Adam And The Apes

[cdowis]

Good heavens!

 

I got confused.  I was thinking of gradualism.

 

Never mind.

[Stone holm]

Somehow you have the misconception that "science" is not influenced by dogma.  I say "science" because science is managed by human beings, mortals, with the same flaws as anybody else.  They are influenced by greed, fear, power, pride. 

 

You cut across the dogma and you pay a price, both personally and professionally.

 

You should have learned that in high school.

 

Yes it is influenced by dogma and paradigms, but history has tended to show that the one kind of dogma that really sends people off into la la land when it comes to science is religious dogma -- because religious dogma based on declared doctrine is not susceptible to scientific investigation.  Other dogmas tend to crack easier, for example when the USSR took LaMarckian theory over Darwinian theory as political dogma they set back their agriculture somewhat before abandoning it.  But the Catholic Church when it opted for Ptolemic astronomy over Copernican astronomy set back Western astronomy for centuries.  Now the American Christian Right is playing the same games with geology and biology.  Someday we will understand how God really organized things and it will be consistent with scientific discoveries which have refined our understanding.  Until then, it is better just to keep the two separate and quit trying to have one limit or influence the other.

[Freedom]

Somehow you have the misconception that "science" is not influenced by dogma.  I say "science" because science is managed by human beings, mortals, with the same flaws as anybody else.  They are influenced by greed, fear, power, pride. 

 

You cut across the dogma and you pay a price, both personally and professionally.

 

You should have learned that in high school.

 

But the dogma that creeps into science is rooted out and abandoned through the application of scientific principles. Dogma is a belief based on no evidence so there is no way to rely on dogma alone to find truth. To say dogma has led us to believe in gravity, evolution or electricity is nonsense. 

[cdowis]

But the dogma that creeps into science is rooted out and abandoned through the application of scientific principles.

 

 

And you know this..... how?  I am interested in how you are able to prove a negative.  You will have made a major breakthrough in philosophy and logic.

 

Now I agree that the application of scientific principles would work to perfection if human beings were not involved, but you have the naive notion of conflating science with scientists.  As they say == "Hospitals would be a great place if there weren't for the sick people there."

 

I am not trying to be anti-science, but anti-stupid.  May I suggest that you do a study of the history and philosophy of science.  You might check out the history of Piltdown Man (forty years...... that's 40 years....)  A cricket bat?!

Edited January 13, 2014 by cdowis

[cinepro]

You cut across the dogma and you pay a price, both personally and professionally.

 

 

Only if you're wrong. If you're right, they give you a Nobel Prize.

[teddyaware]

You are completely misrepresenting our position. I am not rejecting God, I am pointing out that God follows the natural laws of physics and uses these laws to accomplish his works. You speak of 'higher laws' and just call them miracles. You cannot just make up a reason and criticize others for being closed minded if they demand some sort of evidence. How is following a 'higher law' that does not exist any different than following the laws of evolution? One is the tooth fairy, the other is based on observation.

I didn't call the manifestations of higher laws miracles. The point I was trying to make is that what many refer to as mysterious and unexplainable miracles are in actuality only manifestations of a higher law. There is a difference.

I find it interesting that you say higher laws don't exist. What would you call the laws that pertain to a resurrection from the dead and into the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom? I wonder if we're experiencing some mutual confusion with regard to our positions based on terminology?

Edited January 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[cdowis]

Only if you're wrong. If you're right, they give you a Nobel Prize.

 

Yeap, you will win some sort of prize.  You will get everything you deserve when you are "right" and everybody else is wrong.

Edited January 13, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

And you know this..... how?  I am interested in how you are able to prove a negative.  You will have made a major breakthrough in philosophy and logic.

 

Now I agree that the application of scientific principles would work to perfection if human beings were not involved, but you have the naive notion of conflating science with scientists.  As they say == "Hospitals would be a great place if there weren't for the sick people there."

 

I am not trying to be anti-science, but anti-stupid.  May I suggest that you do a study of the history and philosophy of science.  You might check out the history of Piltdown Man (forty years...... that's 40 years....)

I'm not being anti-religious, or anti-Catholic, when I state that it took some 1600 years for the Catholic dogma to change from the Ptolemic astronomy model to the more accurate Galileo model. It took another 350 years for the Catholic church to finally apologize to Galileo.

 

Actually it was science that took down the Piltdown man.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html

[Rob Osborn]

Actually it does quite satisfactorily. Wind and water help erode and deposit dirt over time. Continent drift raises those deposits to where we can see them.

 

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_original_horizontality

Hardly. Its the amount of material we are speaking of. There are large sections of the geologic column that spread over millions of square miles that are made from the same sediments at relatively the same time period. What astronomical mountain, all of this same material, was being eroded from? Abd then the next parallel layer demands the same thing all over again.

[mfbukowski]

Its obviously in the "how" of interpretation of the evidence. I see evidence, I see the scientific tests and understanding of that pointing to catastrophic events in recorded history. I am entitled to view these facts in light of my understanding and they do stand as "facts" and "testimony" that the global flood was a real historical and catastrophic series of chain reacting events. Its ok if we have a different view- thats what makes us great. But do know this- even as you look at your theory as science, so do I look at the theory I believe in as science. You cant tell me its not fact or science just as I cant do the same with you- its all what we believe.

Here's what you need to get your head around: science as it is presently constituted does not examine truth and never will.

 

It is up to us to interpret what we think we know and determine the truth to create our own little world from "data unorganized".

 

That is essentially what you are doing but you still think that science is about truth when it is not.

 

Truth includes what is not observable, and science doesn't even go there.

[thesometimesaint]

Hardly. Its the amount of material we are speaking of. There are large sections of the geologic column that spread over millions of square miles that are made from the same sediments at relatively the same time period. What astronomical mountain, all of this same material, was being eroded from? Abd then the next parallel layer demands the same thing all over again.

 

There probably isn't a square inch of earth that hasn't been subject to wind and water erosion.

[mfbukowski]

And yet  you consistently fail to provide a single example of your so called evidence. This reality is very telling of the validity of your arguments. 

The evidence is in his heart, and it is good evidence.

 

The problem is that his evidence doesn't work for others as he thinks it should.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps you fail to read, I do provide links to sites and give evidence. Not to be rude but your lashing out at me on this is rude.

Agree

[Rob Osborn]

There probably isn't a square inch of earth that hasn't been subject to wind and water erosion.

These small erosion events absolutely do not explain the structure of the geologic column. Besides that you have this problem of under uniformatarian theory, the layers recycling themselves over and over again through constant uplift and then erosion- then uplift and erosion again- over and over thus making the geologic layers not really representing the true time frames of what they may carry. For instance- lets say a bone gets buried deep within some strata and then over time this gets upthrust and eroded upon until it erodes this layer the bone was in. So, this old recycled layer with the bone then gets redistributed over layers younger than itself. That doesn't make any sense. This is a paramount problem for geology because it can't explain nor find places in the world where these layers are being recycled laying old sediment over new sediment

[mfbukowski]

You are completely misrepresenting our position. I am not rejecting God, I am pointing out that God follows the natural laws of physics and uses these laws to accomplish his works. You speak of 'higher laws' and just call them miracles. You cannot just make up a reason and criticize others for being closed minded if they demand some sort of evidence. How is following a 'higher law' that does not exist any different than following the laws of evolution? One is the tooth fairy, the other is based on observation. 

Unfortunately if you are right then the laws of physics chang with every new discovery.

 

What really happens is that we make up new interpretations to explain the new data.

 

Science is literally "rationalization" all the way down, and will never approach knowing all there is because there is always something new to rationalize, there is always more matter unorganized to organize.  Every step forward just creates more questions in an endless chain of creation.

[teddyaware]

I am an actual scientist, and no we don't all wear lab coats. I wear a suit. We really on Uniformitarianism for the simple reason that it works. That the laws and rules by which the natural world(universe) operates today are the same ones that operated yesterday. Without it nothing works. You'd be rightly pissed off if when you switched on a light bulb sometimes it worked and sometimes it wouldn't depending on how hard you prayed to God.

 

I believe in God. I believe in a God of miracles. God can do pretty much what he wants. But if you are going to claim "This" is how he did it. You'd better be prepared to defend that proposition with actual evidence. That a neutral observer(disbeliever) can use and replicate.

Honest question: Can you see a way the firmly established LDS doctrine that many of those now dead, and decomposed to dust, are going to be resurrected into glorious, immortal bodies during the Millennium can somehow be made to fit be into the uniformitarian and organic evolutionary models?

 

And with the above in mind, do you think any of those alive at the beginning of the  Millennium are going to be "rightly pissed off" when the uniformitarianism and the evolutionary theories they could always count on (you live, you die, you rot) are suddenly turned on their heads as millions of decomposed organisms are suddenly brought back into glorious, immortal life? After all, the dead staying dead was something they could always count on (like your reliable light bulb), but then a celestial party pooper is going to come around and ruin all their fun.

Edited January 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[bcuzbcuz]

Honest question: Can you see a way the firmly established LDS doctrine, that many of those now dead, and decomposed to dust, are going to be resurrected into glorious, immortal bodies during the Millennium, can somehow be made to fit be made into the uniformitarian and organic evolutionary models?

And with the above in mind, do you think any of those alive at the beginning of the Millennium are going to be "rightly pissed off" when the uniformitarianism and the evolutionary theories they could always count on (you live, you die, you rot) are suddenly turned on their heads as millions of decomposed organisms are suddenly brought back into glorious, immortal life? After all, the dead staying dead was something they could always count on (like your reliable light bulb), but then a celestial party pooper is going to come around and ruin all their fun.

Comments edited upon reflection.

Edited January 13, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[cinepro]

Honest question: Can you see a way the firmly established LDS doctrine, that many of those now dead, and decomposed to dust, are going to be resurrected into glorious, immortal bodies during the Millennium, can somehow be made to fit be made into the uniformitarian and organic evolutionary models?

 

And with the above in mind, do you think any of those alive at the beginning of the  Millennium are going to be "rightly pissed off" when the uniformitarianism and the evolutionary theories they could always count on (you live, you die, you rot) are suddenly turned on their heads as millions of decomposed organisms are suddenly brought back into glorious, immortal life? After all, the dead staying dead was something they could always count on (like your reliable light bulb), but then a celestial party pooper is going to come around and ruin all their fun.

 

While I'm sure biologists, geologists and other scientists might amuse themselves by speculating about what the future might bring, and certainly they would create falsifiable theories that would lead to predictions about the outcome of certain conditions, I've never seen a branch of science that hinged on predicting whether or not drastic supernatural events would take place at some undetermined future date.

 

In other words, surety about the future is the domain of religion, not science.  Assuming the millennial events play out like LDS expect, I would expect most scientists to be utterly fascinated and to immediately begin to try and figure out what happened and how, and to the degree that Jesus is available for such conversations, I'm sure they would have a lot of questions for him.

 

But nothing that happens in the millennium will change the evidences for what has happened in the past, so that part of the conversation probably won't change much.

[Freedom]

I didn't call the manifestations of higher laws miracles. The point I was trying to make is that what many refer to as mysterious and unexplainable miracles are in actuality only manifestations of a higher law. There is a difference.

I find it interesting that you say higher laws don't exist. What would you call the laws that pertain to a resurrection from the dead and into the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom? I wonder if we're experiencing some mutual confusion with regard to our positions based on terminology?

 

If you cannot point to a law then it does not exist. You cannot reject a current law just because it does not conform to your dogma and them make an appeal to a higher law as a way of justifying your position. This is a logical fallacy. I can say you do not exist and I can justify this by holding to a higher law. I can argue santa clause exists because there is a higher law that we do not know about yet. I simply do not understand why you need to reject all the evidence that exists based on a narrow interpretation of scripture. 

[Freedom]

The evidence is in his heart, and it is good evidence.

 

The problem is that his evidence doesn't work for others as he thinks it should.

Unfortunately, that is not what he is claiming. He is consistently claiming that there is significant scientific evidence to support his position but he constantly fails to provide any. He posts links that do not say anything close to what is is claiming they say. If he says he has evidence, he has to be able to provide it. Demanding sources it not being rude, it is quite the opposite. Making claims and refusing to provide supporting evidence is rude. 

[Freedom]

Unfortunately if you are right then the laws of physics chang with every new discovery.

 

What really happens is that we make up new interpretations to explain the new data.

 

Science is literally "rationalization" all the way down, and will never approach knowing all there is because there is always something new to rationalize, there is always more matter unorganized to organize.  Every step forward just creates more questions in an endless chain of creation.

 

I do not understand your post. Are you suggesting that God does not follow natural laws? We cannot reject a scientific theory on the basis of a personal opinion and claim a higher law will someday come a long to justify this opinion. God has provided knowledge. He is the source of all knowledge. The breakthroughs in science have come from God, not satan. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

These small erosion events absolutely do not explain the structure of the geologic column. Besides that you have this problem of under uniformatarian theory, the layers recycling themselves over and over again through constant uplift and then erosion- then uplift and erosion again- over and over thus making the geologic layers not really representing the true time frames of what they may carry. For instance- lets say a bone gets buried deep within some strata and then over time this gets upthrust and eroded upon until it erodes this layer the bone was in. So, this old recycled layer with the bone then gets redistributed over layers younger than itself. That doesn't make any sense. This is a paramount problem for geology because it can't explain nor find places in the world where these layers are being recycled laying old sediment over new sediment

I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. Old sediment layers erode and lay down forming new sediment layers all the time. Are you talking about problems dating layers of sediment? I assume you know that sedimentary layers are not aged directly right? That is you can't use radiometric testing to determine the age of a sedimentary layer.

[thesometimesaint]

Honest question: Can you see a way the firmly established LDS doctrine that many of those now dead, and decomposed to dust, are going to be resurrected into glorious, immortal bodies during the Millennium can somehow be made to fit be into the uniformitarian and organic evolutionary models?

 

And with the above in mind, do you think any of those alive at the beginning of the  Millennium are going to be "rightly pissed off" when the uniformitarianism and the evolutionary theories they could always count on (you live, you die, you rot) are suddenly turned on their heads as millions of decomposed organisms are suddenly brought back into glorious, immortal life? After all, the dead staying dead was something they could always count on (like your reliable light bulb), but then a celestial party pooper is going to come around and ruin all their fun.

 

Honest answer. I firmly believe that I will be Resurrected with a glorified immortal body. I just have, at present, no way to explain how it is done. Nothing I have read in Scripture or by Church leaders tells me how it is to be done. I accept as a matter of faith that it will be.

 

I fully accept that I may have the wrong ideas about how God does anything. In fact I probably am wrong in many of my ideas. But until God tells me exactly how he did/does do those things, the best thing I can do is rely on what I can determine on my own. I simply use science in that endeavor. 

[teddyaware]

While I'm sure biologists, geologists and other scientists might amuse themselves by speculating about what the future might bring, and certainly they would create falsifiable theories that would lead to predictions about the outcome of certain conditions, I've never seen a branch of science that hinged on predicting whether or not drastic supernatural events would take place at some undetermined future date.

 

In other words, surety about the future is the domain of religion, not science.  Assuming the millennial events play out like LDS expect, I would expect most scientists to be utterly fascinated and to immediately begin to try and figure out what happened and how, and to the degree that Jesus is available for such conversations, I'm sure they would have a lot of questions for him.

 

But nothing that happens in the millennium will change the evidences for what has happened in the past, so that part of the conversation probably won't change much.

Highly trained criminal detectives have made "airtight" cases, based on masses of "incontrovertible evidence," that many a hapless schlub has committed a particularly heinous murder. And based on that voluminous "incontrovertible evidence," judges and jury's have confidently convicted our schlubs because they "knew" beyond a reasonable doubt they were as guilty as Beelzebub himself. So they sent our schlubs away to rot in prison for the rest of their lives (or worse). Then, 25 years later, "new" evidence emerges that proves -- this time even more certainly beyond a reasonable doubt -- our schlubs were as innocent as a baby lamb. So they set them free, and on rare occasion even extend a sincere word of apology for the inconvenience.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I'm determined to keep an open mind on uniformitarianism and organic evolution until after the Chief Scientist reveals all the evidence and gives us His take on the whole creation thing. And given the following scripture, I would tread very cautiously, prudently hesitating to come to any conclusions until He who knows all secrets opens the earth to reveal the "hidden things which no man knew." 

 

"32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things—

33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven. (D& C 101)

Edited January 13, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

If you cannot point to a law then it does not exist. You cannot reject a current law just because it does not conform to your dogma and them make an appeal to a higher law as a way of justifying your position. This is a logical fallacy. I can say you do not exist and I can justify this by holding to a higher law. I can argue santa clause exists because there is a higher law that we do not know about yet. I simply do not understand why you need to reject all the evidence that exists based on a narrow interpretation of scripture.

I'm not rejecting all the evidence. I'm keeping an open mind because the Lord Himself says there are going to be lots of surprises on this front. As far as the laws that are higher (or perhaps different may be a better word) are concerned, I take my cue from D&C 88...

 

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

23 And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

24 And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory.

(D&C 88)

And again...

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

 

But you are correct. Since all truth can be circumscribed under one great whole, all these systems of law are ultimately the laws of God. 

 

Edited January 13, 2014 by teddyaware