Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 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.I know exactly what I am speaking about. Current geological thought has the main geologic column being undisturbed besides those areas already eroded away. This means that the layers we currently see in places like the Grand Canyon, have not been upthrust and recycled on top of each other over and over again- the main building upwards has only happened once. But according to geologic uniform principles this cannot be. The layers must show a constant state of recycling of layers as layers get laid, get upthrust and then erode forming again new layers of old recycled older layers on top of new ones. But we do not see that. What we do see is the same formation of the same rock layers on all continents that make up the geologic column. Its kind of ironic that you brought up the point I have been making all along with how the geologic column is dated- we dont really date the rock layers as they can't really be dated. But then we take fossils out of those layers and magically come up with a date for them and then assign a date to teh rocks for all other future reference. I watched a show of scientists unearthing fossils in Africa on the National Geographic channel a few years back and the head scientist wanted to know the age of the fossils so he spent a day driving around and examining different rocks and then came to a conclusion of what he thought the date was. From that point on in the show they referred to this date as a scientific standard and as "fact". Thats what is called "conjecture" or "guessing", not fact.
Freedom Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 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), I take my cue from D&C 88... I do not take issue with having an open mind, but I do not think it is productive to reject established scientific theories based on a narrow interpretation of scripture. Clearly, our understanding of God goes against many established norms such as not being able to exceed the speed of light; this conflict, however, does not exist with theoretical theorists who concede that it must be possible to go beyond this limit. Calling science godless is not productive because God, after all, is godless in that he is not controlled by some magical puppet maker. God wants us to understand his mysteries. The sooner science (how things work) and religion (why we are here and how do we return to live with God) are separated, the quicker we can gain knowledge. How old the earth is just does not matter, so I do not see how this could possibly be a doctrinal matter. We now know how diseases are caused, we have a very good idea of what causes earth quakes, and we know where rain comes from. knowing this through science does not diminish God, it means that we are getting to understand how He accomplishes his works. Evolution does not take God out of the equation, rather it demonstrates how life as we know it came to be. Although God is not required with evolution (just as God is not required to cure a bacterial infection), it does not mean that the laws that govern us were not put in place by God. I do not require God to pay my bills or to file my work documents - this does not mean God does not exist, rather it means that I do not need him because I have learned to do this on my own. To me, knowing that life can evolve over such a short period of time (relatively speaking) to such amazing diversity speaks to the wonder of God. Over the next eternity, millions of other planets will form and be compatible for life so that more of Gods children can experience mortality. Every day a new earth has the start of life and every day an old earth passes away to complete the measure of its creation. Taking 6 days or 6 million years is irrelevant considering the countless trillions of years God has been going about his creative efforts.
thesometimesaint Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 teddyaware: There is nothing wrong with science that science can't fix. Just as there is nothing wrong with religion that religion can't fix. Science for all of its pretensions deals strictly with the natural, and religion for all of its pretension deals strictly with the supernatural. They really are two different ways of looking a the same problem. Science can't import any God or Godlike force and still have it be science. It is a oxymoronic concept. Alas religion can't import science and still have it be religion. It too is a oxymoronic concept. Someday they will be reconciled, but that day isn't likely to be today,
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 teddyaware: There is nothing wrong with science that science can't fix. Just as there is nothing wrong with religion that religion can't fix. Science for all of its pretensions deals strictly with the natural, and religion for all of its pretension deals strictly with the supernatural. They really are two different ways of looking a the same problem. Science can't import any God or Godlike force and still have it be science. It is a oxymoronic concept. Alas religion can't import science and still have it be religion. It too is a oxymoronic concept. Someday they will be reconciled, but that day isn't likely to be today,Heres something novel- The day that any peer reviewed group of scientists acknowledge "at any level" the need for God in the universe to explain even the slighest of reasoning whether it be purpose, design, or signs of a Creative intelligence will be the same day that donkeys start flying!
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) I know exactly what I am speaking about. Current geological thought has the main geologic column being undisturbed besides those areas already eroded away. This means that the layers we currently see in places like the Grand Canyon, have not been upthrust and recycled on top of each other over and over again- the main building upwards has only happened once.This is not true! Have you looked at the wiki? It describes several periods of mineral deposition separated by millions of years during which no minerals are deposited. During the gaps between sedimentation, some of the deposits would have eroded away. Its kind of ironic that you brought up the point I have been making all along with how the geologic column is dated- we dont really date the rock layers as they can't really be dated. But then we take fossils out of those layers and magically come up with a date for them and then assign a date to teh rocks for all other future reference. I watched a show of scientists unearthing fossils in Africa on the National Geographic channel a few years back and the head scientist wanted to know the age of the fossils so he spent a day driving around and examining different rocks and then came to a conclusion of what he thought the date was. From that point on in the show they referred to this date as a scientific standard and as "fact". Thats what is called "conjecture" or "guessing", not fact.Just because something can't be dated directly doesn't mean it can't be dated. If you date a layer of non-sedimentary rock above the sediment and one below, I wouldn't call it conjecture to conclude that the sediment between the two dated layers is dated somewhere in the middle. What other conclusion can be reached? Edited January 13, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding
Freedom Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Heres something novel- The day that any peer reviewed group of scientists acknowledge "at any level" the need for God in the universe to explain even the slighest of reasoning whether it be purpose, design, or signs of a Creative intelligence will be the same day that donkeys start flying! When you say 'need for God' I presume you mean the natural laws that God follows? Or fundamentally do we need to accept that the universe exists because of magical powers that God has that will never be understood in practical means no matter how much we progress through the eternities? How God accomplishes his works will all be discovered through the scientific method. After all, He created the method in the first place.
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 This is not true! Have you looked at the wiki? It describes several periods of mineral deposition separated by millions of years during which no minerals are deposited. During the gaps between sedimentation, some of the deposits would have eroded away. Just because something can't be dated directly doesn't mean it can't be dated. If you date a layer of non-sedimentary rock above the sediment and one below, I wouldn't call it conjecture to conclude that the sediment between the two dated layers is dated somewhere in the middle. What other conclusion can be reached? I have heard that idea before. Problem is they cant prove nor test their theory.
Rob Osborn Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 When you say 'need for God' I presume you mean the natural laws that God follows? Or fundamentally do we need to accept that the universe exists because of magical powers that God has that will never be understood in practical means no matter how much we progress through the eternities? How God accomplishes his works will all be discovered through the scientific method. After all, He created the method in the first place. Let me ask- When was the last time anything on intelligent design was accepted and agreed upon by the scientific community? Don't say "its not science" your going to have to do better than that cheesy line.
teddyaware Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 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.Most uniformitarians and organic evolutionists would say the belief that there is going to be a resurrection from the dead into glorious immortality is tooth fairy nonsense, wouldn't they? They would say such a theory is not only anti-uniformitarian and anti-organic evolution but also an impossibility because it violates all the known laws of science. Yet the Lord says the glorious resurrection into immortality is very real, as evidenced by the resurrection of the Saviour Himself. Perhaps you misconstrue my intent because you don't realize my starting position is as one who knows by revelation that the Gospel is true, including all of its hard to believe teachings as well. As Latter-day Saints we have been given a solemn promise of the Lord that we can know truth of the all things without having to use the methods of modern science in our education.. There's no need to get upset just because I take the Lord's promises very seriously. So let's call a truce by acknowledging some of us are more comfortable to pursue truth by relying on verifiable and repeatable scientific experimentation; while others are more at home with the belief that the scriptures, and the revelations of the Spirit, are the most reliable and fruitful road to a knowledge of the truth. We can all be friends and brothers while we wait patiently for the day when the Lord will reveal all things. Till then, I'll be patient. 1
Freedom Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 Let me ask- When was the last time anything on intelligent design was accepted and agreed upon by the scientific community? Don't say "its not science" your going to have to do better than that cheesy line.When was the last time witchcraft was accepted and agreed upon by the medical community? Don't say 'its not medicine" your going to have to do better than that cheesy line. Good grief.
Freedom Posted January 13, 2014 Posted January 13, 2014 So let's call a truce by acknowledging some of us are more comfortable to pursue truth by relying on verifiable and repeatable scientific experimentation; while others are more at home with the belief that the scriptures, and the revelations of the Spirit, are the most reliable and fruitful road to a knowledge of the truth. We can all be friends and brothers while we wait patiently for the day when the Lord will reveal all things. Till then, I'll be patient. The fact that the scriptures are silent on scientific matters doesn't concern you? Can you point to the scriptures where a better understanding of biology can be found than what is taught in the leading universities? I just don't understand your comment.
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 The fact that the scriptures are silent on scientific matters doesn't concern you? Can you point to the scriptures where a better understanding of biology can be found than what is taught in the leading universities? I just don't understand your comment.Are you LDS? And if you are, are you not aware of the fact that the Lord, and His servants, have always taught that the most important kind of knowledge (spiritual truth) can be only known and understood by revelation from God? You must know about this principle if you are LDS.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Are you LDS? And if you are, are you not aware of the fact that the Lord, and His servants, have always taught that the most important kind of knowledge (spiritual truth) can be only known and understood by revelation from God? You must know about this principle if you are LDS. but plumbing and painting is not learned in this way. Doctrines of salvation are. Only in extreme circumstances (Noah and Nephi building boats) does God give practical revelations. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible are completely devoid of any discussion of medicine, mechanics, dentistry, plastic surgery, chemistry and so forth. Revelation is for spiritual truths, all practical truths are gained through practical research - otherwise, why did God instruct Pres Young to build a university? Why didn't he just instruct everybody to pray about their given area of interest? At every general conference there is a talk about getting an education. Why, if we only gain this information through prayer, are they telling us to get an education? Why was BYU built? Why do all the apostles have university degrees? many of them with training in these so-called godless sciences? Based on your comments, I assume you do not go to any doctors or call any plumbers that gained their training from a man made university. Where did the light bulbs come from that brighten your home? where did the soap come from or the bed sheets? Not from prayer. 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 When was the last time witchcraft was accepted and agreed upon by the medical community? Don't say 'its not medicine" your going to have to do better than that cheesy line. Good grief.Your response is exactly whats wrong with science. Too dang stubborn to accept anything but their own narrow blind view.
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) 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.This guy discovered black holes, and is a leading physicist: Leonard Susskind: The Bad Boy of Physics [Preview] Leonard Susskind rebelled as a teen and never stopped. Today he insists that reality may forever be beyond reach of our understanding http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-boy-of-physics"Reality" is always outside our reach because all we can know is limited by ability to observe- the observer always participates in what is observed, and succeeding generations of scientific "discoveries" are often not really even speaking about the same things. Incommensurability According to Kuhn, the scientific paradigms preceding and succeeding a paradigm shift are so different that their theories are incommensurable — the new paradigm cannot be proven or disproven by the rules of the old paradigm, and vice versa. (A later interpretation by Kuhn of 'commensurable' versus 'incommensurable' was as a distinction between languages, namely, that statements in commensurable languages were translatable fully from one to the other, while in incommensurable languages, strict translation is not possible.%5B2%5D) The paradigm shift does not merely involve the revision or transformation of an individual theory, it changes the way terminology is defined, how the scientists in that field view their subject, and, perhaps most significantly, what questions are regarded as valid, and what rules are used to determine the truth of a particular theory. The new theories were not, as the scientists had previously thought, just extensions of old theories, but were instead completely new world views. Such incommensurability exists not just before and after a paradigm shift, but in the periods in between conflicting paradigms. It is simply not possible, according to Kuhn, to construct an impartial language that can be used to perform a neutral comparison between conflicting paradigms, because the very terms used are integral to the respective paradigms, and therefore have different connotations in each paradigm. The advocates of mutually exclusive paradigms are in a difficult position: "Though each may hope to convert the other to his way of seeing science and its problems, neither may hope to prove his case. The competition between paradigms is not the sort of battle that can be resolved by proofs." (SSR, p. 148). Scientists subscribing to different paradigms end up talking past one another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions The error is in thinking that talking about religion has anything to do with talking about science or scientific laws, somehow relating to God's laws. God did not invent "science" - man did. Science is nothing more than a string of theories which are constantly in revision. Yes God gave us laws, and yes, he is bound by the laws he himself created. But they are moral laws ultimately because they are all designed for our happiness, or one could also say equivalently that our happiness depends on living according to those laws. Edited January 14, 2014 by mfbukowski
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) but plumbing and painting is not learned in this way. Doctrines of salvation are. Only in extreme circumstances (Noah and Nephi building boats) does God give practical revelations. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Bible are completely devoid of any discussion of medicine, mechanics, dentistry, plastic surgery, chemistry and so forth. Revelation is for spiritual truths, all practical truths are gained through practical research - otherwise, why did God instruct Pres Young to build a university? Why didn't he just instruct everybody to pray about their given area of interest? At every general conference there is a talk about getting an education. Why, if we only gain this information through prayer, are they telling us to get an education? Why was BYU built? Why do all the apostles have university degrees? many of them with training in these so-called godless sciences? Based on your comments, I assume you do not go to any doctors or call any plumbers that gained their training from a man made university. Where did the light bulbs come from that brighten your home? where did the soap come from or the bed sheets? Not from prayer.It never ceases to amaze me how presumptuous people on these kinds of boards can be. You jump to all sorts of conclusions based on such a paucity of information that I find it astonishing. For your information, I had a US patent awarded to me in 1999 for an proprietary noise silencing system for rotary positive vacuum pumps and blowers. I have also just completed work on another invention that's now in a very successful round of field testing. I also have another group of proprietary systems and inventions that I, with the Lord's help, have created. You think just because I say that spiritual knowledge is the most important knowledge one can obtain that I cutterly reject all practical and scientific knowledge. Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 There's someone wrong on the internet, and all the posts in the world will not change that.
Calm Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Teddy, you have written it in at least one of your posts as an either or it seems....that one either values science or one values God when I believe Freedom is making the point that both can be valued. You may not have meant it that way, but that is how it sounded to me. "So let's call a truce by acknowledging some of us are more comfortable to pursue truth by relying on verifiable and repeatable scientific experimentation; while others are more at home with the belief that the scriptures, and the revelations of the Spirit, are the most reliable and fruitful road to a knowledge of the truth." 1
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 This guy discovered black holes, and is a leading physicist: "Reality" is always outside our reach because all we can know is limited by ability to observe- the observer always participates in what is observed, and succeeding generations of scientific "discoveries" are often not really even speaking about the same things. This is a different topic all together. Through religion we return to God. Through science we understand the physical world. The reality of God and the physical world depends on our perspective. We can no more fully understand the physical world than can we fully understand the spiritual world from our limited mortal state; nevertheless, the only method God has given us to understand the physical world is through observation. We do not reject science on the basis that we see through a glass darkly; rather, we pursue science all the more passionately until we achieve the proper perspective. No amount of prayer will answer these questions. God wants his children to be people of action and not to rely on revelation to solve all their problems,
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Calmoriah has said what I was going to say. Revelation is for salvation, science is for understanding the physical world. Science will not bring us salvation, and revelation, while helpful perhaps to point us in the right direction, will never solve the mystery of the planet on which we live.
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Teddy, you have written it in at least one of your posts as an either or it seems....that one either values science or one values God when I believe Freedom is making the point that both can be valued. You may not have meant it that way, but that is how it sounded to me. "So let's call a truce by acknowledging some of us are more comfortable to pursue truth by relying on verifiable and repeatable scientific experimentation; while others are more at home with the belief that the scriptures, and the revelations of the Spirit, are the most reliable and fruitful road to a knowledge of the truth."That quote visits the question of uniformitarianism and organic evolution vs. the traditional LDS of a special creation by God, which, of course, is the topic of this thread. In other words, when it come to how this world was created, the creation of Adam and Eve, and whether or not there's going to be a glorious resurrection of the dead, I will not hesitate to say I give precedent to the words of the prophets of the Lord over Darwin and Lyell. I'm happy you pointed this out so I could clarify.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 There is no such thing as the 'traditional LDS of special creation'. The church has no position on evolution, the age of the earth, or how the universe came to be. All the church teaches is that God created the earth and the live therein. It does not say how. Evolution is the how that science is uncovering by observing the evidence God has left behind.
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 So you can see the Genesis, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham and temple accounts of the creation and not understand that God was very proactively involved in every step of the creation process? Here's another question for you: Do you believe God is going to be directly and proactively involved in the resurrection process or are our immortal, resurrected bodies going to somehow evolve as the end product of organic evolution?
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 So you can see the Genesis, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham and temple accounts of the creation and not understand that God was very proactively involved in every step of the creation process? Here's another question for you: Do you believe God is going to be directly and proactively involved in the resurrection process or are our immortal, resurrected bodies going to somehow evolve as the end product of organic evolution? You seem determined to make science and God mutually exclusive. Evolution, in my opinion, is how God was actively involved in the creation of life. He used evolution to accomplish his purposes. Why re-invent the wheel? If I have a wet towel, I can either pull the water out of it with a sponge over several hours, or I can just hang it out on the line and let the heat of the day do it for me. Let me repeat, evolution is not the absence of God any more than gravity is the absence of God. God does not personally drag water droplets down from the clouds, he lets gravity do it for him. We do not know how the resurrection will occur but I would not be surprised to find out that it has a very reasonable scientific explanation behind it since God is not a god of confusion.
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 You seem determined to make science and God mutually exclusive. Evolution, in my opinion, is how God was actively involved in the creation of life. He used evolution to accomplish his purposes. Why re-invent the wheel? If I have a wet towel, I can either pull the water out of it with a sponge over several hours, or I can just hang it out on the line and let the heat of the day do it for me. Let me repeat, evolution is not the absence of God any more than gravity is the absence of God. God does not personally drag water droplets down from the clouds, he lets gravity do it for him. We do not know how the resurrection will occur but I would not be surprised to find out that it has a very reasonable scientific explanation behind it since God is not a god of confusion.OK, here is the million dollar question then-Was it possible for life to originate or "evolve" as you believe on this earth without the direction and guidance of God's literal actions?
Recommended Posts