
character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern
world, but we dont want a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill
(1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the
author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the
authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author
may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: And the prophecies coming to pass? Somewhere we must come down to objective measurements. Stacy. At 11:37 AM 11/05/2002 -0900, you wrote: After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with: If it is all in your mind, then how about the thousands of others who have not only experienced God but also written prophecies, etc.? Maybe they are all part of my vivid dream? --JWR Of course I agree with you. I'm just having fun pointing out how little we can actually be sure of. The whole universe, it seems, is made of molecules, that are made of atoms, that are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons. And the space between the orbit of an electron is immense when scale is taken into consideration. What this means is that most things are more not than are. There isn't that much difference between matter and energy. And all creation has to be held in place by the priesthood and faith of God. Now if matter is so... empty, if we are really just a mass of whirling atomic and subatomic particles, then anyone with the requisite faith can literally move mountains just by wishing them elsewhere. I don't believe that we are just a vivid dream. Life is real. But I consider those foolish who insist that such and so has to be the case because of a, b, and c. The fact is, all Heavenly Father would have to do to totally change the world, the solar system, the galaxy, indeed the whole universe is imagine them differently, or to will them to change. Should anyone marvel that a human being like Jehovah could part the Red Sea, when it was He who put this planet into its present orbit around the sun? In a way, all of reality is merely a vivid dream that God is having, the difference being, of course, that he has control of his dreams while we do not. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] First Presidency Statement on War
http://www.zionsbest.com/mckay_on_war.html This is a talk given in April General Conference in 1942 during the height of WWII. At the time, President David O. McKay was the Second Counselor in the First Presidency of President Heber J. Grant. Gary Smith posted the talk to the list; but I thought some of you might like to bookmark it, so I put it up on my website. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ...by proving contraries, truth is made manifest --Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Volume 6, p.248 *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: The historical literalness of the bible is not as important as the spiritual understanding behind the events told about. - Whether or not Cain and Able were farmers and herders of sheep, and the direct literal sons of Adam is not as critical as the recognition that anger and envy are tools that Satan can use to direct our actions. - Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed Him? Personally, my testimony does not rest on whether or not the bible can be proven historical or not. There are too many years, translations, and interpretations, between then and now, and too many things that we will never be able to physically prove - most evidence has been physically destroyed by time. Sure, it's nice when evidence does surface that supports some biblical event, but it's not critical to my understanding of His plans for me. For some reason this line of argument reminds me of those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon: --- The Book of Mormon doesn't have to be literally a record of ancient America as long as the principles that it teaches are true. There probably weren't any Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America. It is an extended allegory that the Lord inspired Joseph Smith to make because of the wonderful, eternal truths that it teaches. --- Sorry, but in my book, this kind of reasoning just won't cut it. Admittedly there is symbolism in the Bible. There is symbolism in the Book of Mormon, too. But there really was a Father Lehi, and there really were Nephites and Lamanites. And it matters very much to me whether or not the God of the Old Testament parted the Red Sea, or Jesus Christ and Peter literally walked on water. If they didn't, then the scriptures are a lie, and I might just as well chuck all this religion stuff. I have to draw the line somewhere. Is it symbolism, or is it literal? If it is all symbolism, then we can all interpret the scriptures to mean whatever we want them to mean. After all, symbols mean different things to different people. Nope. My mind is made up. God literally did part the Red Sea. And the walls of Jericho literally did tumble down. If scientists and archaeologist don't come up with the same answer, then they had better go back and try again, because they have certainly made a serious error. You see. I know that the Bible might have errors in it. But there are undoubtedly errors in the findings, interpretations, and conclusions of archaeologists and paleontologist, too. Nothing that man touches can be without error. But I don't know why religious people would assume the error is with the Bible rather than the scientists. That is the crux of the matter. When push comes to shove, why would anybody put scientists above the scriptures? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a result of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to restrict one's understanding to the literalistic understanding that arises from the assumptions we have in our culture alone is limiting the power of scripture. What Dan said is precisely the *opposite* of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon say, and I agree with him, and will not be tagged as a Signaturi because you don't understand how to read scripture. John W. Redelfs wrote: After much pondering, Dan R Allen favored us with: The historical literalness of the bible is not as important as the spiritual understanding behind the events told about. - Whether or not Cain and Able were farmers and herders of sheep, and the direct literal sons of Adam is not as critical as the recognition that anger and envy are tools that Satan can use to direct our actions. - Is it more important that the walls of Jericho fell as described, or that the people of the covenant were successful as long as they followed Him? Personally, my testimony does not rest on whether or not the bible can be proven historical or not. There are too many years, translations, and interpretations, between then and now, and too many things that we will never be able to physically prove - most evidence has been physically destroyed by time. Sure, it's nice when evidence does surface that supports some biblical event, but it's not critical to my understanding of His plans for me. For some reason this line of argument reminds me of those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon: --- The Book of Mormon doesn't have to be literally a record of ancient America as long as the principles that it teaches are true. There probably weren't any Nephites and Lamanites in ancient America. It is an extended allegory that the Lord inspired Joseph Smith to make because of the wonderful, eternal truths that it teaches. --- Sorry, but in my book, this kind of reasoning just won't cut it. Admittedly there is symbolism in the Bible. There is symbolism in the Book of Mormon, too. But there really was a Father Lehi, and there really were Nephites and Lamanites. And it matters very much to me whether or not the God of the Old Testament parted the Red Sea, or Jesus Christ and Peter literally walked on water. If they didn't, then the scriptures are a lie, and I might just as well chuck all this religion stuff. I have to draw the line somewhere. Is it symbolism, or is it literal? If it is all symbolism, then we can all interpret the scriptures to mean whatever we want them to mean. After all, symbols mean different things to different people. Nope. My mind is made up. God literally did part the Red Sea. And the walls of Jericho literally did tumble down. If scientists and archaeologist don't come up with the same answer, then they had better go back and try again, because they have certainly made a serious error. You see. I know that the Bible might have errors in it. But there are undoubtedly errors in the findings, interpretations, and conclusions of archaeologists and paleontologist, too. Nothing that man touches can be without error. But I don't know why religious people would assume the error is with the Bible rather than the scientists. That is the crux of the matter. When push comes to shove, why would anybody put scientists above the scriptures? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === You know what would make a good story? Something about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950) Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
Re: [ZION] Status update
Scott Ritter is a key figure in this whole thing, and while others disagree with
him, I personally take what he says with a great deal of trust. He was there, he
was the senior USAmerican present and reported directly to Hans Blix, the
inspection team chief at IAEA, and knows whereof he speaks. Mind you, he was also
very frustrated at the Iraqis' cute tricks at trying to hide things, too. It's
not a black and white situation.
All the best to your wife, Steven. I hope she recovers quickly.
Steven Montgomery wrote:
For those interested:
My wife, Mary, went in for her operation today (a full hysterectomy) and
everything went well. She had been having problems along this line for a
long time and I believe this will take care of the problem. As this is a
rather serious operation she'll be in the hospital till Friday. Her
physical activity will be severely curtailed for about six weeks as well.
Meanwhile the boys (Three: seventeen, thirteen and eleven) and I are
managing to hold down the fort, but just barely grin. As you might expect
my participation on ZION will be of a minimal nature until things get back
to a semblance of normality around here. I do read all of the posts,
sometimes in a hasty manner depending on time, but will probably not post
myself or reply unless something really takes my fancy.
I might mention one thing, while I was waiting for Mary to go into surgery,
I was able to pick up the local SUU (Southern Utah University) channel
where the weekly convocation was being shown. The invited guest was none
other than former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter. Very interesting
speech and very convincing, to me at least, his warning towards the U.S. in
initiating a war with Iraq. Basically what it amounts to, and maybe Marc
has more information on this as I consider myself highly uniformed on this
issue, is that the United States has not been living up to their
commitments in international law. Now I'm against the United Nations as a
peacekeeping force as I believe it actually is a war making body (as well
as the seedbed for global government) but since we are signatories to the
UN Charter and have worked through the UN we must either disavow the
charter or live up to our obligations. The United States has been acting
sort of like a cop who plants evidence or otherwise breaks the law in order
to bring down a bad guy. Now Scott Ritter has nothing good to say about
Saddam Hussein but believes that we must obey the law in order to cause any
substantial change in Iraq. For instance the United States has repeatedly
stated that what they want is a regime change (overthrow Saddam Hussein)
before they lift economic sanctions against Iraq. Well, the original
agreement was to lift the economic sanctions if it could be proven that
Iraq was complying with the ban on weapons of mass destruction. So now when
the United States comes in and then demands a regime change (and the CIA
has been involved in several plots to make that happen) it makes us out as
the bad guys and Iraq as the good guys. Scott Ritter believes that Saddam
Hussein must eventually go but it must be done according to law. Just one
more thing to consider on this whole Iraq situation.
--
Steven Montgomery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
HTML
BODY
a href=http://www.getusout.org;img border=0
src=http://www.getusout.org/images/guolink.gif;/a
PPBR
/BODY
/HTML
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] Guns, Germs and Steel
This is true. Each has their own challenges, opportunities, talents, gifts and
assignments in life. This is what I get from what Paul says in I Corinthians 13.
YOUR challenge and MY challenge are to use those to the best of our advantage. I
learned a very interesting lesson recently. I've been going through a great deal
of physical pain due to some neurological problems (among other things I had a
blood clot on the brain, between the surface and the lining of the brain, called a
subdural haematoma, which they say is one of the most painful things a person can
experience, along with childbirth and kidney stones). A neuropsychologist (who is
a diagnostician, not a counsellor) told me that I would probably have this
difficulty, due to brain damage in the parietal pre-frontal lobe of my brain, for
quite some time, and I had to learn to separate pain itself, which I can't do
anything about (beyond analgaesic relief) and suffering which he defined as my
reaction to pain. He told me to take more social risks and if I have a seizure
in public, well, so what of it? Other people's reaction to it is their problem.
Now let's turn that around. If you have a talent, you have a responsibility to
magnify it. Other people, who may not have that talent, should not envy you for
it, but should be glad for you, and should not react negatively when you succeed
in that area. We put a lot of barriers in our own way, and often attempt to put
barriers in other people's lives, too. Don't let anyone put barriers in your way.
And what I've said goes for Gary, too. I'm sure I'm not telling any of you
anything you don't already know, but this is by way of encouragement.
Stacy Smith wrote:
Not all of us are required to prove theories.
Stacy.
At 03:55 PM 11/04/2002 -0900, you wrote:
After much pondering, Gary Smith favored us with:
No, it is postulating a theory. Once a theory is set out for all to read,
then it is up to the rest of us to disprove the theory by testing it
against known evidences. That does not yet make it a fact, as future
evidence can always refute a theory. Without theories, we would not
advance in science or knowledge. The danger comes when we convince
ourselves that a theory is a fact, when in fact, it isn't.
So basically what you are saying is that I can forward any way out weird
theory, maybe like something that Velikovsky or von Daniken might write,
and the burden of proof is on us to use evidence to showing how wrong
headed my theory is.
I disagree that a person can responsibly postulate a theory and then
expect it to be accepted unless someone can disprove it. Even a theory
needs to be supported with some kind of evidence. Otherwise it isn't even
a theory, just a wild speculation.
John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
You know what would make a good story? Something
about a clown who make people happy, but inside he's
real sad. Also, he has severe diarrhea. --Jack Handy
===
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.399 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/09/2002
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland
The first duty of a university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not
technicalities. We want a lot of engineers in the modern world, but we dont want
a world of engineers. Sir Winston Churchill (1950)
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/
${list_promo}
Re: [ZION] scriptures are not secular?
Gary Smith wrote: Elder McConkie wrote that Eve really wasn't created from the rib of Adam, that it was symbolic of their equality. I guess that means it isn't a secular history, eh? SWK also said this. BY was much, much harsher on the 'secular history' of the Bible. I assume most here on this list are familiar enough with his writings that I don't have to use his very strong language on the subject? There is history in the Bible and BoM. However, they weren't written to be secular histories. They were written primarily to be books of holy writings, with history intermingled. A secular history concentrates on the historical side. Had the Bible and BoM been secular histories, we would have very little on the religious information except as it fit into the regular history. Instead, Nephi tells us that his book of secular history was contained on the large plates (history of kings, wars, etc), and the small plates (BoM) were to concentrate primarily on spiritual issues. Is Isaiah a secular history? No. Are there historical issues in it? Yes. But it concentrates on spiritual themes, not on secular history. Same with most of the writings in the Bible, with few exceptions (like Esther or Chronicles). Isaiah isn't even a *sacred* history. It is a book of prophecy, and has to be read in an entirely different way. It is not easy to learn, but let's not dismiss people's attempts to do so (I'm not speaking to you, Gary, on this). For those interested in a discussion of the difference, let me recommend Northrop Frye's explanation. He wasn't LDS, but what he wrote on this topic makes a lot of sense to me: http://www.members.shaw.ca/kschindler/frye_1.htm So, Marc is right. There is history, and these are historical people. But since the Bible wasn't written as a secular history, we don't know how much is actual history and how much is propaganda to make Israel look bigger and more important than it originally was among the other nations. The Bible itself is contradictory. There are two stories of the Creation interwoven, two traditions of God's dealings with Israel, one using El or Elohim and the other using Yahweh -- plus a priestly account, and all this was redacted, or reconstructed during Josiah's time. This was known as the Josian reform and is explicitly mentioned in the Bible -- it is the incident where Huldah finds the new law (a prototype of Deuteronomy, most likely) in the desecrated temple. We know this because others have also produced new laws -- the Temple Scroll, one of the DSS, contains an alternate Deuteronomy, for instance. And Deuteronomy tends to tell the laws differently, or repeat them -- besides the well-known account of the 10 commandments in Exodus, they are repeated in Deuteronomy. Why? One account shows David to be a scoundrel of the worst order, the other praises him as the mightiest king that ever lived (yet we have no archaeological record of him, with the exception of an arguable piece of inscription from Tell Dan). One account says Noah took 2 of every kind on board the ark, the other says he took 7 of each kind, but only of the kosher kinds. Well, which is it? This alone shouldn't lead us to discount the Bible, but it should re-direct our approach to it from the way we read modern history (a concept that wasn't even invented until Herodotus, a Greek who lived around 500 BC), to how to read scripture. And they are not the same approaches. That is a circumlocutory way of re-expressing what Pres. Young said on the matter. The BoM also isn't a secular history, as I said above. There are hundreds of years covered in just a few pages (Omni, Jarom), which isn't usually done in a secular history. A secular history also wouldn't cover so much preaching. Also, it would concentrate on the kings' activities, rather than the chief priests. It is a spiritual history with historical events included. BTW, had it been a secular history, it would probably be easier to find where the Nephites and Lamanites really were on the American continent, because it would have described their cities, rivers, and events better. Note, too, that the redaction process is explicit in the BoM: we have the Large Plates of Nephi, the Small Plates of Nephi, the record of the Jaredites, the Mulekites, and we have a whole line of keepers of the records, some of whom only added a token item such as Behold, I Garyihah, have received these plates and have verily not the foggiest notion what do with them, so I bequeath them unto my bright nephew, Johnihah and hope he hath better luck [tongue-in-cheek, naturally] to the great redactors of Nephi, Mormon and Moroni, some of whom claimed that they could only record a hundredth part of what they wanted to. Some History 101. Fortunately, I'm not called upon to have a testimony of History 101. I do have a testimony that the Bible, the Book of Mormon and the other scriptures we accept as canonical, are the Word of God. But mastery of
Re: [ZION] Bible vs. the Scientists
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with: This is a misrepresentation. Those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon deny that it was the record of an ancient people, but rather that it was a result of Joseph Smith's creativity. This is a lot different from realizing that the scriptures are written in multiple layers, and that to restrict one's understanding to the literalistic understanding that arises from the assumptions we have in our culture alone is limiting the power of scripture. What Dan said is precisely the *opposite* of what those who deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon say, and I agree with him, and will not be tagged as a Signaturi because you don't understand how to read scripture. I didn't say anything about Signaturi. I don't think you or anyone else on this list is a Signaturi, or I would have booted you off years ago. But to suggest that something must be symbolism instead of literal just because one cannot come up with a naturalistic explanation is EXACTLY what the Signaturi do when they deny the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Forced to choose between belief and man's logic, they equivocate. They try to straddle a fence that is a razor blade. If they can't explain it in scientific terms, they just say it is a figure of speech and that it doesn't matter as long as the divine principle was communicated. It actually reminds me of the arguments of the atheists that I grew up with. Because of this or that it isn't necessary for there to be a God. Well... what does necessary have to do with it anyway? If it is real, if it happened, then necessity has nothing to do with it. Now I now that there are a lot of blanks that we do not know how to fill today. Many of them are not going to be filled until the Second Coming. But I don't think we need to fill those blanks by denying the miracles of God. And yes, I think that suggesting that God did not part the Red Sea because it isn't necessary as long as the true message is communicated, is trying to force the miraculous, the divine, into a scientific mold.To say that something is not so because it isn't necessary, is bad logic in the first place. Lot's of things are so even though they are not necessary. It wasn't necessary for me to eat a big pizza yesterday, but I did. There are those who want to deny the reality of the miracles reported in the Old and New Testaments. Some of them try to brush off the miracle by saying that it never happened, that it is just a figure of speech or an allegory. They point out all the symbolism that is in the scriptures. Fine. There is a lot of symbolism in the scriptures. I wouldn't have it any other way. But to deny miracles by assuming the record to be symbolism rather than literal, is a cop out, in my opinion. Such a person ought to just admit they don't have enough faith to believe the miracles reported in the scriptures. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Atheistic humanism is the opiate of the self-described intellectuals --Uncle Bob === All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
[ZION] Antarctic Warming
Is global warming just symbolic? Like so many other theories, it seems forever tentative. Deseret News, Tuesday, November 05, 2002 Iceberg theories melting By Jesse Hyde Deseret News staff writer PROVO In March 2000, the largest iceberg ever observed broke off an ice shelf in Antarctica, signaling for many a warming of the planet. A pair of scientists concluded a year later that the number of icebergs around Antarctica was on the rise. The icebergs were melting, it seemed, because the planet was getting hotter. A recent study by a Brigham Young University professor disputes this theory. David Long, a BYU professor of electrical engineering, says the increasing number of icebergs observed around Antarctica has nothing to do with global warming. There's no evidence that there's a connection, Long says. Basically, we see better now, so we see more. Long and his students spent more than a year studying 20 years of satellite pictures and radar images taken of the waters around the South Pole and determined the number of icebergs near Antarctica has not changed substantially. More icebergs are reported today because the tools to spot them have improved, the study found. Researchers have used satellite imaging to identify and monitor icebergs since the early 1970s, but cloudy weather and dark nights often prevented some icebergs from being photographed and identified. Scientists then began using radar, which can identify icebergs through clouds and operate at night. Until recently the resolution of the radar images was too low to detect icebergs smaller than 35 miles across. Long's research team created a computer program that produces images sharp enough to spot icebergs as small as a mile wide. The number of icebergs found in Antarctica has not changed much since 1978, Long concluded. The massive icebergs recently observed breaking off ice shelves are the result of periodic growth and retraction of the large glaciers that yield icebergs every 40 to 50 years. This is not evidence of global warming, Long said. But it also does not say global warming isn't occurring. It doesn't say anything either way. In fact, Long has done other research that supports the global warming theory. He found more melting of snow on the Greenland icecap is the result of a one degree temperature increase that is consistent with other global warming theories. Douglas MacAyeal, a University of Chicago glaciologist who tracks icebergs, applauds Long's research and says linking iceberg growth to global warming would be premature. Any reputable scientist would not disagree with what I've said, Long said. Long's study was published in EOS Transactions, a publication of the American Geophysics Union. Cheryl Bertoia, of the U.S. National Ice Center participated in the study. Jim Cobabe [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.tripod.com/~jcobabe When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less. _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
