Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by Jeanie
I haven't like Russ T's approach either, but, I don't necessarily put total stock into the "learning of man" so to speak. Not on something like this. I doubt scientists who already think what they do would be open to something that would seem to blow what has already been established in their opinions.


That wasn't the point of my post. My point is that RussT doesn't feel he needs to bother with real evidence at all. His opinions are all he needs and all he bothers to write down.

He doesn't even bother to provide anything other than his opinion and anecdotal testimonies to support that sacred cow subject of Mercury Amalgams. You would think that he would at least provide some substantive support for the harmfulness of that.

His opinion of your version of Christianity is well documented. His evidence in support of his opinion is no more valid than the evidence he provides in support of his opinion about evolution.

Obviously, you don't think his opinion about the Mormon Faith is valid. So how do we determine what is true and what is not? Do we just accept everyone's ideas as true?

As for your point about what scientists would be "open" to, let me provide an example.

On July 5, 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published his treatise on the laws of motion. In that paper, he stated that time and space were absolute parameters. In other words, time and space did not change and were separate from each other. For over 200 years, no one questioned this. Then another minor scientist named Albert Einstein, turned that idea on its ear by showing that space and time were interlocked and actually changed with changes in velocity and proximity to mass. Einstein earned great acclaim by going against an established theory and proving that his theory was more correct.

The point is that scientists obtain great personal fame by overturning established theories. If the theory of evolution was a flimsey as RussT claims, then at least one scientist would break out of the conspiracy to become famous and gain everything that the fame would provide.


Hi Linear, I can see your point on all this for sure. I base my ideas about science on a mixture of what evidence we have and the revealed truths and accept the TOE as only true to a point.

Of course I don't base my beliefs on what others say, though. I've bucked the "system" since I was 15 and endured quite a bit of garbage for what I believe. I converted at a young age, but it was the real deal... And my testimony has only deepened with time. But I've stood alone on it the majority of my life. My only support now is my 2 girls, my husband when he is strong himself and my current ward and a few dear friends I've made over the years. No extended family support, though. (And God himself - at times He's ALL I've had).

Yah, Russ has royally ticked me off and he is overly sure of himself. (But part of me thinks its not quite how he feels inside). This is his forum quite literally. His podium.... His soapbox. It doesn't mean I agree, but I don't hate the guy. And in essence I do agree with much of what he says on general matters. I think he has a good heart. I do think he over generalizes and judges.... And of course I disagree with his view of the church. I've noticed that he bases most of what he thinks on things he finds on the internet. It has been proven he has gotten his sources wrong with his most used quotes regarding the TOE and he certainly finds bogus junk about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I suppose I cannot comprehend someone with that much....I guess incredulity is the only word for it. Sorry Russ.... He seems to be hanging on for dear life at times, though. The false bravado is more a front IMO.