320 replies to this topic

[Log]

Libs, on 01 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

I see.

I don't believe that evolution or the big bang, have to, necessarily, preclude a God.  I believe that it is Intelligence that creates.

Then you do NOT subscribe to the orthodox Darwinian theory of evolution, but are speaking of something else altogether.  Only by equivocating on the definition of evolution and related notions can a "belief" in them be affirmed along with a belief in the doctrines of the Gospel.

[silvermoon383]

The Big Bang and the idea of eternal matter are not contradictory.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe was compressed into a singularity, a point of microscopic if not subatomic size.  Then something happened that caused the singularity expand.

In the early moments of the universe everything was still super-dense and super-energetic, so hot and compact that everything was nothing but energy.  As the universe expanded it cooled, eventually reaching the point where subatomic particles could condense out of the energetic soup.  As things continued to cool and expand the subatomic particles lost enough energy that they could start to bond into nuclei, then hydrogen atoms.  The hydrogen condensed into the first stars and galaxies, helium and several more of the lighter elements forming out of the stellar fusion.  When they died they formed the heavier elements and spread them throughout space to form the basis of the next generations of stars, now capable of forming planetary systems due to the existence of the heavy elements.

This process continued until today, and is still continuing.

I've never been able to find anything in the BBT that contradicts the idea that God had no hand in the creation of the universe.  After all, we don't know what caused the Big Bang (and can't know according to science since it falls before time began).  And as far as I know, the scriptures only say "In the beginning God created heaven and the earth."  I've never seen any details on how (aside from the priesthood of course).

[inquiringmind]

I don't think Elder Richard G. Scott was mocking the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution per sey. but doesn't his asking his audience "if an explosion in a print shop could produce a dictionary" kinda suggest that he personally sees the need for some kind of ground of all being?

And wasn't he mocking any theory of a wholly undirected, and purposeless process of evolution?

Libs, on 01 April 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

I see.

I don't believe that evolution or the big bang, have to, necessarily, preclude a God.  I believe that it is Intelligence that creates.

Isn't that what Elder Scott's General Conference remarks implied today?

Edited by inquiringmind, 01 April 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[Log]

silvermoon383, on 01 April 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

The Big Bang and the idea of eternal matter are not contradictory.

According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe was compressed into a singularity, a point of microscopic if not subatomic size.  Then something happened that caused the singularity expand.

Hmm.  "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."

[inquiringmind]

Log, on 01 April 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

Hmm.  "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing. A process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity. From that singularity, which was about the size of a dime, our Universe was born."

Most physicists would say that time and space began with the big bang, so it's incorrect to say that it postulates "a time in the distant past" when there was nothing.

I think the term "bio" might be a little misleading, but some of you might be interested in what's commonly called The "Biocentric UniverseTheory."

You might even find this interesting.

Quote

Von Neumann showed that one can place the entire physical world, including the
bodies and brains of the agents, in the physically described world. Then the
entire physical world is described in the mathematical language of quantum
mechanics. In this von Neumann formulation the physically described action
associated with the consciously intended probing action by the agent is a
mathematically described action on the brain of that agent. The psychophysical
causal connections thereby become mind-brain causal connections. This makes
the theory similar to a Cartesian Interactive dualism, with, however, causal
connections between the two realms now specified, in part, by the basic laws of
physics.

This feature overcomes the main objection to Cartesian dualism, which was the
lack of any understanding of how a person’s mind could have any effect upon
that person’s brain...

Von Neumann’s theory is a development of the pragmatic Copenhagen form. But
if one considers the von Neumann theory to be an ontological description of what
is really going on, then one must of course relax the anthropocentric bias, and
allow agents of many ilks. Yet the theory entails that it would be virtually
impossible to determine, empirically, whether a large system that is strongly
interacting with its environment is acting as an agent or not. This means that the
theory, regarded as an ontological theory, has huge uncertainties.

However our interest here is the nature of human agents. Hence the near
impossibility determining the possible existence of other kinds of agents, will
mean that our lack of information about the existence of those other possible
kinds of agents will have little or no impact on our understanding of ourselves.

http://www-physics.l.../~stapp/QID.pdf

Depending on how you view "Intelligence," this seems to fit very well with Mormon Theology.

The only problem is in explaining how there could be a past eternity of matter if time itself isn't eternal (but if there's such a thing as non-linear time, maybe that's the wrong question.)

Edited by inquiringmind, 01 April 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[CV75]

Matthew J. Tandy, on 01 April 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

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 (Elder Nelson) was mocking it. I think he was using humor to juxtapose the indifference involved with some thing that happened somewhere with the reverent intent of some thing made by God.

[Libs]

inquiringmind, on 01 April 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

I don't think Elder Richard G. Scott was mocking the big bang theory, or the theory of evolution per sey. but doesn't his asking his audience "if an explosion in a print shop could produce a dictionary" kinda suggest that he personally sees the need for some kind of ground of all being?

And wasn't he mocking any theory of a wholly undirected, and purposeless process of evolution?


Isn't that what Elder Scott's General Conference remarks implied today?

Yes.  I didn't disagree with him, generally speaking.  I do believe that the creation of the universe had intelligence behind it (however it came about)..

[Libs]

Log, on 01 April 2012 - 04:35 PM, said:

Then you do NOT subscribe to the orthodox Darwinian theory of evolution, but are speaking of something else altogether.  Only by equivocating on the definition of evolution and related notions can a "belief" in them be affirmed along with a belief in the doctrines of the Gospel.

Well, gee...okay.  

I am not LDS, btw...but, I do believe in a Creator.

[Log]

Oh, sorry.  Such a gentle-spoken poster, I just assumed... well.  You are a credit to your beliefs.

[LDSToronto]

cinepro, on 01 April 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

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

Quote

"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."

Oh, I dunno, that sounds like he's poking fun at people who believe in the Big Bang or a random event. I mean, it's sort of like me saying:

"Some people erroneously believe that an all-powerful being created the universe intentionally" [smile and pause for laughter]

"Ask yourself, would a perfect almighty being produce this defective body?" [points to self, smiles, waits for more laughter]

"The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never be proud of it's creation or love something so pitiful"

All in all, I don't really care what he said or who he poked fun at. However, to declare that the likelihood of the Big Bang occurring is far remote, well, he'd better have some evidence to back that up.

H.

[Flyonthewall]

The beleif that the entire universe was, at one time, compressed into a singularity either the size of a dime or microscopic, and then "something" happened to cause it to explode and is the source of everthing in existance, is just as fantastical as a belief in a supreme being that created everything.
To me, there is still a problem with life, even primitive life, spontaneously springing from inert materials.  That seems to be glossed over and attributed by another mysterious "something" happening.

How science can discount creationism, but accept the Big Bang, does not make sense to me.

[LDSToronto]

Flyonthewall, on 01 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

The beleif that the entire universe was, at one time, compressed into a singularity either the size of a dime or microscopic, and then "something" happened to cause it to explode and is the source of everthing in existance, is just as fantastical as a belief in a supreme being that created everything.
To me, there is still a problem with life, even primitive life, spontaneously springing from inert materials.  That seems to be glossed over and attributed by another mysterious "something" happening.

How science can discount creationism, but accept the Big Bang, does not make sense to me.

Do you understand physics, FlyOnTheWall? Biology? Mathematics? At a level that would allow you to evaluate the things you are calling silly?

H.

[Flyonthewall]

LDSToronto, on 01 April 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Do you understand physics, FlyOnTheWall? Biology? Mathematics? At a level that would allow you to evaluate the things you are calling silly?

H.

I did not call anything "silly".  I am simply saying that science relys on unknowns within the Big Bang theory to make it work.  To me, it is no different than a religious explaination, because both take things on faith.
Do tell, what level of physics, math and biology is required before an unknown can be relied upon to complete a theory?

[Log]

Flyonthewall, on 01 April 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

Do tell, what level of physics, math and biology is required before an unknown can be relied upon to complete a theory?

Oh, that's an easy one.  So long as a theory supports scientific naturalism, and its negation undermines scientific naturalism, you are allowed, and even encouraged, to rely upon evidence not yet discovered to prove your theory true.  So, the level required is zero.

Edited by Log, 01 April 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[Flyonthewall]

Log, on 01 April 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

Oh, that's an easy one.  So long as a theory supports scientific naturalism, and its negation undermines scientific naturalism, you are allowed, and even encouraged, to rely upon evidence not yet discovered to prove your theory true.  So, the level required is zero.

In that case, I have more than enough understanding.  

[LDSToronto]

Flyonthewall, on 01 April 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

I did not call anything "silly".  I am simply saying that science relys on unknowns within the Big Bang theory to make it work.  To me, it is no different than a religious explaination, because both take things on faith.
Do tell, what level of physics, math and biology is required before an unknown can be relied upon to complete a theory?

Which unknowns are you referring to within the Big Bang Theory?

H.

[calmoriah]

Log, on 01 April 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Oh, sorry.  Such a gentle-spoken poster, I just assumed... well.  You are a credit to your beliefs.

Libs is a wonderful poster....which leads me to assume a wonderful human being.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I love Elder Nelson. I am considered a highly logical thinker and on reading comprehension tests I have always scored in the top percentile. I love and follow the prophets and apostles. With that basis, if I and several other LDS (ignoring non-LDS or non-theist views) view what he said was deriding of both the Big Bang theory and Evolution, not just without God but with God, then it means there is a strong chance it was a poorly worded minor section of a talk of which it was not the focus. I appreciate that others took home a different view. But I view how he said it as a weakness of man (possibly even that he threw it in there at all). I don't condemn him for it in the sense of judging his role as an Apostle of the Lord, nor do I ignore the central message he was inspired to share. That small section simply, linguistically, could have been a little better. And I love Elder Nelson in part because he, like myself, is not perfect.

[KevinG]

Matthew J. Tandy, on 01 April 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

...there is a strong chance it was a poorly worded minor section of a talk of which it was not the focus.

All the better to brickbat you with my dear!

I think the anti-Mormons are frustrated there isn't much red meat to complain about in this conference.

[BCSpace]

Quote

With that basis, if I and several other LDS (ignoring non-LDS or non-theist views) view what he said was deriding of both the Big Bang theory and Evolution, not just without God but with God, then it means there is a strong chance it was a poorly worded minor section of a talk of which it was not the focus.

In my opinion, Nelson is dead set against evolution because he's said so elsewhere and this talk shows he hasn't changed his mind.  Consider:

Quote

The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it "opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience." It does not oppose removing a medical patient from "artificial means of life support." Different denominations deal differently with questions about life's origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It's interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It's just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don't know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: "When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven." So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won't know until that day.
http://www.pewforum....ge.aspx?id=3838

Notice Wickman's correction and Nelson's aquittal with aplomb.  Notice also that Nelson's argument (dog's have always been dog's) shows a surprising level of ignorance (for his education and career) about evolution as evolution also teaches that dogs have always been dogs and that like produces like.

Quote

I appreciate that others took home a different view. But I view how he said it as a weakness of man (possibly even that he threw it in there at all). I don't condemn him for it in the sense of judging his role as an Apostle of the Lord, nor do I ignore the central message he was inspired to share. That small section simply, linguistically, could have been a little better. And I love Elder Nelson in part because he, like myself, is not perfect.

His opinion did not make it to doctrinal status because his words were too circumspect in that they addressed only certain conclusions about Big Bang/Evolution.  But again, I don't consider his opinion shining through or his ignorance on the subject of evolution to be any diminishment of his apostleship.  I do not believe the Lord has ever had a direct controlling line established 24/7 to any prophet or apostle as to the rightness or wrongness of their opinions or their words.

Edited by BCSpace, 01 April 2012 - 06:53 PM.