thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I wonder what the margin of error is for the date of 40,000 years old. Is it 40,000 +/- 100 years or 40,000 +/- 10,000 years ? How is this age arrived at? Carbon dating ? , from surrounding rock data ? , DNA mutation rates ?. What assumptions are made ? Scientists can often throw around time like bureaucrats throw around money. Is there a link to the actual paper?40,000 years is about the upper limit on measuring the age of C-14 +/- 5%. Of course surrounding rock can't be dated by C-14. They use K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and Sm-Nd dating techniques for rock-- which all provide dates consistent with each other and with associated 40Ar/39Ar dates. This has been demonstrated by the dating of chondrite meteorites (Dalrymple 1991) and tektites and other ejecta and deposits created by the giant meteorite impact at Chicxulub in the Yucatan Peninsula (Dalrymple et al. 1993).DNA Mutation rate for humans is ~3× or ~2.7×10−5 per base per 20 year generation (depending on the method used).True; scientists like really big numbers. It makes us look really smart. Unfortunately it takes really big numbers to describe something really big.Like there are 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in the average human body.
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Look up D&C 77:6Irrelevant. JS didn't explain his meaning of temporal existence. Further the Church makes no claim as to the age of the earth.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Earth
BCSpace Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 I also like to play around with the ideas of multiple dimensions:It's fascinating that Carl Sagan the atheist would narrate the perfect example illustrating why we cannot typically see or or fully understand God in our sphere of existence. In the full version of the story by Abbott, the Flatlander who makes acquaintance with the sphere and explores the other dimensions, comes back to Flatland prophet-like to reveal these new and marvelous truths of Spaceland, but ends up getting put into prison for preaching heresy.
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Irrelevant. JS didn't explain his meaning of temporal existence. Further the Church makes no claim as to the age of the earth.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/EarthSo, the scriptures are irrelevant? You can look up the meaning of "temporal" in any dictionary. Here is one such-tem·po·ral [tem-per-uh l, tem-pruh l] Show IPA adjective of or pertaining to time.1. 2. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.3. enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory ( opposed to eternal ). 4. Grammar .a. of, pertaining to, or expressing timeIts pretty clear to me that temporal literally means "pertaining to time". Now of course you cant have life grow, age, and die without time ticking away. So, if the scriptures state the earth only has a temporal existance of 7,000 years, then it is rather obvious to come to one of two conclusions- 1. The scriptures are true and there was no living substance living, ageing, and dying prior to roughly 6,000 years ago.2. The scriptures are wrong entirely on this matter and the temporal age extends far beyond 6,000 years ago.
Alvino Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 It's fascinating that Carl Sagan the atheist would narrate the perfect example illustrating why we cannot typically see or or fully understand God in our sphere of existence. In the full version of the story by Abbott, the Flatlander who makes acquaintance with the sphere and explores the other dimensions, comes back to Flatland prophet-like to reveal these new and marvelous truths of Spaceland, but ends up getting put into prison for preaching heresy.I'm pretty sure he realized it. The similarities are just too obvious.What would you say is that reason, though? You said it was a "perfect example illustrating why we cannot typically see or fully understand God in our sphere of existence." What reason is that? It can't be that the Flatlanders didn't understand the prophet-like Flatlander because he is a fiction. What real reason do you have? "Because we don't fully understand God" isn't a good reason, you would agree.
BCSpace Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 I'm pretty sure he realized it. The similarities are just too obvious.What would you say is that reason, though? You said it was a "perfect example illustrating why we cannot typically see or fully understand God in our sphere of existence." What reason is that? It can't be that the Flatlanders didn't understand the prophet-like Flatlander because he is a fiction. What real reason do you have? "Because we don't fully understand God" isn't a good reason, you would agree.I would not agree. However, I believe that science and true religion as defined in the LDS context are two sides of the same coin. I'm willing to wager that Sagan was thinking of Flatland in terms of science being rejected by religion but also there is complication in that he still is affected by conflict (perhaps rationalized harmoniously by now) having been close to both parents, one religious, one not.
Alvino Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 I would not agree. However, I believe that science and true religion as defined in the LDS context are two sides of the same coin. Definitely not the moral side (a big part of religion), though, if you accept the fact/value distinction. I'm willing to wager that Sagan was thinking of Flatland in terms of science being rejected by religion but also there is complication in that he still is affected by conflict (perhaps rationalized harmoniously by now) having been close to both parents, one religious, one not.We'll agree to disagree on this, then.By the way, you didn't answer my questions... not that you have to, but it is important, I think.
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 So, the scriptures are irrelevant? You can look up the meaning of "temporal" in any dictionary. Here is one such-tem·po·ral [tem-per-uh l, tem-pruh l] Show IPA adjective of or pertaining to time.1. 2.pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.3.enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory ( opposed to eternal ).4.Grammar .a. of, pertaining to, or expressing timeIts pretty clear to me that temporal literally means "pertaining to time". Now of course you cant have life grow, age, and die without time ticking away. So, if the scriptures state the earth only has a temporal existance of 7,000 years, then it is rather obvious to come to one of two conclusions- 1. The scriptures are true and there was no living substance living, ageing, and dying prior to roughly 6,000 years ago.2. The scriptures are wrong entirely on this matter and the temporal age extends far beyond 6,000 years ago.No; the Scriptures aren't irrelevant. But your interpretation of them is.
BCSpace Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 I would not agree. However, I believe that science and true religion as defined in the LDS context are two sides of the same coin.Definitely not the moral side (a big part of religion), though, if you accept the fact/value distinction.They complete each other. The D&C encourages us to discover everything about the natural world The method for discovering God is Scientific (John 7:17 for example). The method for discovering morals is Religious.By the way, you didn't answer my questions... not that you have to, but it is important, I think.Tried to. Perhaps I didn't understand your questions.
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 BCSpace:Ultimately if morals don't have a utilitarian value. They will be discarded. IE; If we were to try today to implement the morals of the Old Testament we would find ourselves in jail, and rightly so.
Garden Girl Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 One of my favorite scriptures... again...D&C 101:32-34No matter how much we know or think we know...GG 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 One of my favorite scriptures... again...D&C 101:32-34No matter how much we know or think we know...GGI sure hope so.
altersteve Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 When the Lehites sailed to the New World they probably didn't use the Starship Enterprise.Of course they did.
Alvino Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 They complete each other. The D&C encourages us to discover everything about the natural world The method for discovering God is Scientific (John 7:17 for example). The method for discovering morals is Religious.I'm having a hard time figuring out what view of science you have. "Testing" surely isn't enough for 'science', much less for modern science. There's a reason why we have almost 17 centuries between John and science and people were certainly trying to discover the natural world. You say the method for discovering God is scientific.... you surely don't mean that that is a valid evidence for God's existence, do you, much less a scientific one? About the method for discovering morals, what method is that you call "Religious"?Tried to. Perhaps I didn't understand your questions.You just talked about the Carl Sagan thing. I also asked the following: "What would you say is that reason, though? You said it was a "perfect example illustrating why we cannot typically see or fully understand God in our sphere of existence." What reason is that? It can't be that the Flatlanders didn't understand the prophet-like Flatlander because he is a fiction. What real reason do you have? "Because we don't fully understand God" isn't a good reason, you would agree."
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 No; the Scriptures aren't irrelevant. But your interpretation of them is.Im curious, how do you define "temporal" then?
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Im curious, how do you define "temporal" then?A Red Herring. It is what JS meant that matters. We don't know.JS apparently also believed that the earth was 2.5 Billion years old.William W. Phelps, the Prophet Joseph’s scribe, in a letter to the Prophet’s brother, William Smith, in 1844. Shortly thereafter, the Church’s official periodical published Phelps’ statement, with one small editorial addition:Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of year eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system (not the world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years… Times & Seasons 5 no. 24 (1 Jan. 1844), 758 (emphasis added). 1
cdowis Posted January 25, 2013 Author Posted January 25, 2013 I'm having a hard time figuring out what view of science you have. "Testing" surely isn't enough for 'science', much less for modern science. There's a reason why we have almost 17 centuries between John and science and people were certainly trying to discover the natural world. You say the method for discovering God is scientific.... you surely don't mean that that is a valid evidence for God's existence, do you, much less a scientific one? About the method for discovering morals, what method is that you call "Religious"?You might find the methodology in Alma 32, starting with verse 17, useful.
Rob Osborn Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 A Red Herring. It is what JS meant that matters. We don't know.JS apparently also believed that the earth was 2.5 Billion years old.William W. Phelps, the Prophet Joseph’s scribe, in a letter to the Prophet’s brother, William Smith, in 1844. Shortly thereafter, the Church’s official periodical published Phelps’ statement, with one small editorial addition:Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of year eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system (not the world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years… Times & Seasons 5 no. 24 (1 Jan. 1844), 758 (emphasis added).So do believe JS wrote in code? I mean really, he didnt write it just for himself, he wrote it for the world to see. He used a word found in the English dictionary. It only has one meaning. How do you personally interpret the word and scripture in D&C 77?
Alvino Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 You might find the methodology in Alma 32, starting with verse 17, useful.Read it and still don't see much of a method. It just talks about faith but, how does that help discover what is moral?
changed Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Alma 32:27 is the experiment, and it is just as valid an experiment as any other test you could run, with measurable, reproducible, results... trouble is, few people have performed the experiment.
Alvino Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Alma 32:27 is the experiment, and it is just as valid an experiment as any other test you could run, with measurable, reproducible, results... trouble is, few people have performed the experiment.But BCSpace was distinguishing science from the "Religious method." Here you are trying to make the Religious one scientific which wasn't what I was asking for.Anyways, Alma 32:27 just says that you should let the desire to believe work on you until you actually believe. You'll give me reasons to worry if you think that is science.
changed Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 But BCSpace was distinguishing science from the "Religious method." Here you are trying to make the Religious one scientific which wasn't what I was asking for.Anyways, Alma 32:27 just says that you should let the desire to believe work on you until you actually believe. You'll give me reasons to worry if you think that is science.here you go, the scientific method:Formulate a question: Is God real? Is the Book of Mormon True?Hypothesis: Many intelligent people claim to have had spiritual experiences verifying God's existence and the validity of the Book of Mormon. Information within the Book of Mormon agrees with other ancient texts, so let's start with the optimist's view that God is real, and the Book of Mormon is true.Prediction: If I try to follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost;(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 31:13)If I... would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. (Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:4)Test:This is what most people don't do - repent and give up their sins, pray and study in faith with real intent, then see if their prayers are actually answered. I admit, this is not how I came upon my first spiritual experience, but this is an often followed test that has brought many to gain the spiritual experiences needed.Analysis:Is the Spirit real? or just a chemical imbalance? ... you know your own body the best, you know what it feels like if you are hungry, or too tired, you know if you are crazy or not... above that, many (including me) have been accurately warned about things outside our ability to know through any other means... have been told little things like who needs a phone call and when... crazy chemical imbalances don't help you out like that.Conclusions: the Spirit is real, God is real, the BoM is true. Those who properly perform the test, the experiment, are given the gift of the Spirit to know for themselves.But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you (Book of Mormon | Alma 32:27)When Alma suggests that everyone "experiment upon my words" he is not just being poetic - if you go out, and actually experiment with it - follow it - try to live it - there are real results that come from this... I'm a convert, for the longest time I thought religious people were just being poetic when they said things like "I felt the Spirit"... it wasn't until I felt the Spirit too that I finally understood it's not just some poetic nice thing to say, that the Spirit is real, and you really can feel and be led by it. LOL, it scared the *** out of me the first time I experienced it... "fear not" the shepherds were told ...see my sig -Major discoveries are not like the discovery of America, where the general nature of the discovered object is already known. Rather, they are like recognizing that one has been dreaming." - Paul Feyerabend
Alvino Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 I can't believe you are actually serious, changed, because I can't believe you left the empirical and quantitative part out. Also, wikipedia? Seriously?I recommend a rather standard philosophy of science text: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Science-Cutting-Nature/dp/0195106113/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359159097&sr=1-4&keywords=introduction+to+the+philosophy+of+science
changed Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 I can't believe you are actually serious, changed, because I can't believe you left the empirical and quantitative part out. Also, wikipedia? Seriously?I recommend a rather standard philosophy of science text: http://www.amazon.co...ophy of scienceMight I recommend that you actually try the experiment? After you have done the experiment, you will know how empirical and quantitative it is.
Recommended Posts