Eldwynn Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Of course I disagree. I couldn't ever believe that letters simply organize themselves into libraries by themselves (atheists), nor do I see evidence that God did it that way.Nobody thinks this is how it worked. Evolution (even as Darwin explained it) has never been about random chance. Every time someone says "well such and such can't have happened by chance" I just think: OF COURSE NOT. Nobody believes it happened by chance. We know the evidence points to evolution by natural selection being the way complex life (such as a library of DNA) arose.
thesometimesaint Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Zakuska:3.14 maybe more accurate. It really is 3 with a none repeating decimal out to past a million digits(We still don't have a 100% accurate number). The Bible claims Pi to be exactly 3. Personally I have no problem if the Bible were to claim that Pi was about 3. But that is not what the Bible claims. One of the many reasons not to have a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Which the LDS do not. Something about "As far as it is translated correctly".
Franktalk Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Franktalk:I can't be so literal. IE; What is the value of Pi acccording to the Bible?http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/158/If you want to see an error the Bible is written for you to see it. But if you wish to get to God's message sometimes you must study deeper.Pro 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.Try being something besides one dimensional.
Franktalk Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Nobody thinks this is how it worked. Evolution (even as Darwin explained it) has never been about random chance. Every time someone says "well such and such can't have happened by chance" I just think: OF COURSE NOT. Nobody believes it happened by chance. We know the evidence points to evolution by natural selection being the way complex life (such as a library of DNA) arose.Natural selection is a sorting process. It does not determine the next mutation. Natural selection can only act on what it is given by the mutation process. It always amazes me to hear this kind of comment. If you truly believe this then go out to your car and swap around all of the wiring. Have that same faith that the result will be a faster and more efficient car. Good luck.
Franktalk Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 But let's turn this around: why do you accept the Biblical Flood story and not, say, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Hindu tale of Manu? They are definitely Flood narratives, but they contain quite significant differences from our account. Why does the Biblical version have to be a word-for-word record of exactly what God said? Why does the Flood have to be literally global in scale, killing all flesh (except eight people), while somehow neglecting to leave geological evidence of the incomprehensibly vast layer of fossils and sedimentary layers which would accumulate from the absolutely horrendous pile of dead bodies and churned-up soil?This is a very fair question and one that deserves an answer. I will start a new thread.
thesometimesaint Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 Franktalk:You can believe anything you like. But to deny errors in any of the Scriptures is against the stated LDS position on inerrancy. The Scripitures tell me how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.With apologies to Galileo.
David T Posted August 16, 2011 Author Posted August 16, 2011 "I beg leave to say unto you, brethren, that ignorance, superstition, and bigotry placing itself where it ought not, is oftentimes in the way of the prosperity of this Church." - Joseph SmithThat's one of my favorite JS quotes. 1
LeSellers Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) [π≈]3.14 maybe more accurate. It really is 3 with a none repeating decimal out to past a million digits(We still don't have a 100% accurate number). Oh, yes, well past one million digits. The value of π is inexpressable in any number system (except as "π") because it's irrational (cannot be represented as a ratio of two whole numbers). We cannot show it as a fraction of any sort, yet it clearly is a fraction, being between 3 and 4. The fact is, we will never "have a 100% accurate number". It cannot be done.Lehi Edited August 17, 2011 by LeSellers 1
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Howdy, Frank:You are a smart guy and I am not saying that anything you are doing or not doing is in error. Thank you, that's a generous thing to say. I hold to a very strict interpretation of scripture. I know what that means. But I do run across people who do not really look at the way they interpret scripture. You may be correct in what you do. But for me I have rejected the world. When I was studying physics I came to realize that this reality is but a simulation. A very good one but the greater reality is much more than we can perceive. It is with this worldview that I read the Bible for the first time. So when I accepted that there is a God and that the spirit world is the real reality it made perfect sense to me. I trust my faith more than I trust my eyes or ears.I too hold to a very strict interpretation of scripture. In fact, I hold such a strict definition of scripture that I believe it really is exactly what it claims to be: a record made by fallible men, including many errors. It is not a complete compendium of knowledge; that's what continuing revelation is for. Joseph Smith spoke a great deal on this: "From what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teaching of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now. This may not agree with the opinions of some of our friends who are bold to say that we have everything written in the Bible which God ever spoke to man since the world began, and that if He had ever said anything more we should certainly receive it. But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are indebted to the faith of another people who lived hundreds and thousands of years before them, does it remain for them to say how much God has spoken and how much He has not spoken? We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anything more to man than is there recorded, would be saying at once that we have at last received a revelation: for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God, that He would not, after giving what is there contained, speak again; and if any man has found out for a fact that the Bible contains all that God ever revealed to man he has ascertained it by an immediate revelation, other than has been previously written by the prophets and apostles. But through the kind providence of our Father a portion of His word which he delivered to His ancient saints, has fallen into our hands.""From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled." "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.""When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see the truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom." "In knowledge there is power. God has more power than all other beings, because he has greater knowledge. ... Knowledge does away with darkness, suspense and doubt; for these cannot exist where knowledge is." "To become a joint heir of the heirship of the Son, one must put away all his false traditions." I think one of those false traditions is to think that the Bible as we have it is sufficient to gain all knowledge. There are many avenues to truth, and one of them is through scientific inquiry. When you tell me to "let go of man's logic", that is itself a logical argument made by you, a man; when you tell me to "form a construct of just what God has written", you are using that man-made logical construction to deny truths not contained in scripture, effectively denying continual revelation. Edited August 16, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
blackstrap Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 SS seems to be hung up on the idea of PI .Nowhere in 1Kings 7 is the symbol pi used(unless we are using the Greek text) so to say that the Bible says pi is exactly 3 is a stretch. If I am charged with making a bowl 10 cubits across(with a thickness of a handbreadth or 4 digits) I could care less what the circumference is because that is decided by the diameter(better to use the radius) I will need to make a mold and will probably start with sand,a stick,and a string. To make anything in the physical world EXACTLY is nigh on to impossible because of the inaccuracies of the measuring instruments. If the diameter of the bowl is 10 cubits (+/-) then the circumference is 30 cubits (+/-) It isn't 29 or 31. Had the Bible said that the circumference would be 30 cubits and a handbreadth and three eyelashes that might have been somewhat more accurate but still not EXACTLY right. If you remove the word EXACTLY from your statements then YOU are more accurate.
mfbukowski Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) I have cast off what most believe. My faith is strong. My connection with the Holy Ghost is strong. Now is that because of what I believe or is it some other reason. Those kind of answers do not come.Now did God seed the earth with molecules from space? I sure don't know. But I accept the widest possible explanations. So when I see someone who seems to "know" the past I point out what I see as inconsistencies with scripture. Like I said it does not mean I am right it just means there is another view.Try casting off the world sometime as an exercise. Let go of man's logic and form a construct of just what God has written. Imagine that reality and see this one as a stage. You will be amazed at the insight it will bring. I am sure it will turn up the volume on that small voice. Live in the spirit. Walk in the spirit. Talk to God in the spirit. He cares not for this world. All of the book learning in the world does not prepare one for that walk. It is letting go not obtaining that gets you there.This is great stuff, and I agree with you totally, at least in this part aboveBut you seem inconsistent in that you say:"Like I said it does not mean I am right it just means there is another view"And yet, you say "Let go of man's logic and form a construct of just what God has written"Is it all just "another view" or not?It seems you are saying that only you are right, but it is "just another view"Sounds inconsistent to me! Edited August 16, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (Underlining added)Zakuska:3.14 maybe more accurate. It really is 3 with a none repeating decimal out to past a million digits(We still don't have a 100% accurate number). The Bible claims Pi to be exactly 3. Personally I have no problem if the Bible were to claim that Pi was about 3. But that is not what the Bible claims. One of the many reasons not to have a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Which the LDS do not. Something about "As far as it is translated correctly". Uh, I don't think the Bible makes any claims about something called "Pi" at all, much less if it is 3 or 3.14 (etc.)One of the many reasons not to have a literalist interpretation of the Bible.Yep. Because then you may think it says things it doesn't say at all.
Eldwynn Posted August 16, 2011 Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) Natural selection is a sorting process. It does not determine the next mutation. Natural selection can only act on what it is given by the mutation process. It always amazes me to hear this kind of comment. If you truly believe this then go out to your car and swap around all of the wiring. Have that same faith that the result will be a faster and more efficient car. Good luck.This is rather surprising to me, because you claim to have a good understanding of evolution- and yet statements like these suggest otherwise (unless i am misunderstanding you... do you really think organisms completely revamp themselves?). Never in the history of living creatures has something "completely swapped" wiring. No biologist (and I am actually a biologist) has ever- and will ever claim such. Evolution is not a theory about astronomical odds. It's a process that builds complexity by cumulative chance- not random chance.Once again, metaphors like the one above (and a similar one about a Boeing 747 being assembled in a tornado) are the very thing that Biologists say CAN NOT happen. It is a straw man argument. Edited August 16, 2011 by Eldwynn
LeSellers Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) SS seems to be hung up on the idea of PI .Nowhere in 1Kings 7 is the symbol pi used(unless we are using the Greek text) so to say that the Bible says pi is exactly 3 is a stretch.Of course the symbol does not exist in a text that predates the alphabet by hundreds of years. That's immaterial. The symbol represents the ratio (not a true ratio, because one of the numbers is always irrational) of two numbers: the Circumference of a circle compared to the Diameter of the same circle, i.e., C/D. That's the definition of π. π ≡ C/D.23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.2 Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. D = 10 cubitsC = 30 cubitsπ = C/D = 30 cubits/10 cubits = 3.If I am charged with making a bowl 10 cubits across(with a thickness of a handbreadth or 4 digits) I could care less what the circumference is because that is decided by the diameter(better to use the radius) I will need to make a mold and will probably start with sand,a stick,and a string.You would not care because, as you say, the circumference is defined by the diameter and by π. Now, because the Bible tells us both the diameter and the circumference, we are left with no alternative conclusion to the scriptural definition of π: π = 3.To make anything in the physical world EXACTLY is nigh on to impossible because of the inaccuracies of the measuring instruments. If the diameter of the bowl is 10 cubits (+/-) then the circumference is 30 cubits (+/-) It isn't 29 or 31. Had the Bible said that the circumference would be 30 cubits and a handbreadth and three eyelashes that might have been somewhat more accurate but still not EXACTLY right. If you remove the word EXACTLY from your statements then YOU are more accurate.The ancients were more than up to the task of dividing a string into seven equal segments. The passage in question could read "... and a line of one and thirty cubits and a span ...", but it plainly does not. Lehi Edited August 17, 2011 by LeSellers
blackstrap Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 As a side note. a bowl of 10 cubits exterior diameter and a thickness of a handbreadth has an interior circumference of very nearly 30 cubits. Again I must ask why,from the builders point of view,would it be necessary to know the circumference of the bowl? Given the diameter,the circumference will be what it is. Perhaps there is some connection to the pattern of dealing in sacred numbers like 3 and 7.
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 This is great stuff, and I agree with you totally, at least in this part aboveBut you seem inconsistent in that you say:"Like I said it does not mean I am right it just means there is another view"And yet, you say "Let go of man's logic and form a construct of just what God has written"Is it all just "another view" or not?It seems you are saying that only you are right, but it is "just another view"Sounds inconsistent to me!Excellent analysis. Let me fill in what is missing. The holy Ghost does not witness to man's ideas. The focus in on salvation. It is man who keeps discussing topics of no importance to the Holy Ghost. Like if I ask "Was there a flood of Noah?", the Holy Ghost may come back and say "yes". But if I ask "What does that mean?" I will get nothing. So without the confirmation of the Holy Ghost I can not know the absolute truth of many things. I have my opinions but no absolute knowledge.What I am saying is that I am right in having a wide range of possibilities. Those who focus on one possible method like a naturalist view are wrong in their narrow focus of acceptable options. So in this case my wide range of methods including the literal interpretation of scripture, is the correct view. But I supply few answers. When I present the literal view from scripture it is to show that the literal view should be considered. I will argue that it is the correct one for me. In my opinion I accept the literal view. But I allow I could be wrong. So I accept the possibility of a wide range of views and opinions.Those who look for only the non-supernatural view are in essence rejecting the power of God. That may sound harsh but it is true. What I try and show is the God centered view where God's power and will slices through man's tiny view of how things get done.I am not sure I answered your question or made it worse.
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Dupe Edited August 17, 2011 by Franktalk
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 This is rather surprising to me, because you claim to have a good understanding of evolution- and yet statements like these suggest otherwise (unless i am misunderstanding you... do you really think organisms completely revamp themselves?). Never in the history of living creatures has something "completely swapped" wiring. No biologist (and I am actually a biologist) has ever- and will ever claim such. Evolution is not a theory about astronomical odds. It's a process that builds complexity by cumulative chance- not random chance.Once again, metaphors like the one above (and a similar one about a Boeing 747 being assembled in a tornado) are the very thing that Biologists say CAN NOT happen. It is a straw man argument.Shall we test your assertion? Tell me how many connections are in the human brain? Now tell me how long it would take for one connection to evolve in the real world. Please use the number of new connections found in the human brain over the last 50 years (with billions of people) as your guide. Now calculate how long it would take for the whole brain to evolve just the connections in the brain.Very simple question. Please take as long as you need to answer.
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Franktalk:For an easy to understand link See:http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/insidebrain/brainevolution.htm
Franktalk Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Franktalk:For an easy to understand link See:http://www.youramazingbrain.org.uk/insidebrain/brainevolution.htmIf this link indicates your level of thought please do not post to me, you will be ignored.
LeSellers Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) As a side note. a bowl of 10 cubits exterior diameter and a thickness of a handbreadth has an interior circumference of very nearly 30 cubits. Again I must ask why,from the builders point of view,would it be necessary to know the circumference of the bowl? Given the diameter,the circumference will be what it is. Perhaps there is some connection to the pattern of dealing in sacred numbers like 3 and 7.Whether there is a connection to the sacred numbers of 3, 7, or 12 (which don't appear in 10 and 30 anyway) has nothing to do with mathematics. Your conjecture of the measurement of the circumference being on the inside is hardly reasonable. A line (string) will not measure the inside of any figure. The string doesn't stick to the inside, while it needs only be held tight to measure the outside. Further, it ignores the words of the scriptures: "a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about". The phrase does not mean a line will go around the inside of the vesel, it means the line will go around the outside. Bible math:C = 30 cubitsD = 10 cubitsπ = C/D = 30 cubits/10 cubits = 3.Empiricle math:π ≡ C/D ≈ 3.141726535... The only way to force the scriptural math to conform to real math is to assume the vessel was hexagonal. A hexagon 10 cubits across is 30 cubits around. However, the text does not permit a hexagon. Those who try this sleight of hand try to see the "flowers of lilies" as the shape of the bowl, not the decoration of the brim. 23 And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.Lehi Edited August 17, 2011 by LeSellers
thesometimesaint Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Franktalk:You wanted a more scholarly article?http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:5ZmGIX1clhsJ:www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y3project/Roth2005_TICS_brain_size_and_intelligence.pdf+evolution+of+the+brain+and+intelligence&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgAN-3Ot0byhMLeaJjvcVXm2Vz_UTqTTzLf9gWRZM5jr8zC04UqAGYIgt6h_RvhAs6ccEwX58OJj9oyKllt8sWlw4GiHHYldmrLvQVX7jbbQ2kBBc-yXWmLDAbt6I6wEPoneS1H&sig=AHIEtbQvrn4APCDERrvHD7cMyzw_EyBQ4w
mfbukowski Posted August 17, 2011 Posted August 17, 2011 Excellent analysis. Let me fill in what is missing. The holy Ghost does not witness to man's ideas. The focus in on salvation. It is man who keeps discussing topics of no importance to the Holy Ghost. Like if I ask "Was there a flood of Noah?", the Holy Ghost may come back and say "yes". But if I ask "What does that mean?" I will get nothing. So without the confirmation of the Holy Ghost I can not know the absolute truth of many things. I have my opinions but no absolute knowledge.What I am saying is that I am right in having a wide range of possibilities. Those who focus on one possible method like a naturalist view are wrong in their narrow focus of acceptable options. So in this case my wide range of methods including the literal interpretation of scripture, is the correct view. But I supply few answers. When I present the literal view from scripture it is to show that the literal view should be considered. I will argue that it is the correct one for me. In my opinion I accept the literal view. But I allow I could be wrong. So I accept the possibility of a wide range of views and opinions.Those who look for only the non-supernatural view are in essence rejecting the power of God. That may sound harsh but it is true. What I try and show is the God centered view where God's power and will slices through man's tiny view of how things get done.I am not sure I answered your question or made it worse.No, you answered it.That's pretty much the way I see it too actually. I go by the spirit ultimately, and I really don't care about the other stuff. If it works to believe it, that's fine- all I know for sure is what I know for sure and that is that the Spirit talks to me, and a few other things, like I love my wife etc.I think the only difference is that I have a sense that things that seem to be contradictory are not really contradictory from a wider perspective- so ultimately I think there is a way of making all conceptual realities one- but until we get there, ....... see above! So I don't get excited about those who want to be literal where I am not unless they make a fuss and pretend to know the unknowable- I just try to show them that there is a way to harmonize their literal interp, with others.I just have a real sense of how fluid language is, and how everything is dependent on how we say things, but usually it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I know what I know and the rest is just talk and saying it the right way.
Recommended Posts