A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[Rob Osborn]

I can't think of a habitable place on this planet that hasn't had a flood story at some time in their history. The trouble is that they are from different times, extents, and Gods

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

When the Jaredites crossed the ocean in their watertight vessels it was a flood event of sorts. Someone coming across that record may asume it was the Noah flood myth story because it involved- saving people from massive flood waters, ships made to transport animals of all kinds, etc.

 

For all we know a lot of the flood stories found in ancient culture could in fact be localized events after the great flood of Noah when the people were driven to every isle of land. There is just too much going on to say though.

 

Its quite funny that science has labeled all flood events, creation events, etc, as "myths" but yet their own myth is afact...funny indeed.

[thesometimesaint]

When the Jaredites crossed the ocean in their watertight vessels it was a flood event of sorts. Someone coming across that record may asume it was the Noah flood myth story because it involved- saving people from massive flood waters, ships made to transport animals of all kinds, etc.

 

For all we know a lot of the flood stories found in ancient culture could in fact be localized events after the great flood of Noah when the people were driven to every isle of land. There is just too much going on to say though.

 

Its quite funny that science has labeled all flood events, creation events, etc, as "myths" but yet their own myth is afact...funny indeed.

 

Agreed about the Jaredites. It was a flood event of sorts. There have been flood events of sorts throughout recorded history.

 

A global flood as described by you is a physical impossibility.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

I'm fine with Noah being a Prophet of God accurately recording what he saw. A massive albeit regional flood.

 

No scientist that I know rejects all flood events of sorts. ALL scientists that I know of reject a global flood as you describe it. I guess in your fantasy world 2+2=5. For us in the reality based world it isn't.

Edited February 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Agreed about the Jaredites. It was a flood event of sorts. There have been flood events of sorts throughout recorded history.

 

A global flood as described by you is a physical impossibility.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

 

I'm fine with Noah being a Prophet of God accurately recording what he saw. A massive albeit regional flood.

 

No scientist that I know rejects all flood events of sorts. ALL scientists that I know of reject a global flood as you describe it. I guess in your fantasy world 2+2=5. For us in the reality based world it isn't.

N

This doesnt mean that scientists dont believe in a global flood because there are pkenty of scientists from all walks of life who believe in a global flood and do find ample evidence for it. The global flood did happen and in time all will be revealed and hopefully all can come to realize that truth and be wiser.

[Bikeemikey]

When the Jaredites crossed the ocean in their watertight vessels it was a flood event of sorts. Someone coming across that record may asume it was the Noah flood myth story because it involved- saving people from massive flood waters, ships made to transport animals of all kinds, etc.

 

For all we know a lot of the flood stories found in ancient culture could in fact be localized events after the great flood of Noah when the people were driven to every isle of land. There is just too much going on to say though.

 

Its quite funny that science has labeled all flood events, creation events, etc, as "myths" but yet their own myth is afact...funny indeed.

The Jaredites story is not a flood story. Neither is Lehis.

[Rob Osborn]

The Jaredites story is not a flood story. Neither is Lehis.

They could be interpreted as such though by the unknowing, that was my point.

[thesometimesaint]

N

This doesnt mean that scientists dont believe in a global flood because there are pkenty of scientists from all walks of life who believe in a global flood and do find ample evidence for it. The global flood did happen and in time all will be revealed and hopefully all can come to realize that truth and be wiser.

 

Please name me one scientific organization that posits a literal global flood as science. Answers in Genesis in not a scientific organization.

Since their methodology rejects naturalistic scientific explanations of the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural, creation science is considered to be a religion by the National Academy of Sciences.

 

I can't go on what "will" happen in the future. Show me the evidence from established scientific organization then we can talk about science.

[Bikeemikey]

They could be interpreted as such though by the unknowing, that was my point.

So your point is that an unknowing individual could interpret them as flood narratives because of a lack of context etc... But it is not appropriate to apply the same obvious skepticism of textual literalism to Noah's story?

Irony much?

I'm sorry but this is the clearest case of your continuing double standard.

[Rob Osborn]

So your point is that an unknowing individual could interpret them as flood narratives because of a lack of context etc... But it is not appropriate to apply the same obvious skepticism of textual literalism to Noah's story?

Irony much?

I'm sorry but this is the clearest case of your continuing double standard.

You missed the point completely. I brought up the story of the Jaredites as being a type of ancient story that in ways parallels Noahs just on a smaller- much smaller scale and as such could be interpreted by some to in fact be Noah's flood. Thus, some of the flood or boat stories in ancient cultures could in fact be stories just like the Jaredites where they were dispersed from the tower of Babel.

The difference in scripture is that we have the proper context via modern revelation from God to his holy prophets that Noah was real, there was a global flood, and that everyone except for Noah and his family were killed from off the face of the earth, The Jaredites and even Nephites were later peoples that in some ways paralleled Noah's flood in that they left a land, built ships through God's instruction, put animals and themselves on board and sailed away. To the unknowing (those outside of the knowledge of revelation) these stories could all be falsely interpreted to be one and the same group.

[Rob Osborn]

Please name me one scientific organization that posits a literal global flood as science. Answers in Genesis in not a scientific organization.

Since their methodology rejects naturalistic scientific explanations of the origin of the universe in favor of the supernatural, creation science is considered to be a religion by the National Academy of Sciences.

 

I can't go on what "will" happen in the future. Show me the evidence from established scientific organization then we can talk about science.

You are ridiculous, you know that?

This is why we constantly butt heads. You say- show me this or that but only from sources I agree with. Thats crap- you know it and I know it. I am done debating the topic with you. We will never agree or meet on any point this way. Its useless. You think all intelligent designers are religionists and not scientists and I think pretty much all of your sources of mainstream science are all atheists and religionists as such also. We might as debate which of our religions have the best merit. But that can't even happen because you will always digress into endless semantics on defining "science", "theory", etc.

I have stated over and over again that I do not believe that the "supernatural" exists. Its not part of anything I believe in. And yet you keep trying to dictate to me how I believe but you have no right nor proof that I believe in anything supernatural. Give up the whole "supernatural" satire and then perhaps we can continue dialogue.

Edited February 22, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Stone holm]

Its location, as far as I know, has never been revealed. But according to Moses and Enoch, it's a real place.

Am not doubting that it is a real place. But the implication of your quote was that it was some place other than a high mountain which supposedly provided a better vantage point, so if it provided a better vantage point then where was that vantage point. More likely it meant he was given a vision, or taken beyond the veil. In either case, these are not particularly strong passages to use as proof texts.

[thesometimesaint]

You are ridiculous, you know that?

This is why we constantly butt heads. You say- show me this or that but only from sources I agree with. Thats crap- you know it and I know it. I am done debating the topic with you. We will never agree or meet on any point this way. Its useless. You think all intelligent designers are religionists and not scientists and I think pretty much all of your sources of mainstream science are all atheists and religionists as such also. We might as debate which of our religions have the best merit. But that can't even happen because you will always digress into endless semantics on defining "science", "theory", etc.

I have stated over and over again that I do not believe that the "supernatural" exists. Its not part of anything I believe in. And yet you keep trying to dictate to me how I believe but you have no right nor proof that I believe in anything supernatural. Give up the whole "supernatural" satire and then perhaps we can continue dialogue.

 

You're sophomoric, you know that? See I can call names just as well as you do, and I know fancier words to boot. So lets dispense with the name calling and stick with the issues. OK?

 

The main proponents of Intelligent Design are religionists. As established by scientists at the National Academy of Science and Courts of Law in Kitzmiller v Dover. 

BTW There is nothing wrong with religionists except when they try to impose non testable(religious) ideas onto science.

 

Do you go to Joe the Plumber for your health concerns? If not why not? Me, I go to MD because they are at least supposed to know what they're talking about. Why do you suppose the community of amateur astronomers has a much lower rate of UFO sightings than the people who go to Roswell; New Mexico do?

 

You entitled to believe anything you want. But the simple fact of the matter is that some 40% of all US scientists are Theists.

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

 

I believe that the LDS have the best ideas about religion. I would assume that you agree and are LDS for that reason. Please let me know if you don't agree that the LDS have the best ideas about religion or that you are not LDS.

 

I stick with standard dictionary definitions of words like natural and supernatural.

 

Natural Science means any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20science

 

Supernatural means of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially :  of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil . http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

 

Are you saying you don't believe in God? Please let me and your Bishop know.

[teddyaware]

Am not doubting that it is a real place. But the implication of your quote was that it was some place other than a high mountain which supposedly provided a better vantage point, so if it provided a better vantage point then where was that vantage point. More likely it meant he was given a vision, or taken beyond the veil. In either case, these are not particularly strong passages to use as proof texts.

Read the quote in context and you'll see this occurrence happened after Enoch and the City of Enoch (Zion) were taken into heaven. It seems illogical that heaven wouldn't be the best vantage point to observe in truth what goes on down on the earth. Don't you think heaven would be the best vantage point to observer events and things on earth as they really are? What vantage point could possibly be better?

[thesometimesaint]

Read the quote in context and you'll see this occurrence happened after Enoch and the City of Enoch (Zion) were taken into heaven. It seems illogical that heaven wouldn't be the best vantage point to observe in truth what goes on down on the earth. Don't you think heaven would be the best vantage point to observer events and things on earth as they really are? What vantage point could possibly be better?

 

We've been to the moon is that a high enough vantage point from which to see the whole earth?

 

Thought you might like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2196997/Voyager-1-beams-images-Earth-tiny-dot-prepares-interstellar-space.html

[Rob Osborn]

You're sophomoric, you know that? See I can call names just as well as you do, and I know fancier words to boot. So lets dispense with the name calling and stick with the issues. OK?

 

The main proponents of Intelligent Design are religionists. As established by scientists at the National Academy of Science and Courts of Law in Kitzmiller v Dover. 

BTW There is nothing wrong with religionists except when they try to impose non testable(religious) ideas onto science.

 

Do you go to Joe the Plumber for your health concerns? If not why not? Me, I go to MD because they are at least supposed to know what they're talking about. Why do you suppose the community of amateur astronomers has a much lower rate of UFO sightings than the people who go to Roswell; New Mexico do?

 

You entitled to believe anything you want. But the simple fact of the matter is that some 40% of all US scientists are Theists.

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

 

I believe that the LDS have the best ideas about religion. I would assume that you agree and are LDS for that reason. Please let me know if you don't agree that the LDS have the best ideas about religion or that you are not LDS.

 

I stick with standard dictionary definitions of words like natural and supernatural.

 

Natural Science means any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural%20science

 

Supernatural means of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially :  of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil . http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

 

Are you saying you don't believe in God? Please let me and your Bishop know.

I do not agree with the NAS on their position regarding lifes origins. Therefore I see them as religionists. Now what? This is the constant problem in debate. We may not see eye to eye on how to properly define science and what is and what is not a part of science but it still bothers me that you keep promoting a godless view for lifes origins on the one hand but yet claim a belief in the Creator on the other. You will admit that God used evolution as the means for bringing life into existence on the one hand but then on the other hand deny that the Creator is required in bringing life into existence. You thus keep creating oxymoron statements of your beliefs. You refuse to state hat the Creator is an intelligent designer on the one hand and yet on the other acknowledge that the Creator possesses intelligence. Then you state that God uses purely naturalistic means to bring life into existence on the one hand but then on the other admit that you do not know what power God uses other than it being beyond the natural.

It just keeps going round and round. I am of the sincere belief that you do believe in the Creator and that he possesses both traits of intelligence and design in his works but yet refuse to admit this publicly because it doesn't jive with your mainstream godless science on how life arose. Its much easier for you to altogether dismiss the intelligent Creator from lifes origins just so that you can continue good standing with all the other godless mainstream views in science.

[emarkp]

It's interesting because there never was a time when I read those words in 3rd Nephi and thought they were describing a global earthquake, but come to think of it

 

Okay, now show me the physical evidence of every place on the earth having an earthquake 2000 years ago.  Go ahead.

 

 

Actually, an illustrative question may help me figure out something:  How many times are we supposed to forgive people?  7 times or 490 times?

Edited February 22, 2014 by emarkp

[thesometimesaint]

I do not agree with the NAS on their position regarding lifes origins. Therefore I see them as religionists. Now what? This is the constant problem in debate. We may not see eye to eye on how to properly define science and what is and what is not a part of science but it still bothers me that you keep promoting a godless view for lifes origins on the one hand but yet claim a belief in the Creator on the other. You will admit that God used evolution as the means for bringing life into existence on the one hand but then on the other hand deny that the Creator is required in bringing life into existence. You thus keep creating oxymoron statements of your beliefs. You refuse to state hat the Creator is an intelligent designer on the one hand and yet on the other acknowledge that the Creator possesses intelligence. Then you state that God uses purely naturalistic means to bring life into existence on the one hand but then on the other admit that you do not know what power God uses other than it being beyond the natural.

It just keeps going round and round. I am of the sincere belief that you do believe in the Creator and that he possesses both traits of intelligence and design in his works but yet refuse to admit this publicly because it doesn't jive with your mainstream godless science on how life arose. Its much easier for you to altogether dismiss the intelligent Creator from lifes origins just so that you can continue good standing with all the other godless mainstream views in science.

 

I've never said you had too. You are free to believe anything you want. The down side is the further you get from facts the more tenuous your foundation is.

 

There you go again with your own "special" definitions. Scientists come with all types of beliefs, from Atheistic to Theistic. Science as a discipline is neither, it is Agnostic.

 

Where have I ever promoted a Godless view of life's origins? Charles Darwin famous writer of The Origin of Species. He was Anglican;  Kenneth Miller is a premiere scientist with background in cell biology and proponent of Evolution. He is Roman Catholic; Henry Eyring a premier scientist with a background in theoretical chemistry and a proponent of Evolution. He was LDS; The list of scientists whom were/are Theists is long and populated by some of the most influential ones. It is simply not true that to be a scientist you have to be Atheistic.

 

A creator isn't required for life to have evolved. I, and around 40% of all American scientists, personally believe he was. We simply can't put him into our test tubes.

SEE

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

 

It is not oxymoronic. At worst it is cognitive dissonance. Something everyone has to deal with the second they step out of bed.

 

Intelligent Design is reject by virtually every scientific organization on this planet. 

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

 

In the sciences something is either natural or supernatural.

SEE http://www.naturalisms.org/science.htm

SEE http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

 

I have consistently said I believe in God. Moreover I am a High Priest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So either you are being either deliberately obtuse or you are being disingenuous. Which is it?

Edited February 22, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

Read the quote in context and you'll see this occurrence happened after Enoch and the City of Enoch (Zion) were taken into heaven. It seems illogical that heaven wouldn't be the best vantage point to observe in truth what goes on down on the earth. Don't you think heaven would be the best vantage point to observer events and things on earth as they really are? What vantage point could possibly be better?

So you think they went to the Zion? So you support the larger earth theory?

[Rob Osborn]

I've never said you had too. You are free to believe anything you want. The down side is the further you get from facts the more tenuous your foundation is.

 

There you go again with your own "special" definitions. Scientists come with all types of beliefs, from Atheistic to Theistic. Science as a discipline is neither, it is Agnostic.

 

Where have I ever promoted a Godless view of life's origins? Charles Darwin famous writer of The Origin of Species. He was Anglican;  Kenneth Miller is a premiere scientist with background in cell biology and proponent of Evolution. He is Roman Catholic; Henry Eyring a premier scientist with a background in theoretical chemistry and a proponent of Evolution. He was LDS; The list of scientists whom were/are Theists is long and populated by some of the most influential ones. It is simply not true that to be a scientist you have to be Atheistic.

 

A creator isn't required for life to have evolved. I, and around 40% of all American scientists, personally believe he was. We simply can't put him into our test tubes.

SEE

http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/do-scientists-really-reject-god

 

It is not oxymoronic. At worst it is cognitive dissonance. Something everyone has to deal with the second they step out of bed.

 

Intelligent Design is reject by virtually every scientific organization on this planet. 

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

 

In the sciences something is either natural or supernatural.

SEE http://www.naturalisms.org/science.htm

SEE http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

 

I have consistently said I believe in God. Moreover I am a High Priest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So either you are being either deliberately obtuse or you are being disingenuous. Which is it?

Let me get this straight. You said something in particular. You said- "A creator isn't required for life to have evolved. I, and around 40% of all American scientists, personally believe he was."

So what are you saying here- that God is required for life to evolve or that he is not required for life to have evolved? Your statement doesn't make much sense. If you believe that life can arise without God then that "is" what you believe regardless of what you say about the Creators involvement. But, if you truly believe it required the Creator for life to have evolved here on this planet then by the strictest of definitions your beliefs align with the theory of Intelligent Design. But then you go on to say that everything about ID theory is bogus. I am extremely confused at this point. So I ask again-

In your beliefs, do you believe life first evolved here on this planet because of the actions and designs of the Creator?

[teddyaware]

So you think they went to the Zion? So you support the larger earth theory?

No. Zion (the City of Enoch) was taken into heaven. Surely you know about this.

Edited February 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Okay, now show me the physical evidence of every place on the earth having an earthquake 2000 years ago.  Go ahead.

 

 

Actually, an illustrative question may help me figure out something:  How many times are we supposed to forgive people?  7 times or 490 times?

Why do you argue with the scriptures? The scriptural account says the earthquake was felt in the Holy Land, ancient America and as far away as on the remote isles of the sea. That's pretty darn widespread, wouldn't you say? It's likely that, as prophesied, the quake was felt worldwide; but it's also probably true that the most destructive zone of the quake was centered in the lands of the Book of Mormon. The rest of the world probably experienced the quake as tremors with less or minimal destruction. Even so, the quake must have been very powerful for people on remote islands to have heard the awe inspiring groanings of the earth.

I have no idea what you're referring to with your question about the Lord's commandment to forgive seventy times seven unless you think I've somehow been unkind. In reality, I've just presented scriptural testimonies on the matter of the earthquake that attended Christ's crucifixion and it's not my fault there are strong scriptural indications the quake was felt worldwide. If you want proof beyond the scriptures, I can't help you.

Edited February 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

We've been to the moon is that a high enough vantage point from which to see the whole earth?

 

Thought you might like this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2196997/Voyager-1-beams-images-Earth-tiny-dot-prepares-interstellar-space.html

Thanks for the link! That photo of our seemingly miniscule earth is a mind blower.

While important, the vantage point is far less important than the fact that the Father and the Son, who cannot lie, served as Enoch's tour guides. God showed Enoch the sins of a world ripened in iniquity and God is the one who forewarned the prophet that He was going to cleanse the earth of wickedness by a catastrophic flood.

Edited February 22, 2014 by teddyaware

[emarkp]

I have no idea what you're referring to with your question about the Lord's commandment to forgive seventy times seven unless you think I've somehow been unkind. In reality, I've just presented scriptural testimonies on the matter of the earthquake that attended Christ's crucifixion and it's not my fault there are strong scriptural indications the quake was felt worldwide. If you want proof beyond the scriptures, I can't help you.

 

My question about forgiveness is to figure out which parts of the scripture you take as completely literal.  Jesus said to forgive 490 times.  So what if we're wronged 491 times?  Is it okay not to forgive?

 

WRT the earthquakes, the scripture says more than just quakes, it talks of rocks broken up on all the face of the land.  That reads as every square inch of earth being turned to rubble.  I see no evidence of this if "the whole earth" (etc.) is taken literally.  I see sufficient evidence in the scripture for earthquakes in Israel and the land of Nephi, but not for (say) Iceland, Tierra del Fuego, and Madagascar.  Does that mean I'm rejecting the scriptures in your view?

[Rob Osborn]

My question about forgiveness is to figure out which parts of the scripture you take as completely literal.  Jesus said to forgive 490 times.  So what if we're wronged 491 times?  Is it okay not to forgive?

 

WRT the earthquakes, the scripture says more than just quakes, it talks of rocks broken up on all the face of the land.  That reads as every square inch of earth being turned to rubble.  I see no evidence of this if "the whole earth" (etc.) is taken literally.  I see sufficient evidence in the scripture for earthquakes in Israel and the land of Nephi, but not for (say) Iceland, Tierra del Fuego, and Madagascar.  Does that mean I'm rejecting the scriptures in your view?

So whats your evidence that an earthquake didnt happen in Iceland at the time of Christs death?

[emarkp]

So whats your evidence that an earthquake didnt happen in Iceland at the time of Christs death?

 

I haven't asserted evidence one way or another.  However, there should be evidence everywhere if every square inch of the earth was broken up.  There wouldn't be a single solid non-volcanic stone left on the surface.  The fact that there is solid stone and not gravel everywhere is evidence that a purely literal interpretation of the passage isn't supported or reasonable.

[thesometimesaint]

Let me get this straight. You said something in particular. You said- "A creator isn't required for life to have evolved. I, and around 40% of all American scientists, personally believe he was."

So what are you saying here- that God is required for life to evolve or that he is not required for life to have evolved? Your statement doesn't make much sense. If you believe that life can arise without God then that "is" what you believe regardless of what you say about the Creators involvement. But, if you truly believe it required the Creator for life to have evolved here on this planet then by the strictest of definitions your beliefs align with the theory of Intelligent Design. But then you go on to say that everything about ID theory is bogus. I am extremely confused at this point. So I ask again-

In your beliefs, do you believe life first evolved here on this planet because of the actions and designs of the Creator?

 

When asked where is God in Perturbation Theory. The reply Laplace gave was "I had no need for that hypothesis".

 

Sir Isaac Newton had published his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687 in which he gave a derivation of Kepler's laws, which describe the motion of the planets, from his laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation. However, though Newton had privately developed the methods of calculus, all his published work used cumbersome geometric reasoning, unsuitable to account for the more subtle higher-order effects of interactions between the planets. Newton himself had doubted the possibility of a mathematical solution to the whole, even concluding that periodic divine intervention was necessary to guarantee the stability of the solar system. Dispensing with the hypothesis of divine intervention would be a major activity of Laplace's scientific life.

 

Because of or in spite of God. God isn't a subject for science. I have told you many times that I have no problem with God using Evolution in his Creation of us and our world. Personally I am a Theist of a particular sect of Christianity popularly known as Mormonism.