A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[Rob Osborn]

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.

So, just to be clear, a simple yes or no question-

Do you believe that God caused life to evolve here on this planet?

[thesometimesaint]

So, just to be clear, a simple yes or no question-

Do you believe that God caused life to evolve here on this planet?

 

Yes, and more than that. He had his active hand in it. The actual processes he used in that evolution are the subject of science.

Edited February 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, and more than that. He had his active hand in it. The actual processes he used in that evolution are the subject of science.

So, you believe in Intelligent Design as far as life required an intelligent designer to start life.

[thesometimesaint]

So, you believe in Intelligent Design as far as life required an intelligent designer to start life.

 

No I don't. The so called Intelligent Design movement is actually a religion, a religion I don't agree with or support. Life doesn't require an intelligent designer, or at least nothing so far purposed by the Intelligent Design movement as an example of a Irreducibly Complex thing has been substantiate.

SEE http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

Kenneth Miller is Roman Catholic.

[Rob Osborn]

No I don't. The so called Intelligent Design movement is actually a religion, a religion I don't agree with or support. Life doesn't require an intelligent designer, or at least nothing so far purposed by the Intelligent Design movement as an example of a Irreducibly Complex thing has been substantiate.

SEE http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

Kenneth Miller is Roman Catholic.

Ok, lets not call it ID and agree that you believe the Creator definitely was involved in bringing life into existence. And I think you will also agree that the creation was designed, had purpose and that those in charge of the creation were intelligent.

[Stone holm]

Ok, lets not call it ID and agree that you believe the Creator definitely was involved in bringing life into existence. And I think you will also agree that the creation was designed, had purpose and that those in charge of the creation were intelligent.

 

What do you specifically mean by "bringing life into existence?"

[MiserereNobis]

What do you specifically mean by "bringing life into existence?"

 

creatio ex nihilo? 

[thesometimesaint]

Ok, lets not call it ID and agree that you believe the Creator definitely was involved in bringing life into existence. And I think you will also agree that the creation was designed, had purpose and that those in charge of the creation were intelligent.

 

I'd give that a tentative maybe.

 

I do think God was involved, or at least my concept of God. A non LDS Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc., would probably disagree with my concept of God. We don't and really can't have different definitions of science.

 

Defined loosely enough yes I would be a creationist, but about 40% of all American scientists can be loosely defined as such. However I'm not a Creationists in political sense of the word.

 

To me as a scientist the purpose of life is to continue life. Beyond that the question is about God.

 

Assuming, and we all know what assuming does, there is a God he would be intelligent. That being said it is a circular argument to posit God into science.

[thesometimesaint]

creatio ex nihilo? 

 

Something the LDS don't believe in.

[teddyaware]

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?

Yes we are supposed to forgive seventy times seven. The Lord has surely forgiven me at very least 490 times. Am I greater than the Lord?

As I said, the quaking of the earth attendant to Christ's crucifixion was likely experienced in varying intensities throughout the world. The Richter Scale spans from 2.0 (a mini quake) to 10.0 (as yet never recorded). Even a rarely felt mini-quake of 2.0, like it or not,  is still an earthquake. And if one believes the scriptures, there is strong testimony the earth's quaking was felt, or at least heard (groanings of the earth), all over the world.

If you'll remember, I already told you I never read the account of the destructions by nature described in 3 Nephi 8 and thought they were anything but descriptions local to the lands of the Nephites. But your question caused me to remember the scriptures testify to the fact that quaking all over the world was reported at the time of Christ's crucifixion. So now, except for the described worldwide quaking of the earth, I still believe the reported destructions in 3 Nephi 8 were local to the Nephites.

Interestingly, when you get to the words "shake the whole earth as if it were to divide asunder," in verse 6, the cross reference on the word "shake" takes you to the following occurrence halfway around the world:

50 ¶Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; (Matthew 27)

Meanwhile, as I also said, if the flood was only a local occurrence (as per your scenario), the Lord lied to Noah because He promised the prophet He would never again destroy the world by flood; and as the tsunami of 2004 demonstrates, regions of the world are still being destroyed by cataclysmic floods.

90 And also cometh the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds. (D&C 88)

Edited February 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

I'd give that a tentative maybe.

 

I do think God was involved, or at least my concept of God. A non LDS Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc., would probably disagree with my concept of God. We don't and really can't have different definitions of science.

 

Defined loosely enough yes I would be a creationist, but about 40% of all American scientists can be loosely defined as such. However I'm not a Creationists in political sense of the word.

 

To me as a scientist the purpose of life is to continue life. Beyond that the question is about God.

 

Assuming, and we all know what assuming does, there is a God he would be intelligent. That being said it is a circular argument to posit God into science.

I don't see why the problem of including God and godlike actions into science. I mean surely if God took an active role in the creation then there "must" be evidence that he took action otherwise it really could be chalked up as godless. The only other alternative with your view is that God did take part but everything or anything He did was  undetectable because he somehow used magic.

 

What happens if science comes to conclude that plants first arose by nothing smaller than the seed itself? This then asks the question of where did the seeds come from or who planted the seeds here?

Edited February 24, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

Yes we are supposed to forgive seventy times seven. The Lord has surely forgiven me at very least 490 times. Am I greater than the Lord?

As I said, the quaking of the earth attendant to Christ's crucifixion was likely experienced in varying intensities throughout the world. The Richter Scale spans from 2.0 (a mini quake) to 10.0 (as yet never recorded). Even a rarely felt mini-quake of 2.0, like it or not,  is still an earthquake. And if one believes the scriptures, there is strong testimony the earth's quaking was felt, or at least heard (groanings of the earth), all over the world.

If you'll remember, I already told you I never read the account of the destructions by nature described in 3 Nephi 8 and thought they were anything but descriptions local to the lands of the Nephites. But your question caused me to remember the scriptures testify to the fact that quaking all over the world was reported at the time of Christ's crucifixion. So now, except for the described worldwide quaking of the earth, I still believe the reported destructions in 3 Nephi 8 were local to the Nephites.

Interestingly, when you get to the words "shake the whole earth as if it were to divide asunder," in verse 6, the cross reference on the word "shake" takes you to the following occurrence halfway around the world:

50 ¶Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; (Matthew 27)

Meanwhile, as I also said, if the flood was only a local occurrence (as per your scenario), the Lord lied to Noah because He promised the prophet He would never again destroy the world by flood; and as the tsunami of 2004 demonstrates, regions of the world are still being destroyed by cataclysmic floods.

90 And also cometh the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds. (D&C 88)

 

Believe me living here in southern California we can hear earthquakes, and I can feel them before they happen. Unfortunately it is only a few seconds before.

 

I'm fine with them being local too. But earthquakes the size to be felt all over the world is more than just local, and gentle sprinkling doesn't equal a global flood.

[teddyaware]

Believe me living here in southern California we can hear earthquakes, and I can feel them before they happen. Unfortunately it is only a few seconds before.

 

I'm fine with them being local too. But earthquakes the size to be felt all over the world is more than just local, and gentle sprinkling doesn't equal a global flood.

The scriptures make it clear the quaking of the earth at the time of Christ's crucifixion was felt in the Holy Land, Ancient America, on the far off islands of the sea, and who knows where else. I'm only reporting what I've read in the scriptures.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't see why the problem of including God and godlike actions into science. I mean surely if God took an active role in the creation then there "must" be evidence that he took action otherwise it really could be chalked up as godless. The only other alternative with your view is that God did take part but everything or anything He did was  undetectable because he somehow used magic.

 

What happens if science comes to conclude that plants first arose by nothing smaller than the seed itself? This then asks the question of where did the seeds come from or who planted the seeds here?

 

Its not an issue if you can see the evidence. However, this approach, if you really adopted it, would require you to believe that there was death prior to 6000 years ago, no global flood, and humoind animals prior to "Adam and Eve". All positions you deny. However, that is what the evidence that can be seen shows.

 

Cheers.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see why the problem of including God and godlike actions into science. I mean surely if God took an active role in the creation then there "must" be evidence that he took action otherwise it really could be chalked up as godless. The only other alternative with your view is that God did take part but everything or anything He did was  undetectable because he somehow used magic.

 

What happens if science comes to conclude that plants first arose by nothing smaller than the seed itself? This then asks the question of where did the seeds come from or who planted the seeds here?

This makes me wonder if you even bother to use my links.

 

Because God is omnipotent. Science can not posit any omnipotent being or force and still be science. IE; It may very well be that hydrogen + oxygen + heat + God = water, but God is still the extraneous factor.

 

What would that evidence look like other than by purely natural means? EVERY example you have presented as God(Intelligent Design) doing something I've shown you how it can be accomplished without invoking God(Intelligent Designer).

 

Science doesn't depend on there being a God or not. It is Agnostic. IE: The same hydrogen + oxygen + heat = water experiment works whether an Atheist or a Theist does it. Now if miniature flying pink elephants start appearing. I either done something terribly wrong or I've drank too much pumpkin juice at Hogwarts.

 

Science isn't magic. I don't know what force(power) God uses. So me claiming that it was magic, God, Intelligent Design, Creationism, UFO's or any other supernatural force is an Argument from Ignorance. IE; I don't know what it is so it must be "Fill in the blank".

 

A plant seed is not an Irreducibly Complex organism.

[thesometimesaint]

The scriptures make it clear the quaking of the earth at the time of Christ's crucifixion was felt in the Holy Land, Ancient America, on the far off islands of the sea, and who knows where else. I'm only reporting what I've read in the scriptures.

 

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

[MiserereNobis]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

 

Keep it up, bro!  Latin is such a useful language!  People know you are saying something smart but don't know what it is

Edited February 24, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[teddyaware]

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Does the following quote from the Book of Mormon square with your claim that mine is a fallacious argument?

12 And all these things must surely come, saith the prophet Zenos. And the rocks of the earth must rend; and because of the groanings of the earth, many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers.

 

According to the Book of Mormon, the quaking of the earth attendant to Christ's crucifixion was felt in many parts of the word, not just in ancient America. 

Edited February 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Keep it up, bro!  Latin is such a useful language!  People know you are saying something smart but don't know what it is

 

Latin is a beautiful language. I just wish I knew more of it. But alas I went to a Catholic school only one year in HS, and can barely speak American English.

[thesometimesaint]

teddyaware:

 

I accept the Book of Mormon as far as it is translated correctly.

 

SEE Book of Mormon Title Page

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Edited February 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[teddyaware]

teddyaware:

 

I accept the Book of Mormon as far as it is translated correctly.

 

SEE Book of Mormon Title Page

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Interesting. I guess with that approach one is more or less free to reject any verse found in the Book of Mormon that doesn't jibe with his or her own notions of how things aught to be based on the grounds that it's probably a mistranslation. And this in spite of the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith said "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

Edited February 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

Interesting. I guess with that approach one is more or less free to reject any verse found in the Book of Mormon that doesn't jibe with his or her own notions of how things aught to be based on the grounds that it's probably a mistranslation. And this in spite of the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith said "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

 

Of course you can reject things as you will. That is probably pretty dangerous though. I think you would be better off using the Holy Ghost rather then your own notions though. Just a personal preference though.

[MiserereNobis]

Latin is a beautiful language. I just wish I knew more of it. But alas I went to a Catholic school only one year in HS, and can barely speak American English.

 

Not that I agree with everything in this book, but it's got a great title and some intriguing ideas:

 

The Devil Knows Latin: Why America Needs the Classical Tradition

 

Interestingly enough, some Catholic exorcists have reported that the traditional (pre-Vatican II, pre-1970) exorcism rite, which is completely in Latin, is more effective than the newer, vernacular ones.

[Rob Osborn]

This makes me wonder if you even bother to use my links.

 

Because God is omnipotent. Science can not posit any omnipotent being or force and still be science. IE; It may very well be that hydrogen + oxygen + heat + God = water, but God is still the extraneous factor.

 

What would that evidence look like other than by purely natural means? EVERY example you have presented as God(Intelligent Design) doing something I've shown you how it can be accomplished without invoking God(Intelligent Designer).

 

Science doesn't depend on there being a God or not. It is Agnostic. IE: The same hydrogen + oxygen + heat = water experiment works whether an Atheist or a Theist does it. Now if miniature flying pink elephants start appearing. I either done something terribly wrong or I've drank too much pumpkin juice at Hogwarts.

 

Science isn't magic. I don't know what force(power) God uses. So me claiming that it was magic, God, Intelligent Design, Creationism, UFO's or any other supernatural force is an Argument from Ignorance. IE; I don't know what it is so it must be "Fill in the blank".

 

A plant seed is not an Irreducibly Complex organism.

Just so you know, there is no physical evidence that plant life started out as anything less than a seed.

So, if the evidence clearly points to a seed, well then, who or what planted the seed?

So, claiming it somehow evolved from some supernatural process unknown to science is an argument from ignorance.

Edited February 25, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting. I guess with that approach one is more or less free to reject any verse found in the Book of Mormon that doesn't jibe with his or her own notions of how things aught to be based on the grounds that it's probably a mistranslation. And this in spite of the fact that the Prophet Joseph Smith said "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

 

Most correct doesn't mean infallible.