Russell Nelson

[cdowis]

Elder Nelson's statements on the Big Bang and evolution show he understands neither.

 

Does Hawkins understand them?  Start at 30 seconds in the discussion between Hawkins and Dawkins.  Listen to his question, and make note of Dawkins silence when faced with the choice.  To hide his embarrassment, the screen goes to sparky stuff and music to hide his astonishing silence to the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMJFfaKZXRs

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Does Hawkins understand them? Start at 30 seconds in the discussion between Hawkins and Dawkins. Listen to his question, and make note of Dawkins silence when faced with the choice. To hide his embarrassment, the screen goes to sparky stuff and music to hide his astonishing silence to the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMJFfaKZXRs

I don't think you understand the nature of what Hawking is saying. Hawking comments on how remarkably our planet and universe are tuned for life. A fundamental constant changed ever so slightly results in no life, no planets etc. In order to explain this atheists like Dawkins and Hawking propose an infinite multiverse. Edited September 15, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[cdowis]

I don't think you understand the nature of what Hawking is saying. Hawking comments on how remarkably our planet and universe are tuned for life. A fundamental constant changed ever so slightly results in no life, no planets etc. In order to explain this atheists like Dawkins and Hawking propose an infinite multiverse.

 

I know precisely what he is saying, thankyouverymuch.  

 

Either you must believe in a higher intelligence, OR accept that the probability is so enormously against such a finely tuned earth, solar system, universe, that you must accept the concept of multi universes to overcome those huge, almost infinite numbers.

 

Dawkins' silence shows that, as clever as he pretends to be, you just can't escape it.  An atheist must talk about virtually infinite multiple UNIVERSES.

Edited September 15, 2013 by cdowis

[Stargazer]

I don't think you understand the nature of what Hawking is saying. Hawking comments on how remarkably our planet and universe are tuned for life. A fundamental constant changed ever so slightly results in no life, no planets etc. In order to explain this atheists like Dawkins and Hawking propose an infinite multiverse.

 

As well they might.

 

If I were to propose a theory to explain some events, and later there were observed additional events that put my theory into doubt, I would be compelled to either abandon the theory or modify it.  This is not surprising.  But there have been theories propounded in the past which were refined and refined still further to try to fit the observations, but which were finally abandoned as completely useless.  The theory of celestial mechanics proposed by Ptolemy comes to mind as an example.  This was the accepted theory of celestial mechanics for centuries.  Eventually it was thrown out in favor of heliocentrism, which is what we understand today as the truth.

 

So Dawkins and Hawkings can propose whatever they like.  And it will eventually be taken as truth or not.  We will see.

[thesometimesaint]

I think God alone knows the process, but if I had to choose the wisdom of men or the testimony of an apostle who is also very learned in the ways and sciences of the world as a renowned heart surgeon, I would choose the latter.

 

His council here is even more direct.

 

 

"It is incumbent upon each informed and spiritually attuned person to help overcome such foolishness of men who would deny divine creation or think that man simply evolved. By the spirit we perceive the truer and more believable wisdom of God." - Russell M. Nelson, 1987

 

Are you saying that this earth and universe aren't understandable by man?

 

Yes Brother Nelson is a great heart surgeon. Does that mean that you'd expect he'd be able to build a modern computer?

 

Neither you nor the quote answered the question by what processes did God create everything.

[thesometimesaint]

Russell Nelson is a Scientist as all Doctor of Medicine are.

 

MD's whaever their other fine qualities are not scientists.

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7454/0.9

[Calm]

Your own article stated up front some are.

Dr. Nelson was involved in research of cutting edge medical technology iirc the wiki article. If so, I think he qualifies.

[jmhughes]

I've been off this board for a very long time.  Mostly because in order to get a stable job, I needed to finish my education.  I'm a middle aged guy that has come from a small town culture where education was, at best, an afterthought.  While I have a few friends who have graduate and beyond level educations, they are mostly doctors or lawyers.  I never saw myself doing that.  Quite frankly, I never thought I was smart enough.  While I may not be, I did end up getting my Master's in a technology discipline, I started very late and want to learn so much that I often overwhelm myself.

 

That being said, I've noticed more faltering in the church than I've ever noticed before.  Sure there was the occasional issue with doctrine, but most who left the church did due to bad decisions and personal unworthiness rather that a crisis of faith.  May were using some of the perceived doctrinal problems as an excuse rather than a legitimate disagreement.  I began to understand how some had problems with Mormonism, but not of God, Christ and their existence.  I'm not sure what specifically has increased the perceived legitimacy of atheism, particularly with Mormon religionists.  Those who leave the church for traditional Christianity, as I see it, are making one of two choices: they are unwilling to search for answers to questions (which is a continuation of my statement above that some look for an excuse to get out for any number of reasons) and are willfully ignorant; the others are making conscious decisions to live a lesser law, similar to the ancient Israelites in the wilderness. 

 

After spending 25+ years writing computer programs and watching technology expand there is one fairly stable conclusion I have come to: we don't know nearly as much as we think we do.  I can't even count how many times we were told we wen't going to surpass this barrier or that barrier; yet we did.  I remember the shear panic that ensued  with consumer access to email.  Everyone was sure it would bring the Internet to it's knees, yet it never did.  We were going to come to a very significant halt of processing power because processors could only be manufactured to a certain micron size.  Not only have we gone way past the assumptions, but we developed new ways to do those things that were supposed limitations.  Texting, multi-core processing come immediately to mind.

 

Now we have long time apologists such as Kerry Shirts not only admitting to a crisis of faith, but actually mocking religious practices such as prayer and the act of exercising faith; attributing it to chemical reactions in the brain.  I met Kerry once at a gas station near where both of us lived at the time, and had an interesting conversation.  After that we became facebook friends and we commented back and fourth during this last presidential election and what I came to realize is that certain political positions that I took for granted, he mocked.  That's fine.  I'm an unabashed social and fiscal conservative.  A silly online poll my liberal cousin dared me to take pointed me out as a libertarian - fine, whatever.  While I'm certainly not the smartest guy, I feel like I'm fairly logical because I have to talk to machines all day.  Most of Kerry's political arguments were not logical; which caused me to rethink my opinion of him.  He was heavily swayed by what he read rather than what he thought.  There are certain political policies that have evidence and logic to backup their effectiveness yet many will believe what crafty individuals will write to the contrary.  They hope to disengage people's ability to think and replace it with emotion.  Kerry seems to me to have followed this trend for a while now.  

 

I don't want to make this about Kerry, science, or anything in particular.  It's about man's ability to consume and process data in a way that is human vs. computer.  Computers only know what they are told.  Humans can go so far beyond that, it's often scary.  

 

When I want to understand something, I try to find the simplest explanation possible first, and then go from there.  Certain principles of evolution made sense to me through an explanation of the yellow banana.  The yellow banana require evolution and human intervention to work.  I believe with God, it's very similar.  Yet, I also reserve the right to be fully blown away by a being who's most simple thought is likely more profound than all the thoughts that have collectively been though on this earth.

 

That's why, for me, principles like the big bang are still up for further understanding.  Check out a simple little video that just blew my mind (that may not be saying much, but it did). 

[thesometimesaint]

Your own article stated up front some are.

Dr. Nelson was involved in research of cutting edge medical technology iirc the wiki article. If so, I think he qualifies.

 

Being a surgeon is cutting edge.

 

While using technology is important. The science behind the technology has to be established first.

[Calm]

Check out a simple little video that just blew my mind (that may not be saying much, but it did). 

 

I am grateful I broke my rule of not watching videos, loved it.

[thesometimesaint]

It is true that the thimbles worth of knowledge we do had is vanishingly small compared to the vast oceans of our ignorance. That being said what we do know we do know. It may well turn out that our universe is but one of an infinite number of universes, with an infinite time before, and after(A multiverse). But at this time we have little to no evidence for it.

[Questing Beast]

...  That is hardly instantaneous and spontaneous creation.

 

...

All of Existence is as NOW with "God". So from "his" purview the BB and everything that follows (within spacetime) is part of the totality of Existence. There is no before or after, just "God" and all of Infinite Creation that "God" wills....

[cdowis]

No beginning of the creation of the universe.  The Big Bang was just another day at the office.

 

 

See also

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QxESRBpVZg

Edited September 15, 2013 by cdowis

[jmhughes]

Thanks for the other video.  I love that one too.  

 

My point, and others may have already made it, is that we know very little.  Much of what we thought we knew in the past has changed.  To put God and your testimony on the line based on what we know right now is extremely short-sighted.  My personal belief is the God and science will always agree, it's just our understanding of both that makes it look like it doesn't 

 

As much as I dislike Ray Comfort and his approach in most things, some of what he says in Evolution vs. God makes sense.  Pure Darwinist evolution is unprovable with the scientific method because it takes millions of years.  Many of the Darwinist elements, like the spark of life, has and likely won't be duplicated in a lab.  While Richard Dawkins misuses is credentials and mocks believers (Shirts is beginning to sound like him) he's perfectly willing to allow room for the possibility of an alien coming in and starting life on Earth, but certainly not God.  Well, technically God is an Alien to this world.

 

In my curiosity with people I've come to a conclusion as to why some choose to not believe: they just don't like how others and religion in general defines God.  And based on the creeds, I can see why.  I'm sure the Mormon understanding of God isn't perfect, but I know as a Mormon, Science has you to come up with something that I can't accept based on how Mormon doctrine tries to explain it.  One example would be "matter unorganized" vs "Ex nihilo".  The former was revealed truth, the latter an uninspired attempt at understanding.  

 

Maybe I'm too simple minded, but it's just how I see it.  God just seems to make more sense in the whole scheme of things.  But attempts to understand God without revelation produces very bad guesses.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I know precisely what he is saying, thankyouverymuch.  

 

Either you must believe in a higher intelligence, OR accept that the probability is so enormously against such a finely tuned earth, solar system, universe, that you must accept the concept of multi universes to overcome those huge, almost infinite numbers.

 

Dawkins' silence shows that, as clever as he pretends to be, you just can't escape it.  An atheist must talk about virtually infinite multiple UNIVERSES.

I agree with your second paragraph.  However, Dawkins' silence is because there was no question asked.  Hawking didn't ask any questions.  His last sentence was "Only in the small number of universes that are suitable, will intelligent beings develop, and be able to ask the question 'Why is the universe so carefully designed?'."

[cdowis]

I agree with your second paragraph.  However, Dawkins' silence is because there was no question asked.  Hawking didn't ask any questions.  

 

Pleeze.....

 

Dawkins is not shy to make a comment.  He commented on Einstein's god, even though there was no QUESTION.  It was a discussion and the natural course of a discussion is for him to respond, if he has anything significant to say.

 

Hawkin made a significant point, the pause after Hawkin spoke was an invitation to respond, and Dawkins said nothing.  Just sparkles and music to cover up the silence.  It would have been very interesting to have shown the look on Dawkins' face... Uhhh,, ahem.... yaba daba doo.....

Edited September 16, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

[cinepro]

 His last sentence was "Only in the small number of universes that are suitable, will intelligent beings develop, and be able to ask the question 'Why is the universe so carefully designed?'."

 

I believe in time travel, but I also believe that it seems we're all living in the "parallel universe" in which time travel hasn't been discovered.  Every time someone discovers it, it creates a new parallel universe where time travel exists, but we're always living in the one where it doesn't     .

Edited September 16, 2013 by cinepro

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

MD's whaever their other fine qualities are not scientists.

http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7454/0.9

Is this an attempt to place the word "Scientist" on a tier above. You are a scientist yourself aren't you?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I like this, within us all questions can be answered, within us lies all answers.

[David T]

Pleeze.....

 

Dawkins is not shy to make a comment.  He commented on Einstein's god, even though there was no QUESTION.  It was a discussion and the natural course of a discussion is for him to respond, if he has anything significant to say.

 

Hawkin made a significant point, the pause after Hawkin spoke was an invitation to respond, and Dawkins said nothing.  Just sparkles and music to cover up the silence.  It would have been very interesting to have shown the look on Dawkins' face... Uhhh,, ahem.... yaba daba doo.....

 

I got that the point being made wasn't that there must have been a grand designer, but that it's an extremely rare case for life to form that could even be capable of considering and asking the question.

[thesometimesaint]

Is this an attempt to place the word "Scientist" on a tier above. You are a scientist yourself aren't you?

 

No. In this old world we need both. IE;  George Cayley studied flight scientifically in the first half of the 19th century, and in the second half of the 19th century Otto Lillenthal made over 200 gliding flights and was also one of the first to understand flight scientifically. But all that had to wait until the Wright Brothers mastered extended, heavier than air, powered flight in 1903.

 

Yes I am.

[cdowis]

I got that the point being made wasn't that there must have been a grand designer, but that it's an extremely rare case for life to form that could even be capable of considering and asking the question.

 

I guess you could say that if you completely ignore the context, the rest of the conversation.  This is really getting tiresome.

[David T]

I guess you could say that if you completely ignore the context, the rest of the conversation.  This is really getting tiresome.

 

I realize I could have worded my understanding better. I watched, and I listened. I should have written, "I got that the point being made wasn't that there must have been a grand designer, but that there are alternate possibilities to account for the otherwise extremely rare case for life to form that could even be capable of considering and asking the question." 

 

The fact that we're asking the question isn't proof that there's a creator, but perhaps the exception that proves the rule, so to say. It's also not strange to think that  we- one of the exceptions -  would be the ones asking the question - because only the exceptions would be wondering at all.

 

The text:

 

"One might take this as evidence for a divine creator, but an alternative explanation is what is known as the multiverse. The idea is that there are  many possible universes. Only in the small number of universes that are suitable will intelligent beings develop and be able to ask the question, why is the universe so carefully designed?"

 

Oh, And I'm pretty sure the editorial decision to creatively illustrate a Big-bang-ish element as a transitional element (directly before talking about.. The Big Bang)  had nothing to do with your hypothetical Dawkins response. In fact, if you look at Hawkings' text on his monitor at 1:16, you'll see he wasn't done, and had more to say.

 

It wasn't Dawkins they cut off... it was Hawking. They ended on a dramatic note. As someone who has done documentary editing, no matter what the response may have been, I likely would have made the same decision.

 

I think I understand your point though. You either have to believe that our existence is either one in a nearly innumerable and inconcievably high amount, or there's a designer who just makes it happen.

 

The former actually places humanity in a much more unique, fascinating, and precious place, methinks, than the latter. No less so if one considers if God Himself is among those other infinitesimally small chances, and has sought out others likewise who were developing a consciousness suitable to respond to Him, and His Influence.

Edited September 16, 2013 by David T

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No. In this old world we need both. IE;  George Cayley studied flight scientifically in the first half of the 19th century, and in the second half of the 19th century Otto Lillenthal made over 200 gliding flights and was also one of the first to understand flight scientifically. But all that had to wait until the Wright Brothers mastered extended, heavier than air, powered flight in 1903.

 

Yes I am.

So we are all scientist to one degree or another. I have seven classes coming up before the end of the year where I will teach the science and code of electricity. Not sure how to define scientist, in some way were are all participants, my son computer science, my daughters and wife medical sciences. My family, wife, children and many grandchildren, family sciences. Which reminds me, I have a lot of Power Points to get done, first one on Health Care Facilities (Electrical aspects). Been in so many lately, I might be able to teach that as well. So my point was that Doctors of Medicine are Scientists. I wasn't trying to be combative.