Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Classic. Don't ever change, Rob. I was thinking of you during the evolution episode. I mean I can actually believe in magic wands after watching some of that!
EllenMaksoud Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 If you haven't yet started watching the new reboot of the old Carl Sagan show, I can't recommend it enough.http://www.cosmosontv.comTwo episodes have aired. The first going through how amazingly massive and old the known universe is and how we as humans have only been around for a tiny blip of it on our tiny planet. My reaction was much like that of Moses: "I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed."The 2nd episode deals with evolution and natural selection. One highlight was showing the evolutionary steps of the eye showing how it was far from being "irreducibility complex".One quote from that ep that ties into a recent debate on a closed thread;"Nobody knows how life got started, most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impacts and erosion."I'm sure the series will be viewed in all sorts of ways by people... to some it will support their view that all religions and God are simple man-made constructs... to some the beauty and majesty of the universe and creation will support their belief in a God-designer using all sorts of natural laws... and others will see this as propaganda of the devil with Neil deGraase Tyson being a modern-day anti-Christ.I, for one, love it.Here's another quote that I may just have to put in my signature:"Science works on the frontier of knowledge and ignorance. We're not afraid to admit what we don't know -- there's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend we have all the answers."Dr Sagan lived to 62 years of age. I wonder, these 30 some odd years since this series started what an updated version of this would be like. I personally think that what we have learned in those years has changed the face of science. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) Dr Sagan lived to 62 years of age. I wonder, these 30 some odd years since this series started what an updated version of this would be like. I personally think that what we have learned in those years has changed the face of science. Dr. Sagan died on December 20, 1996. He had an indisputable gift to present what science taught him in a more easily understood format to the non-scientists. Sure we know a whole lot more than we did then, but no it hasn't fundamentally changed the face of science. Edited March 24, 2014 by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I mean I can actually believe in magic wands after watching some of that! Oh like divining rods claimed in the Bible.
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Oh like divining rods claimed in the Bible. You must hate the bible. I never hear you believe anything from it.
strappinglad Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) You might note that the majority of deaths due to medical errors in hospitals were caused by people with degrees and titles. Numbers range from 98,000 to 210,000 per year in the US. Planes piloted by certified people crash Bridges built by highly trained engineers can collapse. Experience is a great teacher. Unfortunately ,it gives the exam first and the lesson later. Remember it's called a medical PRACTICE (sic) for a reason. Edited March 24, 2014 by strappinglad 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 You must hate the bible. I never hear you believe anything from it. I love the Bible along with all the other books of Scripture, and OD's in the LDS canon. Then you haven't been paying attention.
Rob Osborn Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 I love the Bible along with all the other books of Scripture, and OD's in the LDS canon. Then you haven't been paying attention.Lets see, you dont believe that man and all creation fell some six thousand years ago, ou disbelieve they lived to great ages, you disbelieve in the global flood. You disbelieve in continent separation in the days of Peleg, etc, etc...
thesometimesaint Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 Lets see, you dont believe that man and all creation fell some six thousand years ago, ou disbelieve they lived to great ages, you disbelieve in the global flood. You disbelieve in continent separation in the days of Peleg, etc, etc... I don't believe those things, along with talking snakes, a flat earth, axeheads floating, etc., etc., etc., but that has nothing to do with how I feel about the Bible.SEE Articles of Faith # 8We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;
strappinglad Posted March 24, 2014 Posted March 24, 2014 (edited) We believe the Bible to be the word of God, except for most of Genesis and Exodus as that is just old Sumerian myths retold. And we should ignore most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy for those laws were not for us. Numbers? well counting was not an Israelites forte. The stuff of Chronicles and Kings must be taken with a grain of salt because of lack of any secular evidence of Saul or David and the rest. Any mention of miraculous events like fiery furnaces, lion's dens , whales, etc. can safely be passed over as pure metaphor . As for the rest of the prophets, let's just say it's opinion,opinion,opinion. We are left with Psalms and Proverbs which everyone knows are really only common sense and flowery language.On to the New Testament. MML &J can't get their stories straight so they are biased. Paul's writings are, shall we say, suspect as he was a reluctant convert who carried way too much baggage. Revelation? I think it's safe to say John was depressed from being alone a lot.All in all , we believe the 5-10% that MIGHT actually be what it says. Unless, of course, it is contradicted by current science consensus. I hope that clarifies it for you Rob. Edited March 24, 2014 by strappinglad
emarkp Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Lets see, you dont believe that man and all creation fell some six thousand years ago, ou disbelieve they lived to great ages, you disbelieve in the global flood. You disbelieve in continent separation in the days of Peleg, etc, etc... Please go back to making up your own definitions in other threads. It's no surprise you'd reject what's presented in Cosmos. No need to show up just for disdain. 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Please go back to making up your own definitions in other threads. It's no surprise you'd reject what's presented in Cosmos. No need to show up just for disdain. Well, someone has to stand up against the garbage on TV
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 We believe the Bible to be the word of God, except for most of Genesis and Exodus as that is just old Sumerian myths retold. And we should ignore most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy for those laws were not for us. Numbers? well counting was not an Israelites forte. The stuff of Chronicles and Kings must be taken with a grain of salt because of lack of any secular evidence of Saul or David and the rest. Any mention of miraculous events like fiery furnaces, lion's dens , whales, etc. can safely be passed over as pure metaphor . As for the rest of the prophets, let's just say it's opinion,opinion,opinion. We are left with Psalms and Proverbs which everyone knows are really only common sense and flowery language. On to the New Testament. MML &J can't get their stories straight so they are biased. Paul's writings are, shall we say, suspect as he was a reluctant convert who carried way too much baggage. Revelation? I think it's safe to say John was depressed from being alone a lot. All in all , we believe the 5-10% that MIGHT actually be what it says. Unless, of course, it is contradicted by current science consensus. I hope that clarifies it for you Rob. Naysayers I say, Naysayers
Brian 2.0 Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 I will say that this last episode was a little more annoying in it's "anti-religion" stance (something I didn't think it did before this ep). It went over comets and gravity and it talked about how way way back people thought comets brought famine/disease/etc. It talked about how people wanted to put "god" behind the movement of the stars and comets and he goes into the "grand watchmaker" thing. But then after he goes through the discovery of gravity and how comets travel around out solar system all according to the physical laws we've now discovered he goes on to say "There is no grand watchmaker." That was kind of unnecessary. I'm all for the program debunking "bad science" and correcting the misconceptions put forth by the religious highly conservative right. Make science be science and don't put biblical science in the classroom and all that. But there's no need to take the extra step and challenege all belief in God. If someone wants to put the grand watchmaker BEHIND the law of gravity then who cares. I want me dad to see this show, but when they take that extra step he might get turned off by it. The point of the show should be to help people believe in ACTUAL SCIENCE not in trying to convince them that they should NOT believe in God. 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) Just more proof that mainstream science is heavily pushing an atheistic agenda. Edited March 25, 2014 by Rob Osborn 1
danielwoods Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I will say that this last episode was a little more annoying in it's "anti-religion" stance (something I didn't think it did before this ep). It went over comets and gravity and it talked about how way way back people thought comets brought famine/disease/etc. It talked about how people wanted to put "god" behind the movement of the stars and comets and he goes into the "grand watchmaker" thing. But then after he goes through the discovery of gravity and how comets travel around out solar system all according to the physical laws we've now discovered he goes on to say "There is no grand watchmaker." That was kind of unnecessary. I'm all for the program debunking "bad science" and correcting the misconceptions put forth by the religious highly conservative right. Make science be science and don't put biblical science in the classroom and all that. But there's no need to take the extra step and challenege all belief in God. If someone wants to put the grand watchmaker BEHIND the law of gravity then who cares. I want me dad to see this show, but when they take that extra step he might get turned off by it. The point of the show should be to help people believe in ACTUAL SCIENCE not in trying to convince them that they should NOT believe in God. “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010) What really smart guys like Hawking don't realize is that this isn't scientifically demonstrable hence, it is their belief or philosophy that they are pushing.
LittleNipper Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I believe in the entire Bible as the inspired Word of God. I do not accept the Book of Mormon nor any of the Mormon texts as being inspired by God ---- much less ancient. I found that Carl Sagan used his understanding of science to promote speculation. I see nothing "scientific" about imagining the earth to be "Billions and Billions" of years old based on a premise that without God this is how it must be. It is clear that if God exists, and I firmly am convicted that He does, then His aim would be to Create a universe that expresses His eternal power, and design a world that would support any life form He would create to live on such, as rapidly as He desired. And to do so without a fret for what some future "scientist" might speculate ----- anymore than worry what some pagan might devise religiously out of his own superstitious fallen nature.
Brian 2.0 Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 I see nothing "scientific" about imagining the earth to be "Billions and Billions" of years old based on a premise that without God this is how it must be.I almost don't know where to start with this statement. Getting to 4.5 Billion years old for the age of the earth was far from "imagining". It was based off actual science, mainly dealing with radioactive decay. And to think that we got the age of the earth "based on a premise that without God this is how it must be" is lauagable. We got there through scientific experimentation, not as an affront to belief in God. Google "how do we know the age of the earth" and you'll find plenty of science on it. This is an easy read to get started. http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2012/11/24/rubio-earth-age-explained-clair-patterson/1722705/From the article:Francis Albarede of France's École Normale Supérieure in Lyon, a fellow of the American Geophysical Union and an expert on the geology of planets. "I understand we have to be sensitive to people's feelings, but in all honesty there is no serious scientist who wouldn't acknowledge all the evidence that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old," Albarede says. "There is no excuse for teaching kids anything else."
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 We believe the Bible to be the word of God, except for most of Genesis and Exodus as that is just old Sumerian myths retold. And we should ignore most of Leviticus and Deuteronomy for those laws were not for us. Numbers? well counting was not an Israelites forte. The stuff of Chronicles and Kings must be taken with a grain of salt because of lack of any secular evidence of Saul or David and the rest. Any mention of miraculous events like fiery furnaces, lion's dens , whales, etc. can safely be passed over as pure metaphor . As for the rest of the prophets, let's just say it's opinion,opinion,opinion. We are left with Psalms and Proverbs which everyone knows are really only common sense and flowery language.On to the New Testament. MML &J can't get their stories straight so they are biased. Paul's writings are, shall we say, suspect as he was a reluctant convert who carried way too much baggage. Revelation? I think it's safe to say John was depressed from being alone a lot.All in all , we believe the 5-10% that MIGHT actually be what it says. Unless, of course, it is contradicted by current science consensus. I hope that clarifies it for you Rob. SEE Articles of Faith # 8.
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 I will say that this last episode was a little more annoying in it's "anti-religion" stance (something I didn't think it did before this ep). It went over comets and gravity and it talked about how way way back people thought comets brought famine/disease/etc. It talked about how people wanted to put "god" behind the movement of the stars and comets and he goes into the "grand watchmaker" thing.But then after he goes through the discovery of gravity and how comets travel around out solar system all according to the physical laws we've now discovered he goes on to say "There is no grand watchmaker." That was kind of unnecessary.I'm all for the program debunking "bad science" and correcting the misconceptions put forth by the religious highly conservative right. Make science be science and don't put biblical science in the classroom and all that. But there's no need to take the extra step and challenege all belief in God.If someone wants to put the grand watchmaker BEHIND the law of gravity then who cares.I want me dad to see this show, but when they take that extra step he might get turned off by it. The point of the show should be to help people believe in ACTUAL SCIENCE not in trying to convince them that they should NOT believe in God.I haven't seen the latest episode yet. I've recorded it for viewing on Tuesday. So going off of what you have said. My response is from a purely scientific sense there is no need for a God or Godlike force. That doesn't mean there is or is not a God. IE; Gravity works whether God or no God created it. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.
LittleNipper Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Please reconsider and understand that even very good scientists bring personal convictions to the investigation table. You may wish to read the following article and also do a search yourself on this topic. But understand that modern rocks provide every indication that many data conclusions offered by Uniformitarians and evolutionists are tainted by a belief that the universe could never have been created --- much less in 6 days some 6 thousand years ago. And the proof such misgivings are often very obvious. Please visit: http://creation.com/radio-dating-in-rubble-article-ignores-data
Nofear Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) I haven't seen the latest episode yet. I've recorded it for viewing on Tuesday. So going off of what you have said. My response is from a purely scientific sense there is no need for a God or Godlike force. That doesn't mean there is or is not a God. IE; Gravity works whether God or no God created it. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose. The end times must be near... here I am again agreeing with thesometimesaint in a not-too-long timeframe . While our Creator certainly organizes things, our rejection of creatio-ex-nihilo requires that there must be at least some conditions/laws/bounds/rules which coexisted with self-existent intelligence and are likewise self-existent. While not all Mormons will agree with me I happen to put gravity in that set of necessarily self-existent rules. Others don't, but we really don't have a way of knowing (yet). Edited March 25, 2014 by Nofear
strappinglad Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 From " Science Now " :If imagining the big bang makes your head ache, what happened an instant later might make it explode. Cosmologists think the just-born universe—a hot, dense soup of matter and energy—went through a burst of expansion faster than the speed of light. Like a magical balloon, the cosmos doubled its size 60 times in a span of 10–32 seconds. This phase, known as inflation, ended well before the universe was even a second old. - See more at: http://crev.info/2014/03/has-cosmic-inflation-been-discovered/#sthash.Euq1fNaJ.dpuf And SOME scientists think belief in God is incredulous. If the Big Bang( no sound mind you) and the nano,pico femto second events thereafter don't sound like creation ex nihilo , I don't know what does.
cdowis Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 (edited) I will say that this last episode was a little more annoying in it's "anti-religion" stance (something I didn't think it did before this ep). It went over comets and gravity and it talked about how way way back people thought comets brought famine/disease/etc. It talked about how people wanted to put "god" behind the movement of the stars and comets and he goes into the "grand watchmaker" thing.But then after he goes through the discovery of gravity and how comets travel around out solar system all according to the physical laws we've now discovered he goes on to say "There is no grand watchmaker." That was kind of unnecessary. Of course this has nothing to do with LDS theology, since we believe that the Creator is subject to the universal laws of the universe. God did not create gravity, but knows how to use it in the creation process. Edited March 25, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 The end times must be near... here I am again agreeing with thesometimesaint in a not-too-long timeframe . While our Creator certainly organizes things, our rejection of creatio-ex-nihilo requires that there must be at least some conditions/laws/bounds/rules which coexisted with self-existent intelligence and are likewise self-existent. While not all Mormons will agree with me I happen to put gravity in that set of necessarily self-existent rules. Others don't, but we really don't have a way of knowing (yet). I don't know much, but I do know the name of the Church.
Recommended Posts