Noooo!!! Big Bang Theory Mocked

[Cobalt-70]

I think the process of inert/inanimate/lifeless material or elements spontaneously coming to or forming life is the big issue.

Science assumes it happened because life exists, but cannot explain it any better than a shaman or witchdoctor. Oh sure science can attempt to make it sound more plausible, but no more provable.

They can explain it quite a bit better than a shaman or witchdoctor. We have most of the pieces of the puzzle of the explanation, but have not yet found the exact recipe. Scientists are just one step away from being able to model a world in which life (in the form of self-replicating RNA) spontaneously forms out of inanimate materials. But there's good reason to think that the actual model for what happened on earth was a bit simpler than this spontaneous RNA recipe.

Let me tell you why I don't have a theological problem with the big bang or evolution: If I were a Mormon hominid god, and therefore was not capable of creating the universe ex nihilo, I wouldn't (and probably couldn't) micromanage the trajectories of each of the googol or more atoms in the universe to create life. I wouldn't need to do that. Rather, the universe is vast enough that I could simply let natural selection processes operate naturally on billions upon billions of planets, and then select the one that creates intelligent life most resembling myself, and call that planet "earth."

[cdowis]

They can explain it quite a bit better than a shaman or witchdoctor. We have most of the pieces of the puzzle of the explanation, but have not yet found the exact recipe. Scientists are just one step away from being able to model a world in which life (in the form of self-replicating RNA) spontaneously forms out of inanimate materials. But there's good reason to think that the actual model for what happened on earth was a bit simpler than this spontaneous RNA recipe.

Let me tell you why I don't have a theological problem with the big bang or evolution: If I were a Mormon hominid god, and therefore was not capable of creating the universe ex nihilo, I wouldn't (and probably couldn't) micromanage the trajectories of each of the googol or more atoms in the universe to create life.

One step away from demonstrating Intelligent Design.

I wouldn't need to do that. Rather, the universe is vast enough that I could simply let natural selection processes operate naturally on billions upon billions of planets

Scientists are not able to demonstrate that process.Here on earth, they are unable to answer some of the most basic questions, such as how the first man and the first woman came together to procreate. Did they evolve independently, or as one organism which split apart and then became functionally dependent. The answer that there was no "first" man or woman is intellectually bankrupt.

Edited April 12, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Trying to cast doubt on evolution or abiogenesis based on someone's estimation of the odds is like walking up to a lottery winner and saying "You can't possibly have won, the odds were 360,000,000 to 1!"

This is not a single series of "lucky numbers", but hundreds of thousands of complex organisms, some of which are independent but members of a complex society such as the honey bee, and others who have a symbiotic relationship with others. .

They "evolved" independently but could not exist without the other.

Your comparison to a lottery ticket is nonsense.

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

That is not how evolution works. Once self replicating RNA started the rest is just history.

[cdowis]

cdowis:

That is not how evolution works. Once self replicating RNA started the rest is just history.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Perhaps you have missed the point that RNA can only replicate in humans, etc, with the active participation of a mating pair. It is not a mechanical process like snow flakes or crystal formations, as you seem to imply. Evolution has offered no cogent explanation for the mating pair process.

I am going to request that if you want to "refute" something, you need to do a quote.

Edited April 12, 2012 by cdowis

[Kenngo1969]

cinepro:

God bless Elder Benson but his Fourteen Fundamentals is nonsense. He can tell me how how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go.

Shoot! Now you tell me?!! A few months ago, prophets and their role in our lives was the monthly theme of our sacrament meetings for the month, and I took my text from President/Elder Benson's address. Then our Elders Quorum President got up and spoke after me ... and took his text from President/Elder Benson's address. (This occurred without any coordination on our part, if you're wondering.) And that occurred after several speakers (at least two) in the previous General Conference had mentioned several of President/Elder Benson's Fourteen Fundamentals with approval. My Elders Quorum President and I thought that maybe, possibly (however unlikely) after all of this, our "duplication" meant there might actually something to the Fourteen Fundamentals ...

But now yer tellin' me they're nonsense? Shoot! My Elders Quorum President's gonna be bummed ...

[thesometimesaint]

Kennego 1969:

You know I must have missed that one in my Astronomy 101 class that men live on the sun. Seems as that there was a certain prophet named Brigham Young that believed it.

[cinepro]

Shoot! Now you tell me?!! A few months ago, prophets and their role in our lives was the monthly theme of our sacrament meetings for the month, and I took my text from President/Elder Benson's address. Then our Elders Quorum President got up and spoke after me ... and took his text from President/Elder Benson's address. (This occurred without any coordination on our part, if you're wondering.) And that occurred after several speakers (at least two) in the previous General Conference had mentioned several of President/Elder Benson's Fourteen Fundamentals with approval. My Elders Quorum President and I thought that maybe, possibly (however unlikely) after all of this, our "duplication" meant there might actually something to the Fourteen Fundamentals ...

But now yer tellin' me they're nonsense? Shoot! My Elders Quorum President's gonna be bummed ...

First, your teachings in Elder's quorum are all unofficial so they must not apply. And secondly, you must be a Prophet for the "14 Fundamentals" principles to apply and Elder Benson was not (at that time). And thirdly, the 14 fundamentals are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome to the world of apologetics, Brother Kenngo .

Edited April 12, 2012 by cinepro

[guitarist]

First, your teachings in Elder's quorum are all unofficial so they must not apply. And secondly, you must be a Prophet for the "14 Fundamentals" code to apply and Elder Benson was not (at that time). And thirdly, the 14 fundamentals are more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome to the world of apologetics, Brother Kenngo .

I found myself reading this in Geoffrey Rush's voice... Good stuff...

[Kenngo1969]

Kennego 1969:

You know I must have missed that one in my Astronomy 101 class that men live on the sun. Seems as that there was a certain prophet named Brigham Young that believed it.

That's rather a red herring. To the best of my knowledge, one of the Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet isn't, "Thou mustest believe everything which Brigham Young saidst, or everything that he believeth." If Thomas S. Monson tells me that Rocky Road is God's ice cream but I like French vanilla, that's rather different than when he says, "I promise that the Lord will bless you if you do [x]." To the best of my knowledge, President Monson has never made a pronouncement such as the former, and I've always been blessed to the extent that I follow pronouncements having the character of the latter.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[shalamabobbi]

The answer that there was no first man or woman is intellectually bankrupt.

Which ironically shoots down your own position as well.

You're going beyond the immortal nature of intelligence to posit that the physical body is immortal as well, but then there never would be a moment when we would acquire a physical body, it would simply be something we've always been in possesion of.

[Cobalt-70]

Scientists are not able to demonstrate that process.Here on earth, they are unable to answer some of the most basic questions, such as how the first man and the first woman came together to procreate. Did they evolve independently, or as one organism which split apart and then became functionally dependent. The answer that there was no "first" man or woman is intellectually bankrupt.

It depends on what you mean by "man" and "woman." Are you talking about Homo sapiens? Homo heidelbergensis? Homo ergaster? One of the Australopithecus species? The problem with the question, as it is designed, is that there are no clear boundaries where you definitively say that one of the parents was an archaic Homo, and the child was Homo sapiens. It was more of a gradual process than that, where over a few hundreds of millennia, there were people with characteristics of both species interbreeding with each other. So the reason the question cannot be answered is that it is an ill-defined question.

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

From ETB 14 Fundamentals

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

So I ask are there men living on the sun?

Edited April 12, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo1969:

From ETB 14 Fundamentals

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his Ph.D. but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet, and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you.

So I ask are there men living on the sun?

It's easy to win an argument if you confine yourself and an opponent (I use that word advisedly; never having met you in real life, and our interaction having been confined entirely to this Board; whatever disagreements we might've had, I have no problem with you personally) to an abstract scenario. I think it's pretty safe to say that it's difficult at best to equate the man-on-the-moon scenario with some sort of thus-saith-the-Lord prophetic pronouncement. Let's take it out of the abstract and see if we can envision a more concrete scenario.

I have no problem with the Fifth Fundamental you cite. Times are different, so perhaps the chance of this scenario coming to pass with the President of the Church is remote. But suppose I were married (probably the biggest supposition in this whole scenario! ). And suppose my wife were pregnant, but competent medical authority told us there is a good chance that both my wife and the child will die if she attempts to carry our child to term. Suppose I had an opportunity to seek counsel from President Monson on the matter. (However unlikely the scenario may seem, President Monson's opportunities to minister to individual members despite his overall administrative responsibilities are legendary). Suppose he were to tell us that there would be a different, happier outcome, notwithstanding the medical prognosis. Essentially, he's made a pronouncement on what amounts to a scientific matter, despite not being a scientist.

Should my (very hypthetical! ) wife and I follow his counsel?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

I feel as though you always been polite, and respectful of me as a person. I hope you feel the same. Disagreements are the nature of this beast we call belief. In person I think our belief differences would be of no moment, and that you and I could sit very comfortably in Sacrement Meeting together, maybe even General Conference.

I don't disagree that in the abstract the 14 Fundamentals would make someone a better Saint. I'm very particular about what I choose to believe. If something is nonsense show me how to make it not nonsense. My wifes first pregnancy was a very difficult one. It nearly killed her and my son. Her two successive pregnancies were no better and numerous doctors told us not to have any more than three. Do I follow ETB 14 fundaments, follow the prophet on something he knows nothing about, and bury my wife and child, or do as we did? Even though we'd always dreamed of having six children. We went on the best medical knowledge the doctors and we could find. We prayed about it and felt right about our decision. No regrets.

Edited April 12, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Kenngo1969]

Kenngo1969:

I feel as though you always been polite, and respectful of me as a person. I hope you feel the same. Disagreements are the nature of this beast we call belief. In person I think our belief differences would be of no moment, and that you and I could sit very comfortably in Sacrement Meeting together, maybe even General Conference.

Fair enough. Should one of us ever find the other in his neck of the woods, I wouldn't hesitate to effectuate such a get-together. (A few years ago, another poster seemingly discounted the Word of Wisdom by bemoaning the fact that a faithful Mormon wouldn't sit down and have a beer with him. I mistakenly took umbrage at the seeming implication that many faithful Mormons are so tightly wound that alcohol would be, not merely a beverage of choice, but, rather, a necessary lubricant to any social interaction that might take place. In response, he assured me I'd misread him, and, in apologizing for doing so, I told him that if we were ever to get together, he was free to consume alcoholic beverages ... as long I could have a ginger ale, and as long as he didn't expect me to drive him home afterward. He agreed to take me up on that offer if one of us was ever in the other's neck of the woods. I extend to you the same offer (and will be thankful that no "beer-versus-ginger-ale" debate will come into play. )

I don't disagree that in the abstract the 14 Fundamentals would make someone a better Saint. I'm very particular about what I choose to believe. If something is nonsense show me how to make it not nonsense. My wifes first pregnancy was a very difficult one. It nearly killed her and my son. Her two successive pregnancies were no better and numerous doctors told us not to have any more than three. Do I follow ETB 14 fundaments, follow the prophet on something he knows nothing about, and bury my wife and child, or do as we did? Even though we'd always dreamed of having six children. We went on the best medical knowledge the doctors and we could find. We prayed about it and felt right about our decision. No regrets.

No, of course I would never ask you to bury your wife and child. I've never been married and don't have any children. (I am my only child! ) Alas, my only experience with difficult pregnancies is having been one. (Actually, I wasn't a particularly difficult pregnancy for my mother; I simply happened to show up early enough that the doctor, right after telling my dad, "It's a boy," then said, "Don't expect him to live through the night.") But you'll note that I didn't ask you whether you'd follow the advice of "Thomas S. Monson, astute businessman" or of "Thomas S. Monson, editor and printer extraordinaire" regarding medical matters in my scenario: I asked you, at least implicitly, to consider whether you would be willing to follow the counsel "President Thomas S. Monson, Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" in such a scenario, despite his not having received a medical degree.

I would never suggest that you and your wife are anything less than fully faithful in choosing to shape your family in the way you have, or that you have not sought, received, and determined to follow the will of God in that matter. God gave us brains; He expects us to use them. Your own family's situation is inapposite to the scenario I proposed. If, however, your wife had gotten pregnant with a fourth child; if you had some inkling of inspiration which caused you to question whether you shouldn't attempt to carry that child to term despite the opinion of competent medical authority to the contrary; if you'd had occasion to counsel with President Monson on the matter; if he had counseled you that, notwithstanding dire medical predictions, the outcome would be more favorable; and if you'd sought and received confirmation of the soundness of that counsel, your situation would better match the one I was envisioning. In that (admittedly very narrow!) case, I would have no problem following President Benson's Fifth Fundamental. I doubt you would, either.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Sethbag]

This is not a single series of "lucky numbers", but hundreds of thousands of complex organisms, some of which are independent but members of a complex society such as the honey bee, and others who have a symbiotic relationship with others. .

They "evolved" independently but could not exist without the other.

Your comparison to a lottery ticket is nonsense.

You apparently didn't understand what I was trying to say, because this entire post is not a reply to anything I said.

[thesometimesaint]

Kenngo1969:

We had four different doctors in three different states tell us not to, not one even hinted at more than three. IF President Monson would have consulted with us as a medical doctor, we would have listened intently to what he said. Of course his medical opinions would have gone into the mix. Our Bishops all said listen to the medical doctors and pray about it. I can't say what our decision would have been with Brother Monson, or any President of the Church, as such was not offered.

Edited April 13, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

Well, Elder Richard G. Scott's talk is now destined to become quoted by anti-Mormons for decades to come! He outright mocked the Big Bang, evolution, etc. It's not the point of his talk, but he expanded the scope beyond it.

Well science is not about absolute certainty, but your right, Elder Scott's point was that the universe is not the cause of something random.

[TheSkepticChristian]

But General Authorities do accept DNA science

[cdowis]

So I ask are there men living on the sun?

No

You know I must have missed that one in my Astronomy 101 class that men live on the sun. Seems as that there was a certain prophet named Brigham Young that believed it.

He did not say that.

Please give us the full, exact quote.

Edited April 15, 2012 by cdowis

[TheSkepticChristian]

Well this video is very good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b495ma80pQ

[thesometimesaint]

cdowis:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young/Teachings/Moon_and_sun_are_inhabited

[blackstrap]

If men can be immortal,and if that means they are indestructable,then a man could hypothetically live on the sun.They could be in another dimension that occupied the same area as the sun. They might want to vacation there after spending some time working in Hades.What BY said( if he actually did) seems nonsense to us now.But,it is said in scripture that God dwells in everlasting burnings.That sounds a lot like a sun to me.About the only way we can look at the sun is " through a glass darkly". To me,pre-mortal or mortal ,or post-mortal we are all still men( with respect to the UMW)

[thesometimesaint]

Now all we need is for an immortal supernatural "Man" is to show us how it is done.

BTW the sun is a giant ball of gas. There is nothing for us to stand on.

Even the sun is not everlasting. In about 4-5 billion more years it will use up the last of its hydrogen, expand beyond the orbit of this planet consuming it. Thereafter diminishing to a cold brown dwarf.