Jump to content

Rob Osborn

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rob Osborn

  1. Your assumption that he does use science is also conjecture, and is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the practice of science is. 


    I think we are having a semantic misunderstanding here.  In application, science is nothing more than a set of man made rules to learn about and explain natural phenomena.  The natural laws of the universe and eternal laws of God cannot aptly be called "science" in that application.  They may be explained through science, but they existed long before man developed the scientific method.  Science is not a thing or a force of any kind.  Scientific laws are only statements that describe or predict natural phenomena, but science is not the natural phenomenon nor the forces that cause it to be.  You are conflating secular definitions with spiritual laws. Ironically, science literally means "knowledge", though science does not claim certainty and is only useful where knowledge does not exist.  So why would God use this inferior set of rules to guide those who are uncertain, when he is all knowing? 


    The scientific method is completely and utterly unnecessary in light of God's much more refined omniscience. The scientific method of man is not the omniscience of God.

    Well, you are wrong. Not really sure how else to say it. You make it seem as if "scienc" is a type of caveman method of understanding and only applies to caveman technology and caveman understanding of nature. Properly understood, science is the tool we use to do things within the laws of nature,the universe. The understanding of "how does it work" is science. As such, all things we see in the universe are Gods handiwork and its continuance is also Gods handiwork. So, when we ask- how does it work, we are asking for the scientific explanation to how it works within the laws. Basically- all things we observe are the science God used and continually uses to sustain the universe/nature. They are not separate things.

  2. Hate to break it to you, Rob O., but the church has no "official position" on evolution. (Google "Does Mormon church have an official position on evolution".) How could it have an official position on it, given the diversity of opinion on the subject among its leaders? You have Widtsoe, Talmage, both scientists and apostles, who accepted it (how could they not accept it?). And then you have people like Henry Eyring, Sr., father of Pres. Eyring, also a scientist, who accepted it. What do you think Pres. Eyring would say today if you asked him, "Does the church have an official position on evolution?" He would frankly tell you it does not. It is very easy for someone like you, who is not a scientist and who is basically ignorant, to hold the position you do. But for someone who is a practicing scientist not to accept evolution —— well, let me put it this way. You could count the number of such "scientists" on one hand.


    And why you do you accuse anybody who disagrees with you of "mocking the scriptures", or of having atheistic tendencies? This kind of thing is really silly and it prevents anyone from taking you seriously.

    The church does have an official position regarding the origin of man. On that subject the answer is "no" man did not evolve froma lower order of animals.

    Perhaps you do not realize but 90% of TSS links are to known atheist/humanist sites and positions that mock Christianity. By their fruits ye shall know them...

  3. I don't know what you think science is, but God created the worlds before it even existed.  It is simply a tool or method devised by man to better understand and thus make use of his surroundings.  God uses his certain knowledge of eternal laws and authority to create worlds - neither of which has anything to do with science.  It is not magic, it is simply the application of certain knowledge.

    Of course its just conjecture on your part to make such claims. You do not know how God uses science. There seems to be a gap in understanding here. Perhaps you think he just speaks and magic happens. But who is to know. Chances are, he uses all the laws of science to work within. The only difference is that his understanding of the laws of science are far greater than our perception of those same laws.

  4. I think one would have to prove that God uses some force outside of scientific methods in order to relegate God outside of said "science". The problem however is that our "imagination" of what "we think" Gods power is doesnt count. One actually has to prove what Gods power is or is not. But to just be blind to it in pure ignorance or because of an imagination of how one thinks things may be, void of any scientific interest is just bad.

  5. Science is a useful tool for man in a lot of ways. It cannot measure God however. Science is agnostic in that way. I doubt that God uses the same systematic tools of science. He is way above that! Science is only useful to the ignorant, He who knows all doesn't need it.

    So, you think God is like Harry Potter and just uses a magic wand and spells? Sounds to me like you just dont understand science enough to include God within it.
  6. The Supernatural "Pertaining to God" is not the Natural.

    Any appeal to any God or Godlike force is not allowed by the rules of science.


    There is a reason they made opiates illegal. Some of those religions are nothing more than a great opiate journey. However, if you truly are LDS, and you actively belive the prophets and apostles, you would already know that we have a high degree of truth regarding God, the creation, and the fall. But, you keep linking to this atheist propaganda which mocks even our own doctrine. Do you mock our own doctrine? It appears you do.

  7. No! What I am saying is that science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. Whether a God, a space alien, or purely physical forces "created" us and our universe science can only address the physical forces which are observed, and measured. Individual scientists can believe in anything or anyone they want.

    So, what you are saying is God doesnt use "science". That doesnt make any sense either.

  8. Science can not posit any God or Godlike force. I don't know how many times you have to be told this before it sinks in. "God please don't put oil in my car engine because I want to know when to change the oil".


    That's makes about as much sense as saying your television worships cars because there car ads on it. Science doesn't worship evolution. It can't worship anything. It is simply a tool to be used just like your television.


    If you want to play a game of baseball you have to follow the rules of baseball. Does you playing a good game of baseball mean you worship the ball?


    No one is banning God from the public square, at least not in this country. We have one of the highest rates of religious observance of any country on earth. Yet we are a secular nation. What we can't do is have our government taking sides in sectarian issues. It is the same with science. Believe anything you want, but use agnostic means to demonstrate science.


    That is nothing more than Ad Hominem invective.

    Its only your brand of science that doesnt include a godlike force. My brand

    of science includes natural forces such as the many things God does. It even includes things we call "miracles". God doesnt use some magic unknowable force like you think he does.

    Your analogies are way off too. Its more like- "Father, when we go to the lab today please bless the dirt we watch so that "poof" life can magically start and we can show that life doesnt require you".

  9. OK, maybe I can be accused of compartmentalizing. I don't know. But, I teach a human evolution course at a midwest university, and I teach Ezra Taft Benson in my High Priest group. To me, evolution is fact like gravity is fact, but neither is particularly relevant to the gospel.

    I assure you that I don't go to Church to learn science, and I don't study science to learn the gospel. So, maybe that is compartmentalization.

    Even so, I think Genesis 1 is very compatible with evolutionary history, if taken figuratively. I know many LDS evolutionary scientists. I don't always know how they juxtapose the two (science & religion), but they are active (in both domains) and seem to have no problems.

    To me it is better to reject evolution and accept the gospel, but the ideal is to accept both. Neither the gospel OR evolution is going away. They are here to stay.

    Discoveries in science CANNOT subvert the purposes of God, and God is NOT threatened by science. However, I will admit there are a few scientists who make poor anti-theologians, who suggest evolution implies NO God. Such individuals have gone FAR beyond the data in order to attack religion.

    Without evolution, our understanding of genetics, medicine, phylogeny, paleontology, etc. is greatly diminished. I would rather be on the side of advancing knowledge -- both in science & religion. Darwin was the "restoration" in life science, just as Jos. Smith was the "restoration" in Christianity. Isn't it interesting that they both arose about the same time? Sorry, just calling it as I see it.

    Its even more interesting that The origin of man, published in 1909 by the first presidency was done so on Dawins centenial birthday and 50 th anniversery of his famous book. That 1909 statement is still the official position of the church and is a classic rebuttal to Darwins On origin of species. Just calling it how it really is.
  10. Trouble is, Rob, that this is just the sort of prejudicial and apriori nonsense we get from anti-Mormons -- who do not feel that they really need to discuss facts, but only rant and rave about the horrible Mormons.  That is not an atmosphere in which any sort of rational discussion can take place.


    In their and your warped understanding, the "other" is always evil and deceptive, their effort always to obfuscate and lie.  No mutual respect need be applied to those beastly "others," as your words so graphically illustrate.  That is not the way in which the Brethren address "others," and it should not be our way either.  If you cannot apply fairness and even-handed judgment here, don't expect it for yourself hereafter.

    I treat them with the same level of respect as they treat me. I dont know, you know, it bothers me rather greatly that the forces that drive evolution in our public schools very much do have an agenda to do away with God. That really bothers me. And then for them to lie so bad about it claiming they represent religions, blah blah blah, its all BS! That part really bother me. I dont have a warped understanding on the issue. I do not need to warp any facts, I just call them exactly as they are. Evolutionists and those Such as the NCSE, NAS, NSTA, ACLU, AU, all promote evolution and the separation of church and state. They are politically motivated and support each others agendas. They are a pack of wolves- its the truth.

  11. You need to learn the difference between thoughtful, reasoned posts, and rants. Most of your posts are rants. However, I'll admit that you are entertaining.

    I learned long ago with dealing with this subject that you call it straight truthfully or nobody takes you seriously. Some subjects you just have to firmly address head on.

  12. It is a good thing that evolution is creeping into the Church. The LDS Church claims to accept truth no matter where from and evolution sure seems to hold up to a standard of truth at least based on evidence.  


    As for the apostles and prophets setting us straight on the "lies of evolution"  where have they done so please do show?  More so it seems that they say they really don't know how God did it and give no opinion for or against it.


    By the way apostles and prophets are men so anything they say is still from a man.   LDS Apologists constantly argue the LDS prophets and apostles are not infallible, mix in their own opinions with a lot of what they say and seem to get things wrong at times.

    Read the 1909 statement, then we shall discuss

  13. What part of NCSE on Theists in Science (http://ncse.com/rncs...ally-reject-god) don't you understand, Rob?

    Oh, let me guess- how about when was the last time that science has acknowledged God in the creation? I am not talking about scientists personal beliefs, I am talking about the faceless beast we call "science" that evolutionists worship. Because this beast truly exists nad has its own set of rules to worship, one can quietly worship and acknowledge God, but dont dare mention him in public or you get trashed by the beast. They have worked it now so that even the word "god" is a religion and must be banned from the publics view. The NCSE can hide all they want in their sheeps clothing but we all know they are just hungry wolves waiting to devour any and all that try to include God in any context dealing with science.

  14. Perhaps you can explain where the scriptures make clear that God's people on the earth are the most wicked. It appears to me that the section in Moses 7 hinges on the word "brethren". If we limit the word "brethren" to mean earth's inhabitants then you may be right. But this is not how the scripture appears to me. Further, in assuming v36 refers only to earth's inhabitants, we make the critical error of believing we are exclusive. Of all the millions of earths God created we are the most wicked. This leads to believing we were the only earth to receive a Savior. While this feeds the ego, logic would say "no".

    Special circunstances for sure. Lucifer falling was a rare occasion. His rebellion created special circumstances. This earth is the battleground now of that war. We all have been prepared. Many noble and great ones are here on earth.

  15. Yet according to the same book of scripture this was the only earth created under these heavens.  A reading of ALL of Moses 7 shows pretty clearly God is referring only to this world, not the others.


    I think Moses 7 refers only to this creation, not to his worlds without number.  I'm inclined to agree with Brigham that each creation (world) has its own Savior.

    I think perhaps we could take a closer look. First, lest look at the two pertinent verses-

    36 Wherefore, I can stretch forth mine hands and hold all the creations which I have made; and mine eye can pierce them also, and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren.

    37 But behold, their sins shall be upon the heads of their fathers; Satan shall be their father, and misery shall be their doom; and the whole heavens shall weep over them, even all the workmanship of mine hands; wherefore should not the heavens weep, seeing these shall suffer?

    These two verses above are Gods answer to Enoch from the previous verses-

    29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

    30 And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations; and thy curtains are stretched out still; and yet thou art there, and thy bosom is there; and also thou art just; thou art merciful and kind forever;

    31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

    So, now we have the context for the verses 36 and 37. Enoch acknowledges all of Gods creations and myriads of earths just like ours, obviously peopled. Enoch asks almost as if God has such a large creation with so many other worlds that there must be so many things to be happy about. Instead God singles our earth out from "all" his creations, acknowledging "all" of them in reply to Enoch. "All the workmanship of mine hands" in verse 36 is thus referring to every single last soul in the universe who was created by God. He then refers to our earth's inhabitants as "thy brethren". In verse 37 God refers to all of his creations in the whole heavens, not just our heaven, that weep over our earth. He clarifies this even further so there is no doubt and says- " even all the workmanship of mine hands;".

    There can be no doubt that the dialogue between Enoch and God includes acknowledgement of "all" of Gods creations on every countless earth just like ours.

  16. Inasmuch as men try to portray evolution as a complete and whole theory, that is incorrect. It is also a strawman as far as LDS theology goes. Our species spans the cosmos and mortal forms like unto ours inhabit countless worlds. And it is true that evolution, unguided and blind cannot account for this theology. There are repeated statements from the brethren that affirm consistency with that position. Of that i suspect we can agree.


    That nonetheless does not remove from us insight into the workings of our mortal coils and that of our fellow creatures. And that insight, guided by the scaffolding of the theory of evolution, has wrought great good to humanity. Because some abuse the tool and make it to workings unintended, does not make the tool itself false.


    It is ever the ploy of the Adversary to corrupt the revelations of God. In doing so wicked men wreck evil upon the world and misguided believers rejects the blessings of light to avoid even the appearance of corruption and thus play the role of fools to the unconverted who nonetheless have eyes enough to see the revealed truths. Affirm the truths we can all agree upon (e.g. first paragraph). Beyond that we play a stumbling block and hinder the work.

    Darwinian evolution is such a following of misguided believers.

  17. Let's take a look at the scripture. Enoch bares record of God weeping and asks, "How is it that thou canst weep?" He then goes on to comment that "were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations." Enoch is taken with the immensity of what God has created, with the fact that their are millions of earths, like this one, and with the holiness wherein God dwells. He cannot imagine that God cares about a few wicked people. But the Lord wants to correct Enoch's misunderstanding.To do so he says, "Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands." What does the Lord mean by "brethren"? It is critical to understand this word because it is used again in verse 36 where the Lord says, "and among all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren."


    So, is it Enoch's literal brothers and sisters? Is it perhaps those of his city? Or maybe those of the earth? Or just maybe it is those of many earth's who are on the same standing as Enoch and have the same freedom and the potential for wickedness. Perhaps the Lord is using the term "brethren" to help Enoch understand his, and God's, connection to them. That as is Enoch, so are they. That as he loves Enoch, so he loves them. That they are his brothers.


    If that is not enough evidence, the Lord distinguishes some of the groups in verse 38. He says, "But behold, these which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods". So by brethren he does not exclusively mean the wicked who perished in the floods, otherwise he would not distinguish them from the group he was just talking about. 


    We must look beyond our narrow interpretations. The Lord is sharing a grand truth about the eternities, about his love for all he has created and about our relationship with them. But we instead turn what he says on its head and use this scripture to point to how righteous and important we are. Isn't there a problem in this?

    The scriptures make clear that God's people on this earth were more wicked than all of his creations under the whole heavens. That is also why God tells us the whole heavens weep over us on this earth because of this earths wickedness. Whether that makes us important, righteous, or whatever is besides the point, none of us can remember all of the details of the pre-earth life. Right place at the right time? who knows?

  18. Some fun quotes from Joseph Smith (https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22, whole chapter is fun):

    Certainly LDS are not atheistic evolutionists but it is nonetheless well within the realm of our currently revealed theology to accept evolution. Reject evolution if one must, but at least please get the science right (e.g. speciation has been observed) and correctly represent the realm of acceptable possibilities within our theology (e.g. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution). As for me and my house, we will endeavor to accept the blessings of knowledge God gives to man with gratitude and appreciation. And if we believe too much, so be it (for men will certainly make errors). Nonetheless, the fruits of the theory of evolution have been a boon to mankind (e.g. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/pigliucci.html).

    Atheism has been creeping into the church for some time. The teaching of Darwinian evolution has been just one of those atheistic teachings creeping into the church. One thing we can rely upon is the actual prophets and apostles to set us straight and tell us the lies of evolution and even print those beliefs in church publications making it out doctrine. The problem is that LDS continue to accept mans teaching over Gods.

  19. So a conversation we're not privy to somehow makes science wrong?

    SEE http://www.lds-mormon.com/evolutn1.shtml

    NCSE on Theists in Science

    SEE http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

    So the Mormon Church leaders are unaware of or are duped by science? Yet they find sufficient money, time, energy, to build one of the best Paleontology museums in the world.

    SEE http://geology.byu.edu/museum/content/paleontological-research

    Just google my name and Steven's name. Its not hard to see that we have had a myriad of discussions over the years. Its also not hard to search and find Peck's position on "if" God fits into his own creation.

    BYU teaches the same worldly dogma as any other university when it comes to evolution. Just because it is "BYU" doesnt mean it represents church teachings. That is one reason they have their evolution packet available so that they can inform students what the church really teaches and how they differ in that respect. Part of the reason they teach evolution at BYU is to be an accredited school.

    The NCSE is against God, plain and simple. They dont want any part of him in public view or thought.

  20. You miss the point, Rob.  There is no reason why a theist could not be an evolutionist, and the entire biology faculty at BYU is evolutionist.  My closest friend, a PhD in anthropology, is an evolutionist and an LDS temple worker.  He simply sees evolution as God's method.


    I don't agree with him, but I still respect him and we are close friends.  I believe that evolution is an unnecessary and unproven theory, and that virtually all of biological science is possible without it.  There is of course obvious and proven adaptation within species, but no proven evolving of one species to a new one.

    Years ago I had a longstanding dialogue with Steven Peck from BYU. He informed to me that he does not know where or possibly how the Creator fits in with the creation and that perhaps God himself was the product of nature. I have also had dialogue with Duane Jefferies years ago who also was at BYU and at that time on the board for the NCSE. He informed me that his positions were not in line with church leaders. I have come to know that BYU is worldly in such teachings, no different than the next.

  21. It is quite clear that God, in speaking of the wicked on this earth deemed them to be the wickedest of all his children in and under the entire heavens and worlds of Gods countless creations. And itis no wonder why either- Lucifer fell in the heavens, a unique event in the history of the Gods, and thus we have a unique battle that the likes of heaven have never seen under Gods command.

  • Create New...