A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[The Nehor]

And yet scientists assume abiogenesisis science which has never been observed, seen, documented and goes against all known scientific laws. One word- Comical!

They don't assume it. It is a theory, an interpretation of the facts.

I think it would be more comical for you to stand before a sample of scientists from various fields and present your thoughts on what science is. Should have them rolling in the aisles.

[thesometimesaint]

Science is about investigating all truth wherever it lies. If miracles really do happen as I believe them to exist then science can investigate it. Science includes God and all his workings. Science investigates things and is about finding truth to the what, why and how of existence and how all of it works. Sure, you have these atheist organizations and godless institutions that are looking entirely and solely for naturalistic means to explain everything. And by "naturalistic" I am really meaning looking for means outside of purpose, intelligence, etc, to explain things that have purpose, are intelligent, etc.

 

Even the mention of words like "God" and "miracle" and most scientists shudder because they think it as being "magic". Those words are just ways of communicating about things that we do not have very much knowledge about. Scientists got this same reaction in the past when people started saying things like the world is really a sphere and not a flat earth.

 

In truth, for anything to exist it has to fit in with science because science embraces all reality and all truth no matter where it is or how it is manifest. So, if God exists and miracles really do exist then science, by the pure nature of itself must embrace it. Those who want to discard God or even miracles from being scientific must indeed discard science itself because they are not seperable.

 

Science isn't about investigating all truth. Science is about being able to falsify a claim about the natural world/universe.

 

Science isn't about miracles. About 300 years ago the "Christians" would have burnt you at the stake for trying to explain a television.

 

Science is not about finding "Truth". Science is about being able to falsify a claim about the natural world/universe.

 

Science is neither Atheistic, nor Theistic.

 

Some 96-97% of the universe is unknown Dark Energy and Dark Matter. It has no known purpose, but something is speeding up the expansion of the universe. Is Dark Energy and Dark Matter your God? Is your God just something you don't know? it appears to me that your God is a God of the Gaps.

 

Some 40% of all US scientists are Theists. Apparently they have no problem with God or science.

 

Science can not posit any God or Godlike force and still be science. God is omniscient, and omnipotent. So far every example you have given me of Gods actions is a watchmakers fallacy.  

 

Ancient Greeks established that the earth was essentially round like a ball. They were Theists, though we don't believe in the same Gods as they did. It is the Christian Bible that has the world as flat.

 

The only thing SCIENCE CAN DO is falsify a claim about the natural world/universe. IT CAN NOT make claims about the Supernatural. It is not subjective like the taste of ice cream, and it is not morality like how to treat your neighbor.

 

I have no desire to discard God or miracles. What I can't do is put God into science.

SEE

[Rob Osborn]

They don't assume it. It is a theory, an interpretation of the facts.

I think it would be more comical for you to stand before a sample of scientists from various fields and present your thoughts on what science is. Should have them rolling in the aisles.

I thought sientific theories were suppised to have supporting evidence. There is absoluteky nothing to support abiogenesis. So how did it get "theory" status? http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[thesometimesaint]

SEE Evidence for Abiogenesis.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Evidence+for+Abiogenesis.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=K_MEU9n3BIXfoAT--YDABw&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA

 

Do you even bother to read what you post?

 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

"A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon".

Edited February 19, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

I thought sientific theories were suppised to have supporting evidence. There is absoluteky nothing to support abiogenesis. So how did it get "theory" status? http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

 

A thing (life) was once not there. Later this thing (life) was there. So we examine the conditions on the planet to try to figure out what the conditions were. We take what we know of life and what makes up simpler organisms. We look at the fossil record to further estimate what the simplest forms of life would be. Then we find that the temperature and material conditions appear to be consistent with what life formed and we have an idea of how proteins could form into such an organism. We cannot exactly duplicate it because the experiment needed would require oceans of matter, millions of years, and a bit of luck.

 

Now if you want to present FACTS that show God created life and can get Him to duplicate the process under laboratory conditions you would have scientific backing.

[Rob Osborn]

A thing (life) was once not there. Later this thing (life) was there. So we examine the conditions on the planet to try to figure out what the conditions were. We take what we know of life and what makes up simpler organisms. We look at the fossil record to further estimate what the simplest forms of life would be. Then we find that the temperature and material conditions appear to be consistent with what life formed and we have an idea of how proteins could form into such an organism. We cannot exactly duplicate it because the experiment needed would require oceans of matter, millions of years, and a bit of luck.

 

Now if you want to present FACTS that show God created life and can get Him to duplicate the process under laboratory conditions you would have scientific backing.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin!

 

Scientists don't really have anything to go on as for what it was life at the moment life first arose on this planet. They have a lot of "I think" and "I believe". So no, they don't have any evidences showing what things were like when life first came about.

 

Even what we call "simple" life contains extremely complex biologic systems and intelligent processes. We have no evidence or proof anywhere on this planet that life was anything but highly complex. Again it comes back to a lot of "I think" and "I believe" and no evidence.

 

There is no "idea" of how proteins can form on their own. This is a grand mystery in science- they have no real clue how proteins can form on their own. Once again- a lot of "I think" and "I believe" and no real evidence.

 

And then you get to the grandests of all issues- you are supposed to be able to falsify theories but because scientists say it takes far too long and in conditions not present it is impossible to falsify. Thus- it can't even be a theory by sciences own definitions!

 

I find it interesting that the only time we are able to modify and duplicate life in the lab is when intelligent designers (science lab techs) cause it to happen. And you want facts on how life can arise by an intelligent agent, hum...

[Rob Osborn]

SEE Evidence for Abiogenesis.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Evidence+for+Abiogenesis.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=K_MEU9n3BIXfoAT--YDABw&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA

 

Do you even bother to read what you post?

 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

"A theory is an explanation of an observed phenomenon, while a law is a description of an observed phenomenon".

Yeah, do you bother to read it? Here-

 

 

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

 

So, how does one explain abiogenesis theory or "the primordial soup" theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup in light of the above statement that has "no testing" and "no evidence"? How can it even be "theory"?

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, do you bother to read it? Here-

 

So, how does one explain abiogenesis theory or "the primordial soup" theoryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup in light of the above statement that has "no testing" and "no evidence"? How can it even be "theory"?

 

SEE Evidences for Abiogenesis. I have already posted the links.

 

As with any theory we make models that try to replicate the conditions of an earlier state. No scientist that I know of accepts the premise that there is only one theory that totally and accurately explains an earlier state. Though we do strive for it. Theories along with their models are subject to change as more knowledge is acquired.

 

More to the point your so called Intelligent Design is a religious concept masquerading as science. 

[Gray]

Everything we've learned about the natural world to date tells us to expect a natural explanation for the phenomena we see in nature. While that doesn't rule out some sort of divine hand-waving, experience should tell us to expect the natural and not the supernatural explanation. In the natural explanation we can see the face of God. 

[thesometimesaint]

Everything we've learned about the natural world to date tells us to expect a natural explanation for the phenomena we see in nature. While that doesn't rule out some sort of divine hand-waving, experience should tell us to expect the natural and not the supernatural explanation. In the natural explanation we can see the face of God. 

 

Agreed.

 

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo

[Rob Osborn]

SEE Evidences for Abiogenesis. I have already posted the links.

 

As with any theory we make models that try to replicate the conditions of an earlier state. No scientist that I know of accepts the premise that there is only one theory that totally and accurately explains an earlier state. Though we do strive for it. Theories along with their models are subject to change as more knowledge is acquired.

 

More to the point your so called Intelligent Design is a religious concept masquerading as science.

Hum...I dont see their supporting evidence for a primordial soup. Did they actually find the original rock bowl the soup was in showing lifes first emergence from this ancient bowl? Its kind of interesting that no such evidence exists, it its all blind faith at this point and you guys call it actual theory.

[The Nehor]

Hum...I dont see their supporting evidence for a primordial soup. Did they actually find the original rock bowl the soup was in showing lifes first emergence from this ancient bowl? Its kind of interesting that no such evidence exists, it its all blind faith at this point and you guys call it actual theory.

The original rock bowl?

What?

[thesometimesaint]

Hum...I dont see their supporting evidence for a primordial soup. Did they actually find the original rock bowl the soup was in showing lifes first emergence from this ancient bowl? Its kind of interesting that no such evidence exists, it its all blind faith at this point and you guys call it actual theory.

 

IOW if you didn't see it happen it didn't happen. How quaint.

[Rob Osborn]

The original rock bowl?

What?

You know- the primordial soup bowl. I thought everyone knew about that. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=primordial+soup+bowl&client=tablet-android-asus&sa=X&hl=en&v=141278776&biw=1088&bih=551&tbm=isch&tbnid=2YigZ6e6QkadEM:&imgrefurl=https://www.jantoo.com/keywords/primordial&docid=XzFqqyavZAh2PM&imgurl=https://www.jantoo.com/cartoons/lowres/037/03700384_low.jpg&w=400&h=488&ei=HVsFU7D_F8_voASd1oLwDg&zoom=1&ved=0CG8QhBwwCQ

[Rob Osborn]

IOW if you didn't see it happen it didn't happen. How quaint.

Was just wondering seeing as I get the ninth degree on what a "scientific theory" is and yet when I point out the primordial soup theory it just so happens that there isn't one speck of evidence for it. So, shouldn't it just be an "idea" then?

[The Nehor]

Was just wondering seeing as I get the ninth degree on what a "scientific theory" is and yet when I point out the primordial soup theory it just so happens that there isn't one speck of evidence for it. So, shouldn't it just be an "idea" then?

 

No you brought up the nonexistent "primordial soup bowl" theory, treated it seriously and asked for evidence for it, and then cunningly used a comic as evidence that it is what scientists think.

 

In other words I don't think you even have the basic concepts down in order to discuss this and I will not take any more of my time trying to discuss it. Goodbye.

[Rob Osborn]

No you brought up the nonexistent "primordial soup bowl" theory, treated it seriously and asked for evidence for it, and then cunningly used a comic as evidence that it is what scientists think.

 

In other words I don't think you even have the basic concepts down in order to discuss this and I will not take any more of my time trying to discuss it. Goodbye.

Goodbye then. I was trying to add a lighter moment to the thread. Everyones heard of the primordial soup theory.

[emarkp]

How can a member of the LDS Church who is committed to a scientific methodology of truth discovery, that puts aside any belief in God or Godlike forces, expect carry on a reasonable dialogue with a Latter-day Saint who believes God and Godlike forces are unignorable components of reality?

For crying out loud, stop insulting God and members of the church, please. The scientific method and the body of knowledge accumulated by it is the effort of flawed mortals to understand the universe. It does pretty well for a universe that follows rules. It is incapable as a tool to understand God. Where applied correctly, there should not be conflict between scientifically discovered truth and revealed truth. However, I have no expectation that science will fully explain the universe.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, we can't consider God in the scientific method because we can make no predictive models about Him. When He acts, science cannot comprehend it (now or ever). When He chooses to reveal His knowledge to us about how He works, we will know more about the universe than we could ever know through experiment and theory.

That doesn't mean that LDS or any other theist must ignore God, just that when formulating and testing a hypothesis we can't invoke God's actions or we don't get anywhere. Just like when I fix my car I pray for help but I don't sit around waiting for God to fix the engine. I fix it myself or take it to a mechanic.

SEE Evidence for Abiogenesis.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Evidence+for+Abiogenesis.&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=K_MEU9n3BIXfoAT--YDABw&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA

Do you even bother to read what you post?

That's ironic, since your google dump doesn't have any evidence for Abiogenesis. Clearly you're not even reading your Google search results, let alone the links they point to. I see a page of debate about abiogenic sources of hydrocarbons plus a publication from "AnswersInGenesis" (guess where they stand).

I've never even heard of a theory for Abiogenesis -- it's barely even a hypothesis, and one that I find unlikely to be investigated with much success (just because it's such a hard nut to crack -- similar to a unified field theory in physics).

[teddyaware]

For crying out loud, stop insulting God and members of the church, please. The scientific method and the body of knowledge accumulated by it is the effort of flawed mortals to understand the universe. It does pretty well for a universe that follows rules. It is incapable as a tool to understand God. Where applied correctly, there should not be conflict between scientifically discovered truth and revealed truth. However, I have no expectation that science will fully explain the universe.

As I wrote earlier in the thread, we can't consider God in the scientific method because we can make no predictive models about Him. When He acts, science cannot comprehend it (now or ever). When He chooses to reveal His knowledge to us about how He works, we will know more about the universe than we could ever know through experiment and theory.

That doesn't mean that LDS or any other theist must ignore God, just that when formulating and testing a hypothesis we can't invoke God's actions or we don't get anywhere. Just like when I fix my car I pray for help but I don't sit around waiting for God to fix the engine. I fix it myself or take it to a mechanic.

That's ironic, since your google dump doesn't have any evidence for Abiogenesis. Clearly you're not even reading your Google search results, let alone the links they point to. I see a page of debate about abiogenic sources of hydrocarbons plus a publication from "AnswersInGenesis" (guess where they stand).

I've never even heard of a theory for Abiogenesis -- it's barely even a hypothesis, and one that I find unlikely to be investigated with much success (just because it's such a hard nut to crack -- similar to a unified field theory in physics).

You seem to have missed my point. You're going on about Abiogenesis and such and these things weren't even remotely on my mind as I wrote my post. I was simply saying that if there are two Latter-day Saints discussing an issue pertaining to the LDS religion, and one of the two parties insists on a scripturally based approach to the subject and the other chooses to use a strictly scientific approach, how in the world can there be any possibility for meaningful dialogue? These two approaches for the discovery of truth are so fundamentally different that it simply isn't possible to find common ground unless one is willing to yield to the methodology of the other.

 

For instance, the Prophet Joseph Smith testifies God unfolded to him a very clear vision of the heavens, the eternities and the ultimate destiny of the human inhabitants of planet earth (D&C 76). Meanwhile there is an LDS scientist using information gathered by the Hubble Telescope, and applied scientific methodologies, to learn all he can about the cosmos. How in the world can these two individuals have a meaningful discussion about the cosmos and the destiny of the human race unless each of the participants is willing to accept as equally valid the other's methodology for the discovery of truth? Without this mutual acceptance of validity for both methods of truth discovery, the debate just goes on and on ad nauseum with both participants endlessly beating their heads against verbal or literary brick walls.

 

From my point of view, these kinds of frustratingly fruitless debates are particularly unseemly when both of the participants are believing Latter-day Saints. Supposedly both participants believe in the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church, but for some reason one seems to place scientific methodology in a superior position over revelation to prophets, while the other places revelation to prophets in a superior position over the scientific method. Why should this be? Don't the scriptures make it perfectly clear that revelation to prophets is the superior method for the discovery of the most important truths we need to know in order to find true happiness?

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost. (2 Nephi 28)

Edited February 20, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

You seem to have missed my point. You're going on about Abiogenesis and such and these things weren't even remotely on my mind as I wrote my post. I was simply saying that if there are two Latter-day Saints discussing an issue pertaining to the LDS religion, and one of the two parties insists on a scripturally based approach to the subject and the other chooses to use a strictly scientific approach, how in the world can there be any possibility for meaningful dialogue? These two approaches for the discovery of truth are so fundamentally different that it simply isn't possible to find common ground unless one is willing to yield to the methodology of the other.

 

For instance, the Prophet Joseph Smith testifies God unfolded to him a very clear vision of the heavens, the eternities and the ultimate destiny of the human inhabitants of planet earth (D&C 76). Meanwhile there is an LDS scientist using information gathered by the Hubble Telescope, and applied scientific methodologies, to learn all he can about the cosmos. How in the world can these two individuals have a meaningful discussion about the cosmos and the destiny of the human race unless each of the participants is willing to accept as equally valid the other's methodology for the discovery of truth? Without this mutual acceptance of validity for both methods of truth discovery, the debate just goes on and on ad nauseum with both participants endlessly beating their heads against verbal or literary brick walls.

 

From my point of view, these kinds of frustratingly fruitless debates are particularly unseemly when both of the participants are believing Latter-day Saints. Supposedly both participants believe in the teachings and doctrines of the LDS Church, but for some reason one seems to place scientific methodology in a superior position over revelation to prophets, while the other places revelation to prophets in a superior position over the scientific method. Why should this be? Don't the scriptures make it perfectly clear that revelation to prophets is the superior method for the discovery of the most important truths we need to know in order to find true happiness?

I understand your point. When Intelligent Design theory first started gaining steam amongst Christians I was excited that maybe, finally, LDS could meet on common ground and at least meet in the middle all agreeing that Christ and Heavenly Father were the intelligent designers that brought about the conditions and designs that would sustain life here on this planet. But to my amazement I am still in a state of shock that so many fellow LDS discard intelligent design theory. The problem is paramount because for an LDS to discard ID theory it literally means they do not believe the creation requires an intelligent designer (God/Creator) to bring life about. By discarding ID theory they "must" subscribe to a process of life arising outside of a Creator. For me this is absolutely bizarre because our scriptures and doctrine demands the Creator and his designs in bringing life into existence. How then can they be LDS?

[BCSpace]

For me this is absolutely bizarre because our scriptures and doctrine demands the Creator and his designs in bringing life into existence. How then can they be LDS?

 

Evolution does not preclude the existence of God or that we are created in His image.  Evolution is only a process which God created and/or is available for His use.

Edited February 20, 2014 by BCSpace

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution does not preclude the existence of God or that we are created in His image.  Evolution is only a process which God created and/or is available for His use.

You do realize that one can believe in evolution and intelligent design don't you? ID theory only rejects Darwinian style evolution.

[BCSpace]

You do realize that one can believe in evolution and intelligent design don't you? ID theory only rejects Darwinian style evolution.

 

No.  Evolution is a science, ID is not.  However, if you want to refer to God-driven Evolution as 'Intelligent Design' and make the distinction, be my guest.

[Rob Osborn]

No.  Evolution is a science, ID is not.  However, if you want to refer to God-driven Evolution as 'Intelligent Design' and make the distinction, be my guest.

Evolution and ID are both science.

[teddyaware]

I understand your point. When Intelligent Design theory first started gaining steam amongst Christians I was excited that maybe, finally, LDS could meet on common ground and at least meet in the middle all agreeing that Christ and Heavenly Father were the intelligent designers that brought about the conditions and designs that would sustain life here on this planet. But to my amazement I am still in a state of shock that so many fellow LDS discard intelligent design theory. The problem is paramount because for an LDS to discard ID theory it literally means they do not believe the creation requires an intelligent designer (God/Creator) to bring life about. By discarding ID theory they "must" subscribe to a process of life arising outside of a Creator. For me this is absolutely bizarre because our scriptures and doctrine demands the Creator and his designs in bringing life into existence. How then can they be LDS?

Perhaps it's because they admire both approaches to the discovery of truth so much that they can't logically and emotionally afford to let one or the other approach go. So they find a way to wholeheartedly accept the theories of men while also nurturing a true admiration for the powerful logic that underlies the Restored Gospel.

Where I differ is that my position of not jumping to conclusions on the creation is informed by the Lord's promise where He tells us that after the Second Coming of Christ He is going to reveal exactly how the earth and man were created. It gives me serious pause when He tells us that there will be many things revealed in that divine exposition that will be "hidden things that no man knew." So I hesitate to accept the theories of men, no matter how convincing they might now appear to be, and await the day when the Lord will reveal these hidden things that no man knew. If this declaration of the Lord is true -- and I believe it is -- there is a very real possibility that a lot of the worldly wise are going to wind up in utter embarrassment and humiliation. So I say, why not patiently wait upon the Lord and reserve final judgment on these things until He's had His say?

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. (D7C 101)

Edited February 20, 2014 by teddyaware