How literally do you take the creation story?

[Hughes]

It isn't just similarities. The similarities form a pattern that tells a story. I don't have time to educate you but the relationsships are of the exact sort one would expect to see if the history of all life were one of a branching tree of relatedness that unfolded though time. It is even more than that. It becomes literally obvious.

The literally obvious part is only if you are a believer. Fact remains that evolutionary mechanisms haven't demonstrated themselves to be creative enough, no matter how much time you give them.

Is it mere faith that there was an American civil war? Is it mere faith that canyons are formed by erosion? Is it mere faith that the sun is a locus of thermonuclear fusion? Is it mere faith that mountains existed before there were scientists?

You grossly mischaracterize the nature of scientific knowledge. Most of what we know cannot properly be tested in a literal laboratory. Yet we find ways to test every truly scientific theory in some possibly indirect way and we do this from many angles and points of view. There is even such a thing as scientific retrodiction. Scientist's methods of bringing things into the circle of the empirical are far more clever that you imagine.

I agree, I've had to keep things simple for brevity's sake. I simply don't have the time it takes to refute every point to the extent you might like.

Bottom line is yes it takes faith to believe there was a civil war or canyons formed by erosion *in the past!* Those can't be observed in real time (holocaust deniers are simply having faith in something else for example)... And no the Sun's Fusion can be observed and tested in real time (albeit remotely). No faith is involved when it's happening in real time and repeated.

I've listened to many clever scientists. What seems to happen is that first the line is blurred between what is faith and what is factual.

I agree, we have and use indirect evidence all the time. However, when the line gets blurred we begin to lie to ourselves and tell ourselves we know more than we really do.

The age of the earth is a great example of that. It's apart of our human nature, I imagine.

And even one of the most intelligent and clever is Stephen Hawking who is now making the most audacious statements of faith. Of course he doesn't think they are faith based, but he can't prove them anymore than I can use Science to prove God exists.

How else do you explain such idiotic statements coming from Hawking?

[Hughes]

I guess the laws of physics before the flood, during the flood, and after the flood were all very, very different. Yeah, I know, the speed of light has changed dramatically in the past 6000 years and all that tommyrot.

Maybe the laws of physics were so different that water could have just been H6O and now what it is today, H2O and that is why the level of water went down after the flood because God caused water to lose the other four hydrogen atoms, thus reducing its volume.

Such silliness.

Let me state again:

Insufficient data ---> POOF!!!!!!!! ---> Man

You said:

No global flood lasting for a few months or even a year or so would have enough pressure nor time to make the sand turn to stone.

I never said the laws of physics had to change. I'm only saying that you don't know. I doubt your absolute negative supposition, and anyone who makes such claims must have more faith than me.

[thesometimesaint]

Time to queue up the Twilight Zone music.

[Hughes]

The similarities are also in the parts of our DNA that don't code for any traits.

Which means what?

The conclusion that ergo we must have evolved from a common ancestor is preposterous because evolution is empty and devoid of any mechanism that causes such diversity or creativity. Especially when we understand that the DNA is more similar to a complex computer code, and we're supposed to believe that A) it arose out of non-DNA things and B)"Mistakes" or Errors are the cause of creative new functions?

All of which is fine if there were actually evidence that supported the existence of such a powerful and creative mechanism.

On the flip side, if you have similar DNA, it stands to reason that you have similar codes that also aren't used for any traits. In other words. DNA comes from and intelligent source, and the designer could have just as easily supplied extra information, commonly called redundancies to make up for difficulties it might encounter.

In other words, my main point about this is, evolution isn't the only logical conclusion.

[Brenda]

That really doesn't suprise you, does it?

Well, I never knew there was an issue until I found this board. And yes, it does surprise me. I mean I've never heard this from ANY LDS, in public or private.

[Tarski]

The literally obvious part is only if you are a believer. Fact remains that evolutionary mechanisms haven't demonstrated themselves to be creative enough, no matter how much time you give them.

No matter how much time you give them? Oh really? How did you determine that in the lab in real time? LOL (can you say hypocrit?)

I agree, I've had to keep things simple for brevity's sake. I simply don't have the time it takes to refute every point to the extent you might like.

Bottom line is yes it takes faith to believe there was a civil war or canyons formed by erosion *in the past!* Those can't be observed in real time (holocaust deniers are simply having faith in something else for example)... And no the Sun's Fusion can be observed and tested in real time (albeit remotely). No faith is involved when it's happening in real time and repeated.

We determine what is happening on the sun the same way we learn about the ancient universe. We recieve light and other radiation from the past. For the sun it is 8 minutes in the past.

I've listened to many clever scientists.

Without understanding them?

What seems to happen is that first the line is blurred between what is faith and what is factual.

Seems indeed!

I agree, we have and use indirect evidence all the time. However, when the line gets blurred we begin to lie to ourselves and tell ourselves we know more than we really do.

Sounds like religion.

The age of the earth is a great example of that. It's apart of our human nature, I imagine.

Wow! You really are off the deep end.

We know a lot about the age of the earth and the only reason you have for doubting the empirically determined facts is because of your faith on an old book of cultural myths called the Bible

.

And even one of the most intelligent and clever is Stephen Hawking who is now making the most audacious statements of faith. Of course he doesn't think they are faith based, but he can't prove them anymore than I can use Science to prove God exists.

How else do you explain such idiotic statements coming from Hawking?

I find it interesting that you consider statements of faith to be idiotic only when they are made (as you see it) by scientists.

Is there something about the use of mathematics and logical reasoning based on known physical theory such as quantum mechanics that ruins "faith" and makes it idiotic? Or is it always idiotic.

Is faith better if it is just based on nothing but the traditions of ancient middle eastern heardsmen?

[Brenda]

That's because we latter-day saints are polite and we go to church to learn doctrinal principals, not bicker about the historicity of ancient tribal creation myths. It's the spiritual principals that are important.

Oh dear!

Peace,

Ceeboo

Well yes, I'd say we are a polite group. But many (most?) of us don't have to restrain ourselves over "ancient tribal myths". I just believe it. I believe the scriptures. I believe the prophets. I can't explain it. I just believe it. Until the Lord tells me differently, I'll continue to believe it.

I used to think we were all on the same page. On this matter, apparently we're not. But we can still worship together.

[Tsuzuki]

The conclusion that ergo we must have evolved from a common ancestor is preposterous because evolution is empty and devoid of any mechanism that causes such diversity or creativity.

One word: nylonase.

On the flip side, if you have similar DNA, it stands to reason that you have similar codes that also aren't used for any traits. In other words. DNA comes from and intelligent source, and the designer could have just as easily supplied extra information, commonly called redundancies to make up for difficulties it might encounter.

Except that those noncoding regions aren't redundancies, and if they did code would cause all sorts of diseases.

[Hughes]

If Isaiah didn't have a word for "Sphere" as you suggest. Then why did he reference a "Ball" in another verse?

Isaiah 22:18

18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord

[Hughes]

I find it interesting that you consider statements of faith to be idiotic only when they are made (as you see it) by scientists.

Is there something about the use of mathematics and logical reasoning based on known physical theory such as quantum mechanics that ruins "faith" and makes it idiotic? Or is it always idiotic.

Is faith better if it is just based on nothing but the traditions of ancient middle eastern heardsmen?

What is idiotic is when a Scientist such as Hawking makes statements that he thinks are scientific, but are not. Such as saying that God isn't needed in the creation of the Universe. Since science can't make a claim about God either way, Hawking is making a faith statement, and passing it off on the public as if it was some sort of scientific claim.

Hey if Hawking says it, it must be true right?

[Zakuska]

Your conclusion that it's a plate implies it's 2 dimensional. The writers describe God and the Earth from their perspective (without aid of telescopes). They don't say specifically that it is "flat" or 2 dimensional and don't use what we would use, Sphere. Which is probably because the Earth/Moon/Sun didn't look to them like a sphere, but a circle.

Why not a "ball?". This is just my opinion, but the Earth doesn't look like a ball when you're standing on it. A ball is typically something smaller, something that can be thrown for example. If you stand on the top of a mountain and look at the Horizon, it's clearly curved... or circular.

Then why didn't he describe it as a "BOW" or arch or curve? Perfectly good Hebrew words for that too.

Gen. 9: 13

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

[Zakuska]

You know.... It's been hilarious watching the resident self delcared "Scientists" on the board such as semlogo, thesometimessaint, and tarski... balking at the peer-reviewed findings of these Scientists.

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."^[1]

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."^[2]

1. ^ 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).
2. ^ Joe H. S. Macquaker and Kevin M. Bohacs, "Geology: On the Accumulation of Mud," Science, 14 December 2007: 1734-1735.

If sediment can be deposited in such huge amounts so quickly and there for making strata meaningless in Geological ages of animals and bones deposited. This throws the findings of quite a few fields of study, prior to 2007, down the toilet!

[cinepro]

Yeah this and global flood are neck and neck in your hobby-horse race.

I'm not the one who started the thread.

Would you consider yourself a believing, or unbelieving, member of the LDS church?

Based on the comments made by others in this thread, I would have to be considered a believing member of the LDS Church.

[cinepro]

All too often Adam

[urroner]

What about them?

If you think that they must have been there for millions of years because they are millions of light years away, then let me ask you this.

Which is more difficult for God?

To create a fully developed Earth in 6 literal days, with fruit and a fully grown Man and Woman on it. OR

To create a Star millions of light years away, with the light already reaching the Earth?

Why would He do either?

Oh yeah, that's right, He wanted to test our faith. Dang, I keep forgetting that detail.

[urroner]

If you think that they must have been there for millions of years because they are millions of light years away, then let me ask you this.

Which is more difficult for God?

To create a fully developed Earth in 6 literal days, with fruit and a fully grown Man and Woman on it. OR

To create a Star millions of light years away, with the light already reaching the Earth?

I never said the laws of physics had to change. I'm only saying that you don't know. I doubt your absolute negative supposition, and anyone who makes such claims must have more faith than me.

Insufficient data ---> POOF!!!!! ---> Stupid, silly, sucky, inconsistent logic.

IMO, first you said that God can and did change the laws of physics and then you said that they didn't have to change.

I have to agree with TSS, your logic is directly from the Twilight Zone.

[urroner]

Well, I never knew there was an issue until I found this board. And yes, it does surprise me. I mean I've never heard this from ANY LDS, in public or private.

I don't talk about evolution in church or to many members is because some of them will have a hissy fit, go spaz in the middle of church or wherever, and start declaring that I can't be a "true believer" if I ever accepted such junk science, and then they go crying to the bishop or the stake president of the darkness and rank in my soul and how I'm trying to force them to the dark side of the force and it just isn't worth it.

[Ceeboo]

The childish conceptual confusions, ignorance and scientific illiteracy displayed on this thread is astounding and surpassed only by the arrogance with which it is displayed.

If this is the fruits of religion then I can rest my case.

Now that's rich!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Molloch]

Nevermind, wrong post.

[Jeff K.]

The JST makes doctrinal corrections and clarifications only.

You seem to enjoy twisting in the wind. That is pretty much what science does. Give it some thought.

[thesometimesaint]

Zakuska:

Au contraire mon amei I have said nothing either way about it.

I have linked to a study in Australia that shows something different in a different set of conditions. Different conditions different results. Basic science.

[Hughes]

Then why didn't he describe it as a "BOW" or arch or curve? Perfectly good Hebrew words for that too.

Gen. 9: 13

13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Why did the writer use the words he did? It's a debate that get's rather esoteric. Only the writer and God really know for sure.

My opinion is that the writer is describing what he sees when standing on a mountain. The horizon doesn't look like a bow to him because he is describing it as a circle.

[Hughes]

Why would He do either?

Oh yeah, that's right, He wanted to test our faith. Dang, I keep forgetting that detail.

Nope. I don't buy into that "he wanted to test our faith" idea. It says he created everything full grown and able to bear seed. How is that testing our faith?

The question is very simple. IF God is all powerful, why would he *not* create it all in an instant (and certainly 6 days is an instant compared to billions of years) and use his 6 days of work as an example for those people who are created in his image?

What theological reason would he have to create things for a billions of years? Which displays more power and authority?

[Zakuska]

My opinion is that the writer is describing what he sees when standing on a mountain. The horizon doesn't look like a bow to him because he is describing it as a circle.

How can this be true?

The horizon definately doesn't like like a circle to me. Does it to you?

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

"The question is very simple. IF God is all powerful, why would he *not* create it all in an instant (and certainly 6 days is an instant compared to billions of years) and use his 6 days of work as an example for those people who are created in his image?"

So your god deliberately sets out to deceive his children? Doesn't sound like the God I know.