320 replies to this topic

[thesometimesaint]

That MAY happen, but I'm not going to hold my breath. We still employ Newtonian physics, even if some of the details differ.

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

cinepro, on 01 April 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

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.

If there was a "big bang" must it absolutely follow that it happened completely by chance?  Or is that just what one must believe if he is a Big Bang PURIST?

[MorningStar]

I just took it to mean that something so orderly couldn't happen by accident.  Not only was life created, life could be sustained and it had a way to reproduce.  Amazing.

[Pa Pa]

Flyonthewall, on 01 April 2012 - 10:07 AM, said:

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.

I believe in evolution to a point, but I also believe that the creation of man was a singular event.

[thesometimesaint]

Fig-bearing Thistle:

Don't know that there is any way to prove that. What we do know is that there was a variation(about 1%) proportion of matter to antimatter created in the Big Bang. It slightly favored matter.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 02 April 2012 - 10:16 AM.

[Nofear]

I often hesitate to comment on such things as my lurking of the board has been a bit spotty and so I don't really maintain a conversation.


But I can point out a few "facts": The observational evidence is consistent with an model whereby space is literally expanding. If expanding, then at some point the universe should have been very compact and hence very dense and very hot. Given those initial conditions, the big bang model is capable of predicting a universe that is very consistent with our universe.

Though the big bang theory is usually understood to continue back to a singularity... it is technically not a requirement of the theory. The vanilla big bang theory is not without issues (e.g. horizon problem, flatness problem) and so some appendages to the theory can be added (e.g. inflation). Such modifications have the tricky constraints of "solving" the problems of the core big bang model while retaining the predictions of the model. People need to be careful to understand what the model must say (observational constraints), what it does say (observational predictions), and what it might say (untested predictions).

The bottom line: Consider set A: all models of the Big Bang Theory and set B: all models of Mormon cosmology. I claim the following: sets A and B are not identical. Set B is not a subset of A and set A is not a subset of B. And most importantly, the intersection of sets A and B is not the null set (in other words there exist Mormon cosmologies which are compatible with Big Bang cosmologies but not all Mormon cosmologies are compatible with all Big Bang cosmologies).

Elder Nelson's comments can be understood as a rejection of big bang models which are wholly incompatible with all Mormon cosmologies -- a position I fully endorse.

[cinepro]

According to my understanding of English grammar, Elder Nelson's statement could be correctly reworded to say:

Quote

Some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes ... resulted from a big bang somewhere.

Grammatically speaking, is this correct?

[Darth_Bill]

David T, on 02 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

While allowing for the Big Bang and the process of organic evolution, it doesn't necessitate that God necessarily even actually guided or designed it - but at a point, he used its results, chose it, and created the world's purpose by placing our spirits upon it.

I think that's the same way our spirits were 'created' - He found less developed intelligence co-eternal with himself, and chose to give them purpose and adopt them as His Children.

I would think that evolution, being a somewhat random event in response to changing circumstances, wouldn't produce naturally something "in God's image." It would have to be guilded, wouldn't it? Unless, created in his image is a reference to process.

The book of Moses would give me slight pause though. Spiritual creation of changing species.

And I think we do punt. Mormonism does give a bit more information on issues but we eventually come to a shoulder shrug and "I don't know." I think "Always been" or "Eternal" is a form of punting. That may be the valid answer, but belief in a perpetual, all powerful being is more complex to me than believing chance, environment and a very long time. Your mileage may vary.

[thesometimesaint]

What appears to be a very long time to us in our mortal existance, may in fact not be very long time at all to God.

[Nofear]

One can certainly argue that some intelligent, anthropomorphic form might have arisen on some small corner in the big, big universe (i.e. us, now). But to try and use that same argument that this very same human form shows up on lots and lots of different worlds is much more problematic.

[Jeff K.]

LDSToronto, on 01 April 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Yes.

No you have no qualification to judge beyond anyone else here.  I dare say your take of physics is as questionable at best.  You certainly haven't professed any knowledge beyond your ability to misperceive quotes, which I must say is breath taking.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

(Edit: this was in response to Nofear, above.)

Oh, I dunno -- form follows function, and there are only so many ways to put animals together with a limited number of elements. I think convergent evolution and strong panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry are very interesting possibilities. And of course there are good scientists like Fred Hoyle who question the Big Bang.

It's all very exciting! I can't wait til we figure it all out.

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 02 April 2012 - 11:40 AM.

[Jeff K.]

Nofear, on 02 April 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

One can certainly argue that some intelligent, anthropomorphic form might have arisen on some small corner in the big, big universe (i.e. us, now). But to try and use that same argument that this very same human form shows up on lots and lots of different worlds is much more problematic.

It is problematic because we don't have much information (ie none) of the development of life elsewhere.  However do we then take the stance that what occurs here cannot occur elsewhere?  For those who believe that only natural random causes create are we to assume we weren't the path of least resistance for the development of life?

[Nofear]

I know of no strict evolutionist who would argue that it is even remotely plausible for life on other planets to evolve which have ten fingers and ten toes, two eyes, a nose, etc just as we do. Though, if you see such an argument being made please point it out. I'd love to see it.

[Nofear]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 02 April 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

Oh, I dunno -- form follows function, and there are only so many ways to put animals together with a limited number of elements. I think convergent evolution and strong panspermia/Cosmic Ancestry are very interesting possibilities.

I personally am a fan of panspermia though I subscribe to what would be better called radical panspermia. The former is usually only applied to microscopic life or the very basic building blocks or organic forms. The latter can include macroscopic life forms and/or colonization.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hey, so was Brigham Young. *grin* (Edit: A fan of the colonization model, I mean. Hugh Nibley, too.)

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 02 April 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[Log]

So is everyone who believes the endowments.

[KevinG]

Nofear, on 02 April 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I know of no strict evolutionist who would argue that it is even remotely plausible for life on other planets to evolve which have ten fingers and ten toes, two eyes, a nose, etc just as we do. Though, if you see such an argument being made please point it out. I'd love to see it.

Just wait until we find the first 13 toed race.  Can you imagine the math in base 13!  It would take eons for us to learn to count much less talk together.

[David T]

Log, on 02 April 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

So is everyone who believes the endowments.

You know that's definitely not true. Nor is it a helpful statement in any way. Try, "I personally find that very compatible with how I understand the teachings of the Endowment, and probably many others do, too." - I would agree with you that many could and do legitimately see it that way. But to equate that particular understanding with "Believing" the ordinance is not cool.

Edited by David T, 02 April 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

:: roll-eyes ::

(Edit: To Log, I mean.)

(Edit again: This and my first comment in the thread are probably less than helpful responses to those who disagree with me. I will try to be less sarcastic in the future. The thing is, it is extremely tiresome to read people claiming that those with a different understanding therefore "don't believe" in the Endowments. I believe in the Endowments, but I highly doubt they are meant to be word-perfect textbooks for how to organize and populate a world. They are dramas, not the reproducible experimentation of science.)

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 02 April 2012 - 12:13 PM.