Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[SamIam]

It might or might not eventually be proven scientifically, but it is a logical system of belief based on your understanding and is quite ingenious, I think.

I'm not sure it can be proven per se. An LDS physicist might be able to put some math to it but I do not know how to quantify our current level of quickening against an eternal level of quickening. I don't know how one would calculate the qualities and influences of a pure light source and grades of intensities vs what we realize as our constant at this time. I don't know how to calculate a dozen different influences. But I can see the potential of their existence though the exact numbers to show it may be a challenge to do.

A very good mathematician or physicist might be able to work it backwards and determine ratios that it would take to have a 13,000 year measurement flux in such away that our current constant at this time could move backwards according to the ratios of potential life expectancy that scripture records. Or perhaps even using the known radioactive decay rates one could calculate backwards what types of influences would be required to derive the variances...If I knew someone of that skill I might pass if off to them...but alas...

[SamIam]

OOPS- even after that last post??

I'm not positing that I know all that He meant as inclusive in His use of the term light but that all that I know of relative to our scientific expectations of light are included in His use of the word light....clear as mud right?

I've only got 5 children now...to get to seven my wife tells me would require two mistakes and she doesn't plan on one. IT was a half-hearted gesture at best... but it was nice to see you were grasping my perspective nonetheless. Not that you agreed only that you were trying to see where I was coming from.

Edited April 28, 2012 by SamIam

[Cobalt-70]

This verse from Moses 7 is also significant in removing any question of the sentient capacity of these organized orbs as Enoch is observing a very powerful and moving event:

I read this as just an example of anthropomorphizing an inanimate object to illustrate a point in a memorable and poignant way. It's like in the comedy when someone tells a bad joke, and the dog groans in disgust. The dog didn't really understand the joke.

[SamIam]

I read this as just an example of anthropomorphizing an inanimate object to illustrate a point in a memorable and poignant way. It's like in the comedy when someone tells a bad joke, and the dog groans in disgust. The dog didn't really understand the joke.

Moses 7 is a profound chapter which makes multiple references to some form of knowledgeable interaction between God and his creations. I might not be inclined to indicate it is as you and I view interaction amongst ourselves but when all of creation weeps I feel that God is expressing some form of understanding of a genuine response of creation to the circumstances at hand. As well there are many many quotes that refer to organized intelligences up and down the scale of creation that express themselves in genuine expressions of feelings and or communications of some sort. When Enoch responds to the earth I see it as a literal perception of the earths sorrow at the conditions of her offspring. This is actually an aspect of the atonement but we have not the moment to discuss it at this time. Plus now that the dog is groaning as well I suspect that Enoch is really going to get upset.

Edited April 28, 2012 by SamIam

[mfbukowski]

I'm not positing that I know all that He meant as inclusive in His use of the term light but that all that I know of relative to our scientific expectations of light are included in His use of the word light....clear as mud right?

I've only got 5 children now...to get to seven my wife tells me would require two mistakes and she doesn't plan on one. IT was a half-hearted gesture at best... but it was nice to see you were grasping my perspective nonetheless. Not that you agreed only that you wee trying to see where I was coming from.

Well I am a little weird as everyone here knows for the most part. I even see hard science as metaphor, because it is a snapshot subject to revision in all cases or it is "dogma" and not science.

I see scripture as metaphor as well because it seeks religious explanations which are unverifiable and which function to give us our notion of place in the universe, and I see both science and religion as "valid" in their respective spheres. Your posts are neither scripture nor science, and are somewhere in between, but certainly do present an interesting way of looking at the problem which seems to be self-consistent and presents a coherent world view, and as I said, I like that perspective. As such I guess I would call the view "metaphysical" and I think that metaphysics serves a very important function in the way we see reality and put together all the metaphors.

As I said, I like it!

[SamIam]

Radioactivity has nothing to do with light. http://en.wikipedia....i/Radioactivity

It might or might not eventually be proven scientifically, but it is a logical system of belief based on your understanding and is quite ingenious, I think.

Radiometric measures use radioactivity.

It seems to me that Samlam is equating "light" with "electromagnetic energy", which is not really correct.

Just by way of interest I thought I would pass along this link I ran into this morning. I am completely rewriting the material I posted to round it out and address weaknesses inherent in an abbreviated effort to portray such information and I ran into this article – this of course is new information that is still not completely flushed out but science is questioning some issues on radioactivity and light.

The original Sanford University report:

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

A secondary writeup - The Sun Influences the Decay of Radioactive Elements located at:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Sun-Influences-the-Decay-of-Radioactive-Elements-153704.shtml

Time is subject to the laws of light...

[ERayR]

Just by way of interest I thought I would pass along this link I ran into this morning. I am completely rewriting the material I posted to round it out and address weaknesses inherent in an abbreviated effort to portray such information and I ran into this article – this of course is new information that is still not completely flushed out but science is questioning some issues on radioactivity and light.

The original Sanford University report:

http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

A secondary writeup - The Sun Influences the Decay of Radioactive Elements located at:

http://news.softpedi...ts-153704.shtml

Time is subject to the laws of light...

Thanks. Quite interesting and certainly gives one something to think about.

[mfbukowski]

Just by way of interest I thought I would pass along this link I ran into this morning. I am completely rewriting the material I posted to round it out and address weaknesses inherent in an abbreviated effort to portray such information and I ran into this article – this of course is new information that is still not completely flushed out but science is questioning some issues on radioactivity and light.

The original Sanford University report:

http://news.stanford...sun-082310.html

A secondary writeup - The Sun Influences the Decay of Radioactive Elements located at:

http://news.softpedi...ts-153704.shtml

Time is subject to the laws of light...

Researchers here found that decay rates during the summer season were slightly faster than those present during winter.

Even if the differences are minute, the basic rule of a constant, which is being, well, constant, are broken. The finding could have significant implications.

The teams at the BNL and the FPTI began wondering whether the differences occurred on account of computer hardware, or some other device used in the measurement.

“Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we're all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant,” Sturrock explains

“It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas,” Fischbach explains.

“Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too,” says Sturrock.

It may very well be that the interaction between the Sun and radioactive materials is caused by a new, yet-undiscovered particle, physicists say.

“It's an effect that no one yet understands,” Sturrock concludes.

So it seems more sunlight hitting the earth causes a quicker decay rate.

That would mean that if we were presuming a constant present decay rate, but if in fact say the earth in the past was receiving a LOT more sunlight, the earth could be a lot newer than we presently believe, if I have the logic of that right.

Like if maybe the earth was closer to an object making sunlight for example- the rates of decay might be way off, causing the earth to appear older than it is.

Gosh, can anybody think where there is such a description- like that maybe the earth was near a star and then actually MOVED?

Nah.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

An interesting idea I must admit. As I said before:

It might or might not eventually be proven scientifically, but it is a logical system of belief based on your understanding and is quite ingenious, I think.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Edited May 5, 2012 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

So it seems more sunlight hitting the earth causes a quicker decay rate.

That would mean that if we were presuming a constant present decay rate, but if in fact say the earth in the past was receiving a LOT more sunlight, the earth could be a lot newer than we presently believe, if I have the logic of that right.

I understand that the earth was in the vicinity of Kolob prior to the fall.

[Calm]

There is no known natural method by which the earth could have been transported to its present place from somewhere else in the universe. What little we know would also suggest such movement if it took place in something less than the life span of a star would result in the earth being at best a molten ball of minerals, not anything organic being able to withstand the forces applied to it.

Thus if one believe the earth was moved out of its place into this spot then one has to assume it was done by powers far beyond our comprehension. If so, then why bother attempting to discover mundane processes that could account for part of the earth's creation history? Why not just leave it as "God willed it so"?

Half scientific, half supernatural explanations aren't going to satisfy the scientists or those who seek empirical solutions and they do not create any theories that can be tested as possibilities (since any variable may be pointed to as being affected by something supernatural and therefore unmeasurable).

Edited May 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[SamIam]

Half scientific, half supernatural explanations aren't going to satisfy the scientists or those who seek empirical solutions and they do not create any theories that can be tested as possibilities (since any variable may be pointed to as being affected by something supernatural and therefore unmeasurable).

It's only half of both as long as one keeps riding the fence between them.

[Franktalk]

There is no known natural method by which the earth could have been transported to its present place from somewhere else in the universe. What little we know would also suggest such movement if it took place in something less than the life span of a star would result in the earth being at best a molten ball of minerals, not anything organic being able to withstand the forces applied to it.

Oh come now, ye of little faith. We do know that space can be bent and if enough force is used a bubble can form. But what if that mechanism is used but at the ZPE or fabric of space level. We could form a bubble of space around any object and then bleed off normal space around the object. Normal space would just bend around our bubble. Since the bubble inside is not connected to normal space we could move the bubble through normal space at any speed we desire. Something like warp drive. Just because we don't have the tools to do it today does not stop our mind from seeing the possibility.

[cdowis]

There is no known natural method by which the earth could have been transported to its present place from somewhere else in the universe. What little we know would also suggest such movement if it took place in something less than the life span of a star would result in the earth being at best a molten ball of minerals, not anything organic being able to withstand the forces applied to it.

We know very little about the creation of this solar system and the earth. For example, there was an intelligence involved in the process, where matter was demonstrating intelligence (obedience) and interacting with the Creator.

Thus if one believe the earth was moved out of its place into this spot then one has to assume it was done by powers far beyond our comprehension. If so, then why bother attempting to discover mundane processes that could account for part of the earth's creation history? Why not just leave it as "God willed it so"?

The Creator used natural laws. Why attempt to understand string theory and quantum mechanics? These have underlying natural laws that we do not understand. Why not just call it "magic" and be done with it.

Half scientific, half supernatural explanations aren't going to satisfy the scientists or those who seek empirical solutions and they do not create any theories that can be tested as possibilities (since any variable may be pointed to as being affected by something supernatural and therefore unmeasurable).

I am not trying to satisfy anyone. Just making an observation of what BY and others observed. It took several hundred years to find that they were correct about "infinite" inhabitable planets, so perhaps we can learn something else.

As I said, there is nothing "supernatural" (the Creationist "poof") about the creation process. It was done by natural law.

[mfbukowski]

I understand that the earth was in the vicinity of Kolob prior to the fall.

Yes, that is what the scriptures say.

[mfbukowski]

Half scientific, half supernatural explanations aren't going to satisfy the scientists or those who seek empirical solutions and they do not create any theories that can be tested as possibilities (since any variable may be pointed to as being affected by something supernatural and therefore unmeasurable).

Of course you are right. There is no way any of this could possibly be scientifically proven, and actually I adopt the scientific view completely when it comes to questions of science, since there is no option BUT that view since we indeed define that view as "scientific" because science adopts it. It's a tad tautologous isn't it?

But as we all know, what is "scientific" today may not be "scientific" tomorrow, any more than phlogiston is, and in fact your post implies.

But let me take your own words from my siggy and apply them to science:

"I see Religion Science as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred what can be scientifically measured. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, defining that language as a form of art makes sense to me especially as I don't see it as a random production, but one aimed at creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future. of all that is scientifically known in the universe"

That is perfectly how I would explain my view of science.

So I have no problem accepting any scientific view, but I am also well aware that Pluto is no longer a planet, and today's "fact" can and will be tomorrows "fiction".

But I do agree that we must satisfy the scientists, and we can as long as we have a true understanding of what science is and what it isn't.

And since such a theory can be in perfect harmony with the gospel, I don't see any reason NOT to "satisfy" the scientists- as long as our spiritual interpretations fit as well as theirs.

Edited May 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

And since such a theory can be in perfect harmony with the gospel, I don't see any reason NOT to "satisfy" the scientists- as long as our spiritual interpretations fit as well as theirs.

I totally agree. My problem is with those who speculate using scientific theories right up to the point it contradicts in their view scripture and then shift gears to a supernatural cause.

[mfbukowski]

I totally agree. My problem is with those who speculate using scientific theories right up to the point it contradicts in their view scripture and then shift gears to a supernatural cause.

Agree!

[thesometimesaint]

Claiming a Supernatural cause for a Natural event is beyond the realm of science.

[Franktalk]

Claiming a Supernatural cause for a Natural event is beyond the realm of science.

One of the ideas associated with the anthropic principle is that there may be many universes and each may have their own laws of nature. So if we can imagine such a thing as possible then why do we lean so heavily on the laws of nature as some kind of absolute? Yes for practical reasons we study them and use the knowledge to help us with day to day life but should we let these "natural laws" somehow rule over us? I for one do not place natural laws as an absolute. To me they are just a thing associated with the unfolding universe. My essence or spirit is not dependent on the laws of nature. The whole argument that the theories of science are somehow a base line to judge the things that are not of this universe is just lame. It comes from a lack of understanding of this universe and a lack of understanding of the spirit world. It is however based on a personal relative worth placed on man's knowledge.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

Whether there are a infinite number of universes or just a single universe that doesn't change a thing about our universe. Next time you believe the natural laws of this universe don't apply to you try jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. That ground comes up mightly quickly at about 120 mph. You know that little law of the ecceleration due to gravity.

[SamIam]

I totally agree. My problem is with those who speculate using scientific theories right up to the point it contradicts in their view scripture and then shift gears to a supernatural cause.

I really don't have anywhere to go with this without some example of a situation that you interpret this way. Is there one that we can use as an example? If it is from anything I have posted feel free to use that for an example if not mine and someone elses, conceal it if you feel the need to. Either way we can analyze the observation you are making against the material that is in question.

[Mariner]

In his speech entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" (Copyright 1980 Intellectual Reserve All Rights Reserved), Bruce R. McConkie listed the harmonization of organic evolution with what he termed "revealed religion", as one of the deadly heresies.

This speech is copyrighted by the LDS Church (Intellectual Reserve) it is therefore doctrine (according to bcspace, and I would assume, most other apologists). Given this fact, how can a faithful LDS members even seriously debate the issue?

Science certainly does not accept much of what the LDS religion believes to be true and the LDS religion does not accept many of the basic principles of science (as demonstrated by its rejection of the implications or application of these principles to issues of religion). Science and Mormonism cannot be harmonized - period.

As Calmoriah has pointed out, many Mormons claim to accept science to a certain point. Beyond this point, after which science and LDS belief diverge, these believers veer off into the supernatural or imagined 'laws of "true" science that mankind has yet to discover or understand'. At least some faithful members on this board recognize this major disconnect.

Science and Mormonism cannot be harmonized - Church leaders say so (when they say anything at all on the subject) and science certainly says so. So why is it seemingly so important to members of the LDS Church to somehow try and rationalize the two?

These rationalizations just make members sound like apostates to their Church leaders and silly to professional scientists.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Mariner

[Mariner]

I really don't have anywhere to go with this without some example of a situation that you interpret this way. Is there one that we can use as an example? If it is from anything I have posted feel free to use that for an example if not mine and someone elses, conceal it if you feel the need to. Either way we can analyze the observation you are making against the material that is in question.

There are plenty of examples. Here are two:

1. The Mormon God and his son Jesus are said to be anthropogenic beings with material bodies of flesh and bone. Yet it is claimed that this God and/or his son can, from their place of abode on or near Kolob, travel to Earth at will (to pay a visit to Joseph Smith or appear now and then in the temple, for example). Such a trip would require at least 8 years at the speed of light. It is also claimed that they can answer prayers almost instantly. Since information is limited to the speed of light as is matter, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. And since Kolob must be more than 4 light years away from Earth (assuming that the closest star to Earth could be Kolob) then prayers cannot be answered in less than approximately 8 years (information round trip time to Kolob at the speed of light).

No problem for the faithful. They simply claim that God has supernatural powers, which are really perfectly natural powers that we humans simply do not yet understand.

2. The Book of Mormon Jaredite crossing of the ocean in 344 days sealed up in eight unpowered wooden semi-submersibles lit by magical glowing rocks with all manner of livestock on board is another good example. When asked to explain how eight unpowered wooden vessels could possibly stay together for 344 days in tempestuous seas over which the winds blew without ceasing causing the vessels to be buried in mountainous waves, the faithful normally revert to the supernatural.

I am sure that, given these two examples, you can think of many more for yourself.

For generally more bizarre examples of attempts at harmonization, look for pretty much any post on science and religion by bcspace.

Edited May 6, 2012 by Mariner

[mfbukowski]

Claiming a Supernatural cause for a Natural event is beyond the realm of science.

I would say it is inconsistent with science- I would say discourse about spiritual matters and discourse about science are independent realms and one has nothing to do with the other.

When you posit a "supernatural cause" you are still positing a cause- in a scientific sense, which is beyond science's ability to verify. It's kind of like talking about looking at an invisible man. It's a non sequitur.

I think there are two ways of looking at it which work for those who are religious- one is that religious statements speak of things not "supernatural" but yet to be verified by science, much as say, television would be regarded as "witchcraft" in the 15th century.

Another way of looking at it is the way that many in contemporary philosophy who are theists see it- that the two are separate realms which have nothing to do with each other, or in the case of what Wittgenstein seemed to think, different "language games", two different contexts, and two different points of view in looking at the world.

Arguably, religious statements are speaking about subjective truths which bring comfort and guidance to one's life, whereas scientific statements are about that which is observable by anyone. I can't observe what brings comfort and peace to your life any more than you can observe what does the same for me.

On the other hand, we can all observe the boiling point of water. The statement about when water boils has nothing to do what brings you personal peace, and never will.

[mfbukowski]

There are plenty of examples. Here are two:

1. The Mormon God and his son Jesus are said to be anthropogenic beings with material bodies of flesh and bone. Yet it is claimed that this God and/or his son can, from their place of abode on or near Kolob, travel to Earth at will (to pay a visit to Joseph Smith or appear now and then in the temple, for example). Such a trip would require at least 8 years at the speed of light. It is also claimed that they can answer prayers almost instantly. Since information is limited to the speed of light as is matter, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. And since Kolob must be more than 4 light years away from Earth (assuming that the closest star to Earth could be Kolob) then prayers cannot be answered in less than approximately 8 years (information round trip time to Kolob at the speed of light).

No problem for the faithful. They simply claim that God has supernatural powers, which are really perfectly natural powers that we humans simply do not yet understand.

2. The Book of Mormon Jaredite crossing of the ocean in 344 days sealed up in eight unpowered wooden semi-submersibles lit by magical glowing rocks with all manner of livestock on board is another good example. When asked to explain how eight unpowered wooden vessels could possibly stay together for 344 days in tempestuous seas over which the winds blew without ceasing causing the vessels to be buried in mountainous waves, the faithful normally revert to the supernatural.

I am sure that, given these two examples, you can think of many more for yourself.

For generally more bizarre examples of attempts at harmonization, look for pretty much any post on science and religion by bcspace.

This is incredibly philosophically naive and not even worth addressing. Read the rest of my posts on this thread and try to respond if you can.