Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked

[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]

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]

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]

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 April 2, 2012 by Log

[Flyonthewall]

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]

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.

[Calm]

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]

...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]

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:

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.

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 April 2, 2012 by BCSpace

[Jeff K.]

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

H.

Do you?

[Flyonthewall]

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

H.

What caused the singularity? Where did it come from? What caused it to explode? Why did the status quo change and explode?

Once it did explode, what was the spark of life? a combination of chemicals? gases? What sparked a need for food or reproduction?

These are "something"s that happened that drives the theory. They don't know what happened or how it happened...but something must have happened.

[thesometimesaint]

And God said: Let there be light.

[silvermoon383]

What caused the singularity? Where did it come from? What caused it to explode? Why did the status quo change and explode?

All of these are questions that fall outside of the universe. Unless we have a fundamental change in physics (specifically our knowledge of how space and time work) there will be no way these can be answered.

Once it did explode, what was the spark of life? a combination of chemicals? gases?

I don't know, but these are questions biologists are working hard to answer. The ongoing discoveries of extremophiles here on Earth are disproving many of our old assumptions, and are helping to shape the search for extraterrestrial life.

What sparked a need for food or reproduction?

The consumption of food is just a method for obtaining the energy needed to sustain life. Not everything can photosynthesize. Reproduction is the mechanism that drives population growth. Without the ability to reproduce life would last a single generation.

These are "something"s that happened that drives the theory. They don't know what happened or how it happened...but something must have happened.

Very true, but again, since the cause of the Big Bang happened before time there is just no way to answer it without a fundamental change in our understanding of the foundational nature of the universe.

[Sky]

If that's what he meant, then Elder Nelson has a terrible inability to say what he means.

Isn't it interesting how we can read so differently into what he said? It wasn't really that controversial to me when I heard it, but I knew it would be for some.

[LDSToronto]

Do you?

Yes.

[cinepro]

Do you?

Honestly, I wonder if there is a single astronomer or astrophysicist at any Church-owned school that doesn't support the Big Bang Theory, and if any of them have reconsidered their position for even a nono-second upon hearing Elder Nelson's comment.

[why me]

Honestly, I wonder if there is a single astronomer or astrophysicist at any Church-owned school that doesn't support the Big Bang Theory, and if any of them have reconsidered their position for even a nono-second upon hearing Elder Nelson's comment.

I think that the problem is in the theory itself as the creation of life. Whether one accepts the big bang or not, if one is religious one must go by what is said in the bible about the creation. If we discount the creation as in the old testament, we deny the existence of God. Or if we claim that the big bang created life on earth, we deny the existence of god. Now the question is: can the big bang and god be reconciled?

[why me]

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]

H.

And he would be entitled to do this since the followers of dawkins or other evolutionist atheists do seem to mock the creationists with much pause and laughter.

[Cobalt-70]

LDS do not believe in the Big Bang, so I'm not sure why the comment would be considered inappropriate?

Speak for yourself.

That the big bang happened is a fact of history. We can be more certain that it happened, based on the number of repeated independent verifications, all of which agree, than we can be sure that Abraham Lincoln lived. In fact, since looking in a telescope is in effect looking back through time, we can point our telescopes up into the sky and see the big bang unfolding as it happened. It doesn't make sense to ask whether the big bang could of happened. It did. The only legitimate question for a theologian such as Elder Nelson to ask would be why it happened, or what does it mean.

[Cobalt-70]

Honestly, I wonder if there is a single astronomer or astrophysicist at any Church-owned school that doesn't support the Big Bang Theory, and if any of them have reconsidered their position for even a nono-second upon hearing Elder Nelson's comment.

They don't. Anyone in the 21st century who does not think the big bang happened cannot call themselves an astronomer or astrophysicist. It would be like someone who calls herself a chemist denying that matter is composed of atoms.

[KevinG]

Bazinga!

[why me]

They don't. Anyone in the 21st century who does not think the big bang happened cannot call themselves an astronomer or astrophysicist. It would be like someone who calls herself a chemist denying that matter is composed of atoms.

Like I said, the issue is just how life was created and not with the big bang. For creationists, life is too organized for it to happen at random without a divine maker.

[Darth_Bill]

And who made the Maker? At some point, we all need to punt. God is a much more complex proposition than evolution/big bang, etc. I just want to set out what the probabilities may be.

[LeSellers]

And who made the Maker? At some point, we all need to punt. God is a much more complex proposition than evolution/big bang, etc. I just want to set out what the probabilities may be.

We need not "punt" if we agree that "infinity" is not a comprehensible concept for us. Iknow of no one who canexaplin it any better than I understand it now, and no one who claims to have a firm grasp on it.

There is something about "forever", and the inherent "no beginning" that eludes us. We can't really begin to conceive of "there was no "First God", the "Gods have always existed". We may not be able to explain it, and, were we able, no one would understand it anyway, but we need not "punt".

The other side of the issue is there was a "beginning" and a "First God". Yet that, too, is incomprehensible. Why? Because it means either that before Him, there was nothing or that He, too, existed from a point when time did not exist and we're right back where we started with infinity. If there was a time without anything–no God, no matter, no energy—and suddenly He or any of them popped into existence, then what was before Him/them? We get back to infinity on this path, too, no less than on any of the others.

We can plot the number "9" on a number line. We can likewise plot 9.9 and 9.99 and 9.999. We can also plot 9.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999................................. , but the point identical to that of "10.00000000000000...". It makes my head hurt sometimes to think about it, and I understand this.

We can never assume our Father is the First God, and we cannot assume He is not. It makes no sense to label Him with either rubric. What we do know is that He created us, a place for us to live and prove ourselves. He loves us, and will do anything we allow Him to do to save us and to make us both immortal and eternal, like Him. We know that He understands infinity, and that, by His grace and through the Atonement of Christ, we may, eventually, as well.

Lehi