thesometimesaint Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 I believe the matter that makes the earth is eternal- has always existed in one element form or another. Because of that I think its kind of ridiculous to even put an age on the individual matter. As for when the planet came into being I am not even concerened nor care if it was 10,000 years ago or 10 billion years ago. For me, and where the doctrine of the church comes into play is the age of life and death on this earth. The churches position is that it was in the last 7,000 years and I also agree with this teaching. Incorrect. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church....
Ahab Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Theologically I have no problem with a garden within the lone and dreary world.Chemically we are star stuff, just not from our star.The very Iron in our blood was made billions of years ago when an even more ancient star exploded.Radioactive decay is a very accurate means to determine age.You say elements in our blood are billions of years old, and I say there are many other things on this Earth that are also that old, if not older. But does that mean that this Earth was created as described in Genesis billions of years ago, as if those ekements were brand spanking new when this Earth was created, or just that the elements that compose the Earth are that old? Your guess can be as good as mine, I suppose, but we're both just guessing, and the elements of the Earth will not give us the true answer to that question. 1
katherine the great Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Have you ever heard of the RATE project? Do a google search.I'm sorry but an article presented at the Creation Science Foundation is not what I asked you for. I would be very interested in reading an article written on this particular topic by one of these scientists that is published in a scientific journal.
strappinglad Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 The Problem With Peer-Review Evolution News & Views play_button.gif Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, host David Boze interviews Casey Luskin about the importance of peer-review within the scientific community. The 50th pro-intelligent design paper was recently published, despite the frequent claim by critics that there are no peer-reviewed published papers supporting ID. Although such criticism has been seen to be invalid, it still raises the question--must a scientific theory appear in a peer-reviewed journal in order to be good, legitimate science? Posted by Evolution News & Views at 2:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBac
Rob Osborn Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 I'm sorry but an article presented at the Creation Science Foundation is not what I asked you for. I would be very interested in reading an article written on this particular topic by one of these scientists that is published in a scientific journal. So, because there is the mention of "creation" or that it is on a "creation" website it isn't science? It doesn't matter who it was, where it is posted, etc, science is science.
Rob Osborn Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Incorrect. The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the soul of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.... Please define "temporal" then because thats what our scriptures say.
katherine the great Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 So, because there is the mention of "creation" or that it is on a "creation" website it isn't science?It doesn't matter who it was, where it is posted, etc, science is science.That is not really true. Science follows a rigorous protocol of research and publication. These researchers (at least some of them) you cited seem to have credentials that would indicate that they have been well educated at accredited universities. They know the scientific method and should use it or they have no credibility.
thesometimesaint Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Please define "temporal" then because thats what our scriptures say. For some reason JS never got around to telling anyone else what he meant by Temporal". We do have statements attributed to him by his secretary William W. Phelps that the world was 2.5 billions of years old. "Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find thatJesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years…" .
Rob Osborn Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 That is not really true. Science follows a rigorous protocol of research and publication. These researchers (at least some of them) you cited seem to have credentials that would indicate that they have been well educated at accredited universities. They know the scientific method and should use it or they have no credibility. So, do you find their work to be according to the scientific method?
Rob Osborn Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 For some reason JS never got around to telling anyone else what he meant by Temporal". We do have statements attributed to him by his secretary William W. Phelps that the world was 2.5 billions of years old. "Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years…" . Thats because the word needs no clarification. It means temporary or that which pertains to time.
katherine the great Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 So, do you find their work to be according to the scientific method?Not if they don't send it out for peer review. That is a very important part of the process. I could do research and go present it at city hall or Relief Society or a luncheon but unless I allow it to be reviewed by other scientists and published, it isn't valid science. It makes no sense to me that guys with these credentials refuse to do that. They can't expect to be taken seriously.
thesometimesaint Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Thats because the word needs no clarification. It means temporary or that which pertains to time. It doesn't mean temporary.
Rob Osborn Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Not if they don't send it out for peer review. That is a very important part of the process. I could do research and go present it at city hall or Relief Society or a luncheon but unless I allow it to be reviewed by other scientists and published, it isn't valid science. It makes no sense to me that guys with these credentials refuse to do that. They can't expect to be taken seriously. So how do you personally interpret their research work?
Rob Osborn Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 It doesn't mean temporary. What do you think it means?
katherine the great Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 So how do you personally interpret their research work?Frankly, I think its narrow and lazy.
strappinglad Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Speaking of narrow and lazy. The Holy Grail of "peer review" is dented and rusty. IF and that is a big IF, one can get some journal to accept an article that hints at some validity of ID , there still is the hurdle of the peers who might want to risk their reputations to actually consider the article on its merits. Here is just one of several articles that point out the flaws of peer review that are showing up in science . http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
thesometimesaint Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 What do you think it means?tem·po·ral1ˈtemp(ə)rəl/adjectiveadjective: temporal 1. relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular. synonyms: secular, nonspiritual, worldly, profane, material, mundane, earthly, terrestrial; More nonreligious, areligious, lay "the temporal aspects of church government" antonyms: spiritual 2. of or relating to time. synonyms: secular, nonspiritual, worldly, profane, material, mundane, earthly, terrestrial; More nonreligious, areligious, lay "the temporal aspects of church government" antonyms: spiritual
katherine the great Posted March 22, 2014 Posted March 22, 2014 Speaking of narrow and lazy. The Holy Grail of "peer review" is dented and rusty. IF and that is a big IF, one can get some journal to accept an article that hints at some validity of ID , there still is the hurdle of the peers who might want to risk their reputations to actually consider the article on its merits.Here is just one of several articles that point out the flaws of peer review that are showing up in science .http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong Speaking of narrow and lazy. The Holy Grail of "peer review" is dented and rusty. IF and that is a big IF, one can get some journal to accept an article that hints at some validity of ID , there still is the hurdle of the peers who might want to risk their reputations to actually consider the article on its merits.Here is just one of several articles that point out the flaws of peer review that are showing up in science .http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrongWe aren't talking about drug testing and development. This is radiometric dating which has a good track record. If these men have reliable data that can falsify our current methods, let them write a meticulously documented paper with ample data using sufficient sample sizes and reliable testing facilities and publish them. Nothing need (or should) be said in an article that even hints at intelligent design. Why would they skip such a fundamental step?
Rob Osborn Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 tem·po·ral1 ˈtemp(ə)rəl/ adjective adjective: temporal 1. relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular. synonyms: secular, nonspiritual, worldly, profane, material, mundane, earthly, terrestrial; More nonreligious, areligious, lay "the temporal aspects of church government" antonyms: spiritual 2. of or relating to time. synonyms: secular, nonspiritual, worldly, profane, material, mundane, earthly, terrestrial; More nonreligious, areligious, lay "the temporal aspects of church government" antonyms: spiritual So you do believe it means pertaining to time.
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 So you do believe it means pertaining to time. Depends on context. What is unknown is the context in which JS used the term.
halconero Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Speaking of narrow and lazy. The Holy Grail of "peer review" is dented and rusty. IF and that is a big IF, one can get some journal to accept an article that hints at some validity of ID , there still is the hurdle of the peers who might want to risk their reputations to actually consider the article on its merits.Here is just one of several articles that point out the flaws of peer review that are showing up in science .http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong Any system that involves humans is open to flaws.It doesn't mean we should toss out peer review.
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 (edited) “Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”Issac Asimov Edited March 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint 2
Ahab Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 Any system that involves humans is open to flaws.It doesn't mean we should toss out peer review. It also doesn't mean we should limit who we refer to as peers.Too many people value too highly a piece of paper from a man-made institution. The important part in the pursuit of knowledge is the study and analysis of intelligence, preferably as God shares his intelligence with us, not whether we have something called a PhD or whether we are called a scientist. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 It also doesn't mean we should limit who we refer to as peers.Too many people value too highly a piece of paper from a man-made institution. The important part in the pursuit of knowledge is the study and analysis of intelligence, preferably as God shares his intelligence with us, not whether we have something called a PhD or whether we are called a scientist. That may be fine in the abstract. OTOH If someone wants to perform surgery on me, or one of my loved ones. They darn well better have one of those advanced degrees from a well established and recognized man-made institutions called Med Schools.
halconero Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 It also doesn't mean we should limit who we refer to as peers.Too many people value too highly a piece of paper from a man-made institution. The important part in the pursuit of knowledge is the study and analysis of intelligence, preferably as God shares his intelligence with us, not whether we have something called a PhD or whether we are called a scientist. Agreed. My one caveat would be that expert knowledge on a peer-reviewed paper should be handled by experts in that field. I wouldn't want a historian, priest, or average Joe to judge whether or not heart disease research was acceptable or not. If the hypothetical "they" wanted to include others in the panel of peer-review I can understand them analyzing whether or not proper methods were used, ethical standards were upheld, and references were properly cited. I have nothing against that.
Recommended Posts