thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I'm talking about rain, not a "cataclysmic flood." I believe it's likely there was a cataclysmic flood, at very least in the immediate area of Noah's land, but the rest of the earth only needed to be covered by a thin sheet of water caused by the torrential rains, something an omnipotent God would find very easy to do. If you leave the fact that God is a God of miracles out of your investigations, as a member of the Church you're in for a lifetime of frustration. I've seen some pretty torrential rains. I was caught in the tail end of a hurricane once. More water than I want to see fall out of the sky quickly ever again. However I've never seen so much water that it covered all the high hills under the whole of Heaven. I'm fine with a massive albeit local flood. But that is neither what the Scriptures say, nor what some Apostles claim. I believe in miracles, I believe in a God of miracles. To me all a miracle is simply something I don't understand. Once I understand it, whatever it is, it isn't a miracle. IE; It is highly unlikely that Noah had a clue as to what television is or how a television works. To him television would be a miracle. To us it just another in a long line of things science has brought to our lives.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 But in they end they are going to harmonize and science and religion will become one and the same. Until that day, I wait patiently for that day when God will reveal how all of these seemingly "impossible" things actually took place.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) I sure hope that God will reveal how he did it. I'm pretty sure that I'll be perfectly happy with that explanation. At worst it will just make for some interesting questions and followup conversations.
teddyaware Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I sure hope that God will reveal how he did it. I'm pretty sure that I'll be perfectly happy with that explanation. At worst it will just make for some interesting questions and followup conversations. I appreciate the smiley face, but that's not what the scripture says. It says that to those who are worthy, all things shall be revealed one fine day. Everything. It also says that there are things that are now hidden in and upon the earth that have not as yet been discovered, and when those things are uncovered the scientists, and everyone else, will realize there were many things keep hidden that they didn't no about, things that will settle the controversies that rage on everywhere today. 1
teddyaware Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I've seen some pretty torrential rains. I was caught in the tail end of a hurricane once. More water than I want to see fall out of the sky quickly ever again. However I've never seen so much water that it covered all the high hills under the whole of Heaven. I'm fine with a massive albeit local flood. But that is neither what the Scriptures say, nor what some Apostles claim. I believe in miracles, I believe in a God of miracles. To me all a miracle is simply something I don't understand. Once I understand it, whatever it is, it isn't a miracle. IE; It is highly unlikely that Noah had a clue as to what television is or how a television works. To him television would be a miracle. To us it just another in a long line of things science has brought to our lives. The important thing to remember is that God is a God of miracles, and if He is capable of multiplying the loaves and the fishes, He is also capable of causing Noah's flood. I imagine one of the great things about being God is that you know you will one day humble all the worldly wise when the things those worldly wise so confidently declare to be true will turn out to be untrue. This will no doubt have a great humbling effect upon them, causing them to be more receptive to the Gospel.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I appreciate the smiley face, but that's not what the scripture says. It says that to those who are worthy, all things shall be revealed one fine day. Everything. It also says that there are things that are now hidden in and upon the earth that have not as yet been discovered, and when those things are uncovered the scientists, and everyone else, will realize there were many things keep hidden that they didn't no about, things that will settle the controversies that rage on everywhere today. I still see through that glass darkly like Brother Paul. I certainly hope I'm worthy of(even if I haven't yet achieved) everything thing that God has to offer including the gift of knowledge of everything that was/is/will be.
teddyaware Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 I still see through that glass darkly like Brother Paul. I certainly hope I'm worthy of(even if I haven't yet achieved) everything thing that God has to offer including the gift of knowledge of everything that was/is/will be. I as well. But that's what makes it so much fun: There's always something new and cool to discover and delight in. 2
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 That is a "Christian" ministry not science. Again you can believe anything you want. But that belief isn't science. From the perspective of science Creation is still going on. A Global Flood is a scientific impossibility. Here is better explanation for the Grand Canyon.You can believe whatever you want and call it science, so too can I. It is science, just not what you believe. Thats fine.
Freedom Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 You can believe whatever you want and call it science, so too can I. It is science, just not what you believe. Thats fine.And this is an example of the serious flaw in your arguments.
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 And this is an example of the serious flaw in your arguments.No, it points to the seriou flaw with how we entertain science in general. I dont believe in a godless science or a science were scripture cant be intertwined with observation.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 You can believe whatever you want and call it science, so too can I. It is science, just not what you believe. That's fine That's fine. In the abstract that is true of every person whom has ever lived on this planet. However a belief is not science. Science is a methodology of observations, testing those observations of the natural world(universe), making conclusions about the results of those observations, and changing those conclusions if necessary, based on further observations of the natural world(universe). By definition it can not include the Supernatural(pertaining to God). IE; A Christian can believe that Pi is equal to exactly three, as is claimed in the Bible. However science has effectively concluded that Pi is 3 and a non-repeating decimal point past ten trillion decimal points.
Freedom Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 No, it points to the seriou flaw with how we entertain science in general. I dont believe in a godless science or a science were scripture cant be intertwined with observation.Science is not godless. Gravity, cancer, tooth decay, accounting and park bark benches are not godless. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and what scripture is. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 No, it points to the seriou flaw with how we entertain science in general. I dont believe in a godless science or a science were scripture cant be intertwined with observation. Science by definition can not include any God or Godlike force. Scientists are free to believe in either or both.
mfbukowski Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 The only way I know is through prayer.So the only conclusion from what you have said is that you do not accept answers to prayer as in the category of "evidence". Is that right?
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 That's fine. In the abstract that is true of every person whom has ever lived on this planet. However a belief is not science. Science is a methodology of observations, testing those observations of the natural world(universe), making conclusions about the results of those observations, and changing those conclusions if necessary, based on further observations of the natural world(universe). By definition it can not include the Supernatural(pertaining to God). IE; A Christian can believe that Pi is equal to exactly three, as is claimed in the Bible. However science has effectively concluded that Pi is 3 and a non-repeating decimal point past ten trillion decimal points.So, by your own definition you gave evolution of man is just a belief and not science because it is anything but a methodology of observation and testing the observation.I can live with that, never did believe human evolution was science. I can live with that.
mfbukowski Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Theres more at stake than meets the eye. I dialogued with 2 evolutionists for several years who both teach in the zoology department at BYU. One was a member at that time and on the board for the NCSE which is an organization whose objective it is to erase any and all language or thought of intelligent design and creation ideas from science. The other individual teaches evolutionary biology at the school and believes that God is probably the product of evolution of the which God isn't really in control of nor author of it. The implications here are paramount as we are seeing a big shift to take God out of his own creation and relegate him to actually the very product of science as a natural phenomenon all on its own in the universe. Its mockery to remove the Creator form the creation as the author of all life and all that we see in the universe. God is the author of science and law. Lets be aware that when we remove God from everything and then teach in its place that there is no right or wrong- there is no God nor devil and that we should do as we please because we are all just the product of nature, then is the time when we have forgotten our God and are ripe for destruction. I have taught, and continue to teach my children and family to believe that God is real, that the flood was real, that evolution is wrong and that there really is an intelligent cause and purpose in all things that are. We are not random mutations that are the product of some random natural cause in a godless universe!But that will only continue their struggles with these issues. They will never be able to resolve the conflict between science and religion this creates, as you have not. That is why you post about it so much. I have taught my kids that all we can know about anything as humans are the models of "reality" we create for ourselves culturally, and the best we can do is come up with ideas which work to achieve the purpose of those ideas. The purpose of science is to teach us how things work, the purpose of religion is to teach us the "whys" and what things are important in life. Science does not concern itself with what is or should be important in life- that is addressed by religion. The two realms are separate- it is not a question of making them "harmonize"- there is no need for that. They are speaking about different things. I have taught my kids that since they were old enough to understand these issues, and they have no problem believing science, and no problem believing the gospel simultaneously. They see that evolution is as good an explanation as science can come up with for the "how" God organized life, and know that the important issues is what God's purpose for doing so was and is- and they learned that from the gospel. They see the flood story as just that- a story to teach us to be obedient when all around us mock and scorn- that following the gospel with allow them to survive any "flood" they encounter in their lives. They don't have to go around looking for "evidence" of mud layers or figure out where the water came from or went, or other silliness. They laugh at scientists, like Dawkins for example, who are atheists and the kids see how they are confused over these very issues. They do not question these issues- the do not spend time on religion boards trying to figure all this out. They are all active in the church, endowed or not old enough yet to be so, and two of the four have gone on missions, and all who are married have been sealed in the temple. For them, it is not that the problem of harmony with science is "solved"- for them there was never a problem to begin with. Just two ways of seeing it I suppose. Edited January 10, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
Freedom Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 So, by your own definition you gave evolution of man is just a belief and not science because it is anything but a methodology of observation and testing the observation.I can live with that, never did believe human evolution was science. I can live with that.Yes it can be tested and observed. This is why evolution is a scientific theory. We must be able to test it. The evidence is irrefutable. But you struggle with this because you refuse to understand what evolution is and what science is. I am still hoping that you will answer my question however.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 So the only conclusion from what you have said is that you do not accept answers to prayer as in the category of "evidence". Is that right? Somewhat true. I see prayer as evidence. However that evidence is for me alone.
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Science by definition can not include any God or Godlike force. Scientists are free to believe in either or both.So, the discussion concerning the origins of life cant be considered science then because it includes God?
cdowis Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Yes it can be tested and observed. This is why evolution is a scientific theory. We must be able to test it. The evidence is irrefutable. Yes, the data is irrefutable. The issue is the interpretation of the evidence. I understand the difference between data (facts) and speculation/opinion/interpretation (conclusion). Apparently you do not. Nothing personal. Edited January 10, 2014 by cdowis 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Yes it can be tested and observed. This is why evolution is a scientific theory. We must be able to test it. The evidence is irrefutable. But you struggle with this because you refuse to understand what evolution is and what science is. I am still hoping that you will answer my question however.Human evolution from a lower species cannot be tested and observed. Irrefutble? How about- laughable.
thesometimesaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 So, by your own definition you gave evolution of man is just a belief and not science because it is anything but a methodology of observation and testing the observation.I can live with that, never did believe human evolution was science. I can live with that. That is not a observation of the natural world(universe) it is a an observation of the Supernatural. People for thousands of years haven't believed in electricity either. They lived happy fulfilling lives. So why don't you throw away your computer keyboard?
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 But that will only continue their struggles with these issues. They will never be able to resolve the conflict between science and religion this creates, as you have not. That is why you post about it so much. I have taught my kids that all we can know about anything as humans are the models of "reality" we create for ourselves culturally, and the best we can do is come up with ideas which work to achieve the purpose of those ideas. The purpose of science is to teach us how things work, the purpose of religion is to teach us the "whys" and what things are important in life. Science does not concern itself with what is or should be important in life- that is addressed by religion. The two realms are separate- it is not a question of making them "harmonize"- there is no need for that. They are speaking about different things. I have taught my kids that since they were old enough to understand these issues, and they have no problem believing science, and no problem believing the gospel simultaneously. They see that evolution is as good an explanation as science can come up with for the "how" God organized life, and know that the important issues is what God's purpose for doing so was and is- and they learned that from the gospel. They see the flood story as just that- a story to teach us to be obedient when all around us mock and scorn- that following the gospel with allow them to survive any "flood" they encounter in their lives. They don't have to go around looking for "evidence" of mud layers or figure out where the water came from or went, or other silliness. They laugh at scientists, like Dawkins for example, who are atheists and the kids see how they are confused over these very issues. They do not question these issues- the do not spend time on religion boards trying to figure all this out. They are all active in the church, endowed or not old enough yet to be so, and two of the four have gone on missions, and all who are married have been sealed in the temple. For them, it is not that the problem of harmony with science is "solved"- for them there was never a problem to begin with. Just two ways of seeing it I suppose.Godless science- I just dont subscribe to it, sorry. Dont mean to pry or ask a retarded question but what does having children sealed in the tempke have anything to do with this subject?
cdowis Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 The theory of evolution must cover how life first evolved otherwise its incomplete. Evolution would not change if it accepted panspermia.
Rob Osborn Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 That is not a observation of the natural world(universe) it is a an observation of the Supernatural. People for thousands of years haven't believed in electricity either. They lived happy fulfilling lives. So why don't you throw away your computer keyboard?So, God must remain conpletely outside of science?
mfbukowski Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 So, by your own definition you gave evolution of man is just a belief and not science because it is anything but a methodology of observation and testing the observation.I can live with that, never did believe human evolution was science. I can live with that.That is essentially another way of stating my view as well. Evolution is a hypothesis- a belief- which the observations APPEAR to verify. Just as Newton's theories of physics have been replaced, Darwinian evolution will eventually be replaced by some new "belief" which will also not be totally correct, and that new belief will eventually fall as well. When we humans look out at reality all we see is our own cultural biases looking back at us, and thus will it ever be. Only God can see the whole picture, if there is such a thing.
Recommended Posts