Interesting - object in solar system...

[ParticleMan]

Hey, um... guys. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but please take off your tinfoil hats. Putting your belief in pseudo science is not a good thing to be doing. Most of the time, the works seem to make more sense than mainstream science, but upon closer examination you would find that certain things do not add up with current observations. IE. they fall flat and don't work.

Best to stick with main stream science, even if it does at times seem a bit wonky. To put it another way: I believe in main stream science... in so far as it is translated correctly. For the most part it works well in its intended purpose.

I just accept that God knows what he is doing, and that just because something in science seems to contradict something akin to God's nature, doesnt mean that it actually does.

Should not belief be based on evidence? Popular does not imply true. Consensus does not imply correct. Official does not imply veritable.

Where money, politics, and pride supplant truth is where people and practices become corrupted. Hence, the corruption in numerous aspects of the mainstream of the world, including the institution of science, which includes honest as well as pseudo science, the latter largely comprising unverifiable theories that are taught as truth.

All are entitled to their own opinions and rationale. If you determine that it's "Best to stick with main stream science," then you may do so. But unless you offer compelling reasons for your opinion, seeking to go about dissuading people from an opinion contrary to yours, to interrupt their rejoicings, is unlikely to effect much.

Paradigm shifts tend to be prefaced by serious reflection by the open-minded. But some detractors seem unwilling to sufficiently suspend their disbelief so as to acquire adequate understanding. Instead, some succumb to the natural man, such as in rushing to judgment and committing fallacies, especially ad hominem, against those who do not believe according to their own will and pleasure, as well as to their differing belief.

LDS advocates of EU theory might agree with the comparison that mainstream cosmology is to apostate Christianity as plasma cosmology is to the Restoration. But that religious doctrines potentially correlate with scientific principles is less seen as evidence for the veracity of such principles than as icing on the cake of the paradigm.

[GrandMasterB]

Hey, um... guys. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but please take off your tinfoil hats. Putting your belief in pseudo science is not a good thing to be doing. Most of the time, the works seem to make more sense than mainstream science, but upon closer examination you would find that certain things do not add up with current observations. IE. they fall flat and don't work.

Best to stick with main stream science, even if it does at times seem a bit wonky. To put it another way: I believe in main stream science... in so far as it is translated correctly. For the most part it works well in its intended purpose.

I just accept that God knows what he is doing, and that just because something in science seems to contradict something akin to God's nature, doesnt mean that it actually does.

Mainstream science teaches our children there is no God. It teaches that we are an accident of nature, which nature also came into being by accident. How is it best to believe in this science exactly? Mainstream science "observations" are also proven wrong every day and fall flat time and time again. Forgive me if I do not understand your voice of reason in this.

[Durzan]

Hey, um... guys. I hate to be the voice of reason here, but please take off your tinfoil hats. Putting your belief in pseudo science is not a good thing to be doing. Most of the time, the works seem to make more sense than mainstream science, but upon closer examination you would find that certain things do not add up with current observations. IE. they fall flat and don't work.

Best to stick with main stream science, even if it does at times seem a bit wonky. To put it another way: I believe in main stream science... in so far as it is translated correctly. For the most part it works well in its intended purpose.

I just accept that God knows what he is doing, and that just because something in science seems to contradict something akin to God's nature, doesnt mean that it actually does.

Mainstream science teaches our children there is no God.

A misconception of understanding. Scientific studies themselves do not support the notion of the existence or non-existence of a supreme being(s), although many scientists have come to their own individual conclusion that God does or does exist, and yet others still attempt to use Science to prove or disprove the existence of a being such as God (to little effect, as there is not really a scientific way to go about testing to see if God exists). What they do support however, is the assumption that the universe is governed and regulated by a complex network of consistent laws and phenomenon that can be observed and studied. Again, this conclusion is largely independent of the notion of there being/not being a Creator.

It teaches that we are an accident of nature

I assume you are referring to the primordial soup being the formation of life? Again, another false misconception. The materials needed to form life (IE Amino Acids), have been proven to be able to form under certain conditions. Electricity can cause reactions that can form some (but not all) of the basic building blocks of life, but it cannot animate the materials to form even a basic bacterial cell. To say that life is an accident is a gross misnomer. Scientists have used their limited knowledge of the laws of chemistry and biology to construct a hypothesis about how the first life forms were animated, but without the ability to replicate it or show conclusive proof it is little more that highly popularized speculation. And again, this speculation doesn't indicate one way or another whether the creation of life was a random occurrence or that it was directly caused by someone or something else.

which nature also came into being by accident.

As far as scientists know, the Big Bang was the start of reality as we know it; what happened before, we have no clue. We also do not know what caused the Big Bang, and again, any ideas that we do have about it amounts to little more than speculation.

Mainstream science "observations" are also proven wrong every day and fall flat time and time again.

Thats kinda the entire point of the Scientific Method; make observations under specific conditions, form a number of tentative statements (hypothesis) that can explain said observations, test the statements further to see if they hold up, then drawing conclusions. ALL of science is built around trying to poke enough holes in hypothesis to make them sink.