Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked


Recommended Posts

Posted

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk is now destined to become quoted by anti-Mormons for decades to come! He outright mocked the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's not the point of his talk, but he expanded the scope beyond it.

Posted

Don't you know? If it's spoken in General Conference, it's inerrant flawless binding God-breathed Revelatory doctrine and the only people who would dare question it are Liberal academic Neo-Orthodox cafeteria Mormons. If they're not apostates, I mean.

Posted

Elder Scott and Elder Nelson are twins, then, eh? Who knew? ;):D

Posted

Actually, I confuse them for each other all the time too. Something about the names and grey hair.

But yes, those whose faith is weak or nonexistent will surely have issues, but that's how we get stronger. Who knows, maybe someone might change their position... nah, who'm I kidding?

Posted

He said something along the lines of...If there was an explosion in a printer's shop, would it result in producing a dictionary?

I took it to mean that the creation of the world was not an accident, a random event.

Posted
I took it to mean that the creation of the world was not an accident, a random event.

We'll get the transcription shortly. But he specifically mentioned the big bang in a mocking manner (I believe it was "some sort of big bang").

Posted

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? The likelihood is most remote. But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

I transcribed this and it may contain errors.

Posted

Lol, yeah, I am still recovering from being sick. I claim temporary insanity. :-D

You're lucky. You're only insane when you're sick; some of us are sick 24/7 because we're insane! :crazy:

Posted
Paraphrasing Elder Nelson:

"Can an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?"

I didn't hear the talk as I am preparing to go to family activity. I came in on Christofferson's excellent talk about doctrine. However, if this paraphrasing is correct, it showes that he's not speaking against evolution at all because evolution does not propose complete radmoness nor does it take God out of the equation. When I get back, I'll take a gander at his talk.

Posted

It is easy to focus on the periphery and miss the center of the content. I predict critics everywhere will continue to do this.

The talk on doctrine and how it is received was superb. I hope some of our frequent visitors here were listening. He put into clear language that which I struggle to express.

Posted

We'll get the transcription shortly. But he specifically mentioned the big bang in a mocking manner (I believe it was "some sort of big bang").

Darn. I guess they'll have to reorganize the entire physics curriculum at BYU, BYU-Idaho, and BYU-Hawaii. *<tongue firmly in cheek>*

About a year ago Elder Shayne M. Bowen made a similar dismissive statement regarding evolution.

But I very much agree that Elder D. Todd Christofferson's talk was a refreshing drink of water.

Posted

It wouldn't surprise me if Elder Scott (background: nuclear physics) is not as well-disposed towards the Big Bang or full-out organic evolution (single-cell organisms to complex organisms over extremely long periods of time). A member of my stake presidency in the Chicago area growing up was a head physicist at Fermilab. They did "atom-smashing" and subatomic quantum phyiscs. He was in our ward, and I peppered him with science questions on a youth bishop's storehouse service assignment. One thing he told me was that the speed of light is a constant and upper-level speed limit in the universe for some purposes, but that things can go faster than light in other conditions.

As for evolution, he said, "Sure, evolution happens and can be observed. But, birds didn't come from frogs . . . " (winking).

Posted (edited)

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk is now destined to become quoted by anti-Mormons for decades to come! He outright mocked the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's not the point of his talk, but he expanded the scope beyond it.

I don't think he mocked the big bang or evolution.

I think he mocked an uncaused and purposeless big bang, and undirected evolution.

He implied that an explosion in a print shop couldn't produce a dictionary, which seems to be the same argument for intelligent design that's used by David, Paul, and in the Book of Mormon (by Alma I think.)

(If his remarks turn out to be an embarrassment, I think they will only be an embarrassment to the individual interpretations of Mormon doctrine that deny any ontological ground of being.)

Edited by inquiringmind
Posted

It wouldn't surprise me if Elder Scott (background: nuclear physics) is not as well-disposed towards the Big Bang or full-out organic evolution (single-cell organisms to complex organisms over extremely long periods of time). A member of my stake presidency in the Chicago area growing up was a head physicist at Fermilab. They did "atom-smashing" and subatomic quantum phyiscs. He was in our ward, and I peppered him with science questions on a youth bishop's storehouse service assignment. One thing he told me was that the speed of light is a constant and upper-level speed limit in the universe for some purposes, but that things can go faster than light in other conditions.

As for evolution, he said, "Sure, evolution happens and can be observed. But, birds didn't come from frogs . . . " (winking).

Just so we're all clear, it was Elder Nelson (heart surgeon) and not Elder Scott (nuclear engineer) that made the disparaging comment about the "big bang".

So, no chance for a Tabernacle Choir version of this song next conference:

Posted (edited)

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk is now destined to become quoted by anti-Mormons for decades to come! He outright mocked the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's not the point of his talk, but he expanded the scope beyond it.

That's okay MJT... I tend to do some mocking of BB theory when I work in my garden and observe how everything is interconnected, dependent upon each other, the beauty of an iris or pansy or rose when I observe the exquisite patterns of colors and shapes of each separate bloom, the wonder of the crocus whose tiny bulb knows just when to send up its shoots in early spring to bloom once again for the few short weeks... each species meeting the measure of its creation... no, this cannot be random...

But there is also room in my observations to consider a form of evolution and natural selection as part of a process of creation.

GG

Edited by Garden Girl
Posted

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? The likelihood is most remote. But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

I transcribed this and it may contain errors.

It's accurate, although I would note that it is delivered more like this:

"Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a "big bang" somewhere. (Pauses and smiles as audience laughs)

Ask yourself, could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary? (Pauses again as audience laughs)

The likelihood is most remote. But if so it could never heal it's own torn pages or reproduce it's own newer editions."

You can hear this portion starting around 36:25 in the Sunday morning session here.

I don't have much of an opinion about the Big Bang, but I would have loved to be sitting next to Hollis Johnson during that talk.

Posted

It's accurate, although I would note that it is delivered more like this:

You can hear this portion starting around 36:25 in the Sunday morning session here.

I don't have much of an opinion about the Big Bang, but I would have loved to be sitting next to Hollis Johnson during that talk.

Posted

I don't think he mocked the big bang or evolution.

I think he mocked an uncaused and purposeless big bang, and undirected evolution.

He implied that an explosion in a print shop couldn't produce a dictionary, which seems to be the same argument for intelligent design that's used by David, Paul, and in the Book of Mormon (by Alma I think.)

(If his remarks turn out to be an embarrassment, I think they will only be an embarrassment to the individual interpretations of Mormon doctrine that deny any ontological ground of being.)

He said, "Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere." How do you think the average member will interpret what he said?

Posted

He said, "Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere." How do you think the average member will interpret what he said?

That the 'big bang' isn't the source of life, probably.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...