How literally do you take the creation story?

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

"Herein lies the difference between the differing opinions. Its all a matter of who you believe and how much weight you give to "authoritative" sources and whether or not you are capable of listening to "rogue" scientists.

Personally, I don't care nearly as much about the source as I do about whether or not the information makes sense to me. I don't trust big education any more than I trust big business or big government.".

OK. Next time someone you love needs open heart surgery. Have the nearest teenager who's had a Jr. High School course in biology operate on them.

[David T]

zelder, Rob, etc:

Have you gotten around to reading the articles I linked to back on page 9 of this thread?

They do a wonderful job of placing, documented and in context, they key elements we're discussing. For one actually interested in understanding the different point of view, this is a great place to start:

The first discusses evolution in terms of LDS theology:

Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution

The second discusses the distinct approaches of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" mainly in terms of how they are approached by scientists, and how the two concepts are actually quite distinct and incompatible:

Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties

Please let me know if you intend to read them, and then let us know when you do.

[zelder]

zelder:

"Herein lies the difference between the differing opinions. Its all a matter of who you believe and how much weight you give to "authoritative" sources and whether or not you are capable of listening to "rogue" scientists.

Personally, I don't care nearly as much about the source as I do about whether or not the information makes sense to me. I don't trust big education any more than I trust big business or big government.".

OK. Next time someone you love needs open heart surgery. Have the nearest teenager who's had a Jr. High School course in biology operate on them.

HAAAAA!!! How about I let Elder Nelson do it! He and I can have a conversation about how evolution is bunk!

[semlogo]

"Credible" is a subjective term. Since I disagree with much of the philosophy surrounding "science" I often don't care what people say is credible or not. I like to look at the facts.

I did provide a Nature article which confirms experiments I understood and heard about in 1988. At that time I thought Guy's experiments and theories were credible, and still do to this day.

The article in Nature confirms only part of Guy's experiments and theory.

If you disagree, that's fine. Feel free to offer contradictory evidence that disproves said "non-credible" experiments with credible ones. Especially before calling them unreliable.

All you offer is commentary on a Nature article originating from a young earth/anti-science source. You didn't provide the original article from Nature, so we don't know what was in it. You may like discredited sources, but they are still not credible. Please provide a credible source.

[semlogo]

Herein lies the difference between the differing opinions. Its all a matter of who you believe and how much weight you give to "authoritative" sources and whether or not you are capable of listening to "rogue" scientists.

Personally, I don't care nearly as much about the source as I do about whether or not the information makes sense to me. I don't trust big education any more than I trust big business or big government.

Right, it's real scientists vs fundamentalist Christians on the web with a beef against objective science.

It shouldn't matter whether the information "makes sense" to you or not - what you've revealed is that you'll only believe sources that confirm your own opinions. That is called confirmation bias. What you SHOULD be searching for is sources that can actually back up their claims with facts and scientific data obtained using the scientific method, and run through the filter of peer review.

[thesometimesaint]

Zelder:

I don't know Elder Nelson's personal opinion on Evolution. But since he is a MD he is thoroughly versed in and practices medicine based on evolution.

Ps. http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/lds-quotes-on-evolution/

[semlogo]

Indeed you couldn't be reading into it more. The orthodox Jew of his day (which he was one), understood it to be literal history. And nothing, I repeat nothing he said or did changes that perception. You may disagree, and read into it what you will, but that is simply a dishonest reading of how they saw it.

In essence, the question of "What did the author intend for his readers to understand?", is plain when we understand that the Jews all understood it literally. Even to the point of including Adam in genealogy accounts.

You're reading a lot into it too. All he does is mention a very small part of the story in passing - conveniently the only part of the story that passes muster today. No commentary at all. The only reason he mentions it is to condemn divorce - which is, ironically, the only part of the whole thing that fundamentalist creationists DON'T take literally.

[Hughes]

All you offer is commentary on a Nature article originating from a young earth/anti-science source. You didn't provide the original article from Nature, so we don't know what was in it. You may like discredited sources, but they are still not credible. Please provide a credible source.

If i knew how to quote multiple levels I could show you that you even quoted me in your message #346 I think. Where it says, "The Nature Article" which is a link to the original article Nature published. You can't read Nature unless you have a subscription, so I didn't link that. Google shows easily where it is if you have a subscription.

[Zakuska]

Please note that I specifically asked for a credible source. Please provide one.

A film presented and accepted by the 14th International Congress of Sedementology isn't credible?

Well then you definately won't accept the wikipedia arcticle which cooberates the findings.

Recent developments in sedimentology

The longstanding understanding of how some mudstones form has been challenged by geologists at Indiana University (Bloomington) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The research, which appears in the December 14th, 2007, edition of Science, counters the prevailing view of geologists that mud only settles when water is slow-moving or still, instead showing that "muds will accumulate even when currents move swiftly." The research shows that some mudstones may have formed in fast-moving waters: "Mudstones can be deposited under more energetic conditions than widely assumed, requiring a reappraisal of many geologic records."[7]

Macquaker and Bohacs, in reviewing the research of Schieber et al., state that "these results call for critical reappraisal of all mudstones previously interpreted as having been continuously deposited under still waters. Such rocks are widely used to infer past climates, ocean conditions, and orbital variations."[8]

7.^ Juergen Schieber, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen, "Accretion of Mudstone Beds from Migrating Floccule Ripples," Science, 14 December 2007: 1760-1763.

See also "As waters clear, scientists seek to end a muddy debate," at PhysOrg.com (accessed 27 December 2007).

8.^ Joe H. S. Macquaker and Kevin M. Bohacs, "Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud," Science, 14 December 2007: 1734-1735.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sedimentology

Only semlogo would question this.

I suggest all watch Hughes film he linked on the other page!

[Hughes]

You're reading a lot into it too. All he does is mention a very small part of the story in passing - conveniently the only part of the story that passes muster today. No commentary at all. The only reason he mentions it is to condemn divorce - which is, ironically, the only part of the whole thing that fundamentalist creationists DON'T take literally.

The key difference is that I am attempting to understand it *in context* what did the original author intend? What did the original intended audience understand?

You seem to be feel that playing fast and loose with the text is ok. I don't.

I agree that there is tension between what science says and what scripture says. My point is that the tension isn't relieved by miss reading the scripture.

[semlogo]

If i knew how to quote multiple levels I could show you that you even quoted me in your message #346 I think. Where it says, "The Nature Article" which is a link to the original article Nature published. You can't read Nature unless you have a subscription, so I didn't link that. Google shows easily where it is if you have a subscription.

I don't have a subscription. Given the dishonestly of your source, however, I am not willing to accept that their commentary in any way represents what was in the article (a 1988 article?) without seeing it first. Do you have anything else?

[zelder]

zelder, Rob, etc:

Have you gotten around to reading the articles I linked to back on page 9 of this thread?

They do a wonderful job of placing, documented and in context, they key elements we're discussing. For one actually interested in understanding the different point of view, this is a great place to start:

The first discusses evolution in terms of LDS theology:

Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution

The second discusses the distinct approaches of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" mainly in terms of how they are approached by scientists, and how the two concepts are actually quite distinct and incompatible:

Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties

Please let me know if you intend to read them, and then let us know when you do.

Honestly, I'm not interested enough to read. I hashed this stuff out in my mind years ago when I was a student. I know what I believe. Furthermore, I don't have problem with mormons who see no conflict between evolution and and Genesis. As long as they believe Genesis, then I don't think there is an issue. However, I do have a problem with mormons saying that Genesis is not literal and that the Adam and Eve story didn't really happen. Its myth, its symbolic. I have a serious problem with that....its a slipperly slope.

[Hughes]

A film presented and accepted by the 14th International Congress of Sedementology isn't credible?

Well then you definately won't accept the wikipedia arcticle which cooberates the findings.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sedimentology

Only semlogo would question this.

I suggest all watch Hughes film he linked on the other page!

Cool thanks!

[semlogo]

A film presented and accepted by the 14th International Congress of Sedementology isn't credible?

Well then you definately won't accept the wikipedia arcticle which cooberates the findings.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sedimentology

Only semlogo would question this.

I suggest all watch Hughes film he linked on the other page!

Irrelevant - it doesn't support your flood sediment claims, nor does it contradict anything I've said. Anything else?

[Hughes]

I don't have a subscription. Given the dishonestly of your source, however, I am not willing to accept that their commentary in any way represents what was in the article (a 1988 article?) without seeing it first. Do you have anything else?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9809432

This article was published this year in Nature...

edit... it appears it was '97

[thesometimesaint]

zelder:

I ain't never seen me a literal talking snake.

[LeSellers]

I categorically state that I am agnostic on the question of evolution. I say this to avoid needless confusion.

A film presented and accepted by the 14th International Congress of Sedementology isn't credible?

Well then you definately won't accept the wikipedia arcticle which cooberates the findings.

http://en.wikipedia....i/Sedimentology

Only semlogo would question this.

Not so. Any evangelical evolutionist would.

Science is far from dispassionate. Once the system has a significant amount of emotional investment in any question (evolution is but one, AGW another, etc.), true inquiry is often ridiculed, snubbed, and rejected. Politics injects its ugly head, too.

Reputations are trashed in the lab as often as in the seminary. (This is metaphorical, you'll have to figure it out.)

Lehi

[Hughes]

zelder:

I ain't never seen me a literal talking snake.

And no one has observed a literal evolutionary change from one form into another.

[semlogo]

The key difference is that I am attempting to understand it *in context* what did the original author intend? What did the original intended audience understand?

You seem to be feel that playing fast and loose with the text is ok. I don't.

I agree that there is tension between what science says and what scripture says. My point is that the tension isn't relieved by miss reading the scripture.

What author? We have two authors here - whoever wrote the Genesis story alluded to, and Matthew. Jesus is not the original author. All we have is him quoted referencing an old Torah story in passing to make a point about marriage.

[semlogo]

And no one has observed a literal evolutionary change from one form into another.

Actually, yes they have.

[Ceeboo]

Adam and Eve- Absobatooootly literal

Global flood- Absobatooootly literal

Genesis account- Absobatoooootly literal

Now that we have that firmly settled , I'll exit the thread so all you "scientists" can submit your "eveidences" against these silly notions.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[semlogo]

Genesis account- Absobatoooootly literal

Which one? There are two creation stories in Genesis, and they can't both be true.

[Zakuska]

Irrelevant - it doesn't support your flood sediment claims, nor does it contradict anything I've said. Anything else?

It doesn't?

You obviously haven't even watched hughes film, rather you HIDE your head in the sand (excuse the pun) and commit the ad hominem fallacy of attacking the sources.

Hughes film includes a portion of REAL Scientific film that was presented at the 14th International congress of Sedementology - In that film REAL Scientific experiments performed by REAL Geologist on a large scale have proven that fast moving floods can AND do produce sedimentary rock formations. So strata has nothing to do with age.

That you prefer to hide your head in the sand is niether here nor there.

[Zakuska]

I categorically state that I am agnostic on the question of evolution. I say this to avoid needless confusion.

Not so. Any evangelical evolutionist would.

Science is far from dispassionate. Once the system has a significant amount of emotional investment in any question (evolution is but one, AGW another, etc.), true inquiry is often ridiculed, snubbed, and rejected. Politics injects its ugly head, too.

Reputations are trashed in the lab as often as in the seminary. (This is metaphorical, you'll have to figure it out.)

Lehi

As evidenced by this post by semlogo...

Irrelevant - it doesn't support your flood sediment claims, nor does it contradict anything I've said. Anything else?

The only reason its "irrelevant" is because it rubs against the grain of semlogo's world view bubble.

[Hughes]

What author? We have two authors here - whoever wrote the Genesis story alluded to, and Matthew. Jesus is not the original author. All we have is him quoted referencing an old Torah story in passing to make a point about marriage.

All we have?

We understand a lot more than that. If you honestly think that Jesus and the orthodox jews didn't think that it wasn't to be taken literally, then please show your evidence!