Rob Osborn Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 God is omnipotent in LDS belief. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipotent?lang=eng Then your God is a trickster. He does one thing and then claims to have done another. Science is Agnostic when it concerns God. You are either being deliberately obtuse or deliberately disingenuous when you make such patently false claims. Your choice.God is not magic even though you think he is.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 The purpose of a scientific debate is determine the value probable natural answers within the subject discussed. To interject a unrelated subject, while it may be of interest, is not the purpose of that debate. IE: When discussing high rise building construct(A worthy subject for science) an interjection of mushroom cultivation( Also a worthy subject for science) it is not related closely enough to high rise construction to warrant their conflation. Refusing to talk about mushroom cultivation while debating high rise construction is perfectly justified and rational. As I have demonstrated I'm more that willing to discuss God, and I am more than willing to discuss science. What I can't do is conflate the two in anything more than just the most superficial way. Straw man, apples and oranges or whatever else. Mushroom cultivation and high rise construction are not even related while evolution and creation both deal with the same topic - How things came to be.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I find fairy tales quite interesting(I'm a big fan of Tolkien's writings), but not related to science. It is fine with me if you prefer the Bronze Age telling of a Stone Age story. But I'm going to try to keep you well away from The Enlightenment Age, and later. "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."Joseph Fielding Smith He was at least honest enough to admit he was in error. Something I find sadly lacking in macro-evolutionists.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Yes the entire planet. Start from 2 Nephi 2:14 if that helps you to see a little better. Please go back and read the whole chapter carefully. Lehi is talking to his son Jacob. He reviews the creation and atonement and the fall but nowhere does he claim the death introduced into the Garden of Eden affected the whole planet. Eden was an interface with the Celestial Kingdom. Death was not part of that interface until Adam and Eve ingested the seeds of death into themselves. Part of their consequence was to be removed from the Celestial interface and be cast out into a world where chaos and death were prevalent. In a word they had fallen. You are trying to force something from that scripture that IMO is just not there.
Ahab Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) Please go back and read the whole chapter carefully. Lehi is talking to his son Jacob. He reviews the creation and atonement and the fall but nowhere does he claim the death introduced into the Garden of Eden affected the whole planet. Eden was an interface with the Celestial Kingdom. Death was not part of that interface until Adam and Eve ingested the seeds of death into themselves. Part of their consequence was to be removed from the Celestial interface and be cast out into a world where chaos and death were prevalent. In a word they had fallen. You are trying to force something from that scripture that IMO is just not there.That is one of the best examples of irony that I've ever seen.And I'm going to opt for the option of abandoning all hope of having a reasonable conversation with you. Edited April 10, 2014 by Ahab
cdowis Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 As I have demonstrated I'm more that willing to discuss God, and I am more than willing to discuss science. What I can't do is conflate the two in anything more than just the most superficial way. I don't understand. Why do I think we are in agreement.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I don't understand. Why do I think we are in agreement. I don't believe we are in agreement. So on that we can agree. You tell me. If belief in the LDS concept of God is required for science to work. Why is it that we went to the moon? Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that God would prevent that from happening.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) I don't believe we are in agreement. So on that we can agree. You tell me. If belief in the LDS concept of God is required for science to work. Why is it that we went to the moon? Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that God would prevent that from happening. You tell me. Is belief in the LDS science concept of God is required for science to work. What does a belief in a concept have to do with its working. Belief, one way or another, only affects our explanations of those principles. Extreme beliefs on either end of the spectrum are not helpful. As has been pointed out he admitted his error. Edited April 10, 2014 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) You tell me. Is belief in the LDS science concept of God is required for science to work. What does a belief in a concept have to do with its working. Belief, one way or another, only affects our explanations of those principles. Extreme beliefs on either end of the spectrum are not helpful. As has been pointed out he admitted his error. Yes. However the science works regardless of my or anyone else's beliefs. Science like any other human endeavor is predicated on the belief that this world is understandable and that we can make reasonable predictions about it. That as new information becomes available those predictions can and sometimes will change. OTOH Most religions are predicated on the belief that some God has told them the unchangeable truth about our world. Fortunately the LDS version doesn't do that.SEE Articles of Faith # 9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. I'm hardly an extremist. I simply defer to science to explain how he did it, and my religion to explain why. Yes he did. So that to me indicates that we should be very careful about claiming what God will or will not allow. Edited April 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) Yes. However the science works regardless of my or anyone else's beliefs. Science like any other human endeavor is predicated on the belief that this world is understandable and that we can make reasonable predictions about it. That as new information becomes available those predictions can and sometimes will change. OTOH Most religions are predicated on the belief that some God has told them the unchangeable truth about our world. Fortunately the LDS version doesn't do that.SEE Articles of Faith # 9: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. I'm hardly an extremist. I simply defer to science to explain how he did it, and my religion to explain why. Yes he did. So that to me indicates that we should be very careful about claiming what God will or will not allow. It just doesn't make sense the way scientists in the evolutionary disciplines seem to think it is ok to poke out an eye and puncture an eardrum before they even begin looking for answers.I am not making any claims on what God will or will not allow. Edited April 10, 2014 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 It just doesn't make sense the way scientists in the evolutionary disciplines seem to think it is ok to poke out an eye and puncture an eardrum before they even begin looking for answers.I am not making any claims on what God will or will not allow. What scientist, let alone evolutionary scientst has ever claimed that is OK to maim himself /herself in the search for theories to explain what they see and hear? We go the great lengths to extend and enhance our physical senses to more accurately explain it is what we see, hear, touch, and smell. IE; Galileo didn't put out his eye to better see the stars, and wondering stars(planets). He used a telescope. Darwin rode on a boat. Crick, et al used microscopes for DNA. Evolutionary scientists, among other things, look at old bones to see evolution. Joseph Fielding Smith, an LDS Apostle, sure did.
cdowis Posted April 11, 2014 Author Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) You tell me. If belief in the LDS concept of God is required for science to work. I find it interesting that you ascribe some mistaken belief to the LDS church as a whole, rather than to an individual in that church. Why waste our time with such nonsense. "moon" JFS was not shy about giving his personal opinions on many things. Like so many others, he tried to reconcile science with religion, and both sides; religion and science, suffered conceptual distortions in that attempt. I remember one statement on an event in the BOM that was clearly wrong, and he basically indicated he didn't care what it actually said. Edited April 11, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 I find it interesting that you ascribe some mistaken belief to the LDS church as a whole, rather than to an individual in that church. Why waste our time with such nonsense. "moon" JFS was not shy about giving his personal opinions on many things. Like so many others, he tried to reconcile science with religion, and both sides; religion and science, suffered conceptual distortions in that attempt. I remember one statement on an event in the BOM that was clearly wrong, and he basically indicated he didn't care what it actually said. I have no problem with people being mistaken. I've made more than enough mistakes myself to be thoroughly humbled, and somewhat humiliated by the idea that we make no mistakes. I'm a religious person, of the LDS version of Christianity. I fully support our leaders, Scriptures, and commitments to our God. OTOH I don't believe in inerrancy of any mortal, or of anything any mortal has had input in crafting. I'm not picking on JFS. I am picking on those that seem to think that when any church leader say's or writes something the thinking has been done. History is replete with examples of where religious people, including LDS ones, have posited what God can and can't do, only to be proven wrong. IMNTBHO We as Saints should be more careful when we make those claims.
katherine the great Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Macro-evolution does not even logically flow from micro-evolution when one considers the giant leaps that must happen to make it possible in several areas. Great leaps of imagination and faith.I'm sorry E, but that is ridiculous. Microevolution does not usually lead to macroevolution, it usually leads to extinction. You need to pull back and look at the big picture. Show us please what the mechanism is that prevents new species arising when enough changes and separation time have happened.
Ahab Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 I'm sorry E, but that is ridiculous. Microevolution does not usually lead to macroevolution, it usually leads to extinction. You need to pull back and look at the big picture. Show us please what the mechanism is that prevents new species arising when enough changes and separation time have happened.How do you even know what to start with?A virus becoming a rat and then becoming a cat and then becoming a dog and then becoming a bear and then becoming an ape and then becoming a man, like us? Something like that?And how long do you suppose it would take to see that happen, if that is really what happens? Is a virus or some other very basic life form now in the process of becoming one of us? Or is it already one of us, with every living thing having some very basic part of itself in common with every other kind of living thing?To believe in such a thing would require either a very active imagination or enough gullibility to believe someone who believes it, because not one of us is actually seeing that happen with our eyes during this life span.
Rob Osborn Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Science has greater imaginative ability than it does observational ability apparently.
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 How do you even know what to start with?A virus becoming a rat and then becoming a cat and then becoming a dog and then becoming a bear and then becoming an ape and then becoming a man, like us? Something like that?And how long do you suppose it would take to see that happen, if that is really what happens? Is a virus or some other very basic life form now in the process of becoming one of us? Or is it already one of us, with every living thing having some very basic part of itself in common with every other kind of living thing?To believe in such a thing would require either a very active imagination or enough gullibility to believe someone who believes it, because not one of us is actually seeing that happen with our eyes during this life span. Micro-evolution primitive corn(Teosinte) to modern day corn. Macro-evolution the breeding of a horse and a donkey to make a mule. That is not evolution. In fact that is the exact opposite of the Theory of Evolution. That will never happen, and the Theory of Evolution states it will never happen. The processing of sugars to energy is exactly the same in every living plant and animal.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26838/ Humans really are not very longed lived. Here is but one example of macro-evolution. I've already give another example of the mule.http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U0hJEVesj9s For more see
ERayR Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 I'm sorry E, but that is ridiculous. Microevolution does not usually lead to macroevolution, it usually leads to extinction. You need to pull back and look at the big picture. Show us please what the mechanism is that prevents new species arising when enough changes and separation time have happened. You misunderstand or misrepresent what I posted. There are too many specialized and interconnected systems to make it statistically possible for chance mutation to be the method of their development. One example is the eye and its connections with the brain and its control functions. What are the statistical odds of that system developing just once by chance so that it all worked together just right. Now what are the statistical odds that it would happen in sufficient numbers in the same tiny area to make it possible to have enough organisms to reproduce in enough numbers to have it become a permanent trait.
Ahab Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Micro-evolution primitive corn(Teosinte) to modern day corn. Macro-evolution the breeding of a horse and a donkey to make a mule.That is not evolution. In fact that is the exact opposite of the Theory of Evolution.That will never happen, and the Theory of Evolution states it will never happen.The processing of sugars to energy is exactly the same in every living plant and animal.Humans really are not very longed lived. Here is but one example of macro-evolution. I've already give another example of the mule.Just use your own words and stop cluttering your posts with links to videos and long winded articles, please. Let's just get down to the nitty gritty.A mule from a horse and donkey is not what I would call macro evolution but if that's what you mean by macro then fine. I consider them all to be the same kind of being with a mule as a dead end because mules can not reproduce as mules since each one of then has to come from a donkey and horse.And moths becoming another kind of moth isn't what I would call macro evolution either.Are those the best examples of the kind of evolution you think of as macro? 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 (edited) Just use your own words and stop cluttering your posts with links to videos and long winded articles, please. Let's just get down to the nitty gritty.A mule from a horse and donkey is not what I would call macro evolution but if that's what you mean by macro then fine. I consider them all to be the same kind of being with a mule as a dead end because mules can not reproduce as mules since each one of then has to come from a donkey and horse.And moths becoming another kind of moth isn't what I would call macro evolution either.Are those the best examples of the kind of evolution you think of as macro? Those are my own words. I'm just using the video's as substantiation of my words. A mule is sterile, it can not reproduce it's own species. That by dictionary definition is macro-evolution. There is no biological definition of the word kind. IE; Bees, Bats, and Birds are kinds of flying animals. They can not reproduce with each other so they not of the same species. IF they can't not reproduce with other members of that species that is the dictionary definition of macro-evolution. You are entitled to your own opinion, but it is best to stick with the dictionary definitions of words. You've already demonstrated your unalterable opposition to macro-evolution. Along with the examples I have already given by my own words substantiated by the Links I have provided. I see little need to provide even more examples for you to categorically reject. There are still people that believe the world is flat, and that sun revolves around the earth. No amount of science is going to convince them otherwise. I don't understand that mindset, but they are entitled to it. Edited April 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Ahab Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 IF they can't not reproduce with other members of that species that is the dictionary definition of macro-evolution.If you can correct your words above by removing the word "not" we may have an agreement.Maybe it's just that macro evolution doesn't mean what I think it means, but weren't we both thinking that macro evolution supposedly explains how all kinds of living beings on this planet came from only one kind of being, as if all came from some kind of primordial ooze with some kinds developing more or less than the other kinds.I think one of the reasons scientists haven't comr to an agreement or understanding of what a kind of being is stems from their idea that all living beings are the same kind of being, just with some more advanced (or evolved) than others.
katherine the great Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 How do you even know what to start with?A virus becoming a rat and then becoming a cat and then becoming a dog and then becoming a bear and then becoming an ape and then becoming a man, like us? Something like that? Are you serious? A cat NEVER becomes a dog. A dog NEVER becomes a bear. An ape NEVER becomes a man. You seem like an intelligent person, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution. Please educate yourself.
thesometimesaint Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 If you can correct your words above by removing the word "not" we may have an agreement.Maybe it's just that macro evolution doesn't mean what I think it means, but weren't we both thinking that macro evolution supposedly explains how all kinds of living beings on this planet came from only one kind of being, as if all came from some kind of primordial ooze with some kinds developing more or less than the other kinds.I think one of the reasons scientists haven't comr to an agreement or understanding of what a kind of being is stems from their idea that all living beings are the same kind of being, just with some more advanced (or evolved) than others. My mistake I accidentally added the extra "not". I am sorry if that error on my part lead to any confusion. It should actually read as: IF they can't reproduce with other members of that species that is the dictionary definition of macro-evolution. There is no biological definition of kind, only species. All life is related by what is known as common descent. Evolution is the process of that common descent. The primordial ooze idea is Abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with Evolution(The changes in life once it was first established). Again there is no scientific definition of "kind". When scientists use the world advanced they mean a more elaborate adaptation to its environment that can be passed down genetically to their offspring, So a sea sponge is more "advanced" than an amoeba. A human is more "advanced" than its closest living ancestors the Chimps.
Rob Osborn Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) My mistake I accidentally added the extra "not". I am sorry if that error on my part lead to any confusion. It should actually read as: IF they can't reproduce with other members of that species that is the dictionary definition of macro-evolution. There is no biological definition of kind, only species. All life is related by what is known as common descent. Evolution is the process of that common descent. The primordial ooze idea is Abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with Evolution(The changes in life once it was first established). Again there is no scientific definition of "kind". When scientists use the world advanced they mean a more elaborate adaptation to its environment that can be passed down genetically to their offspring, So a sea sponge is more "advanced" than an amoeba. A human is more "advanced" than its closest living ancestors the Chimps. I wish evolutionists would stop trying to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Here, from Berkeley- " http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." You cannot take any class on biology that discusses evolution THAT DOES NOT ALSO ADDRESS ABIOGENESIS as part of their theory. They are totally connected. Evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from abiogenesis because there is no evidence for it and all tests have been utterly in vain. So what do they do? They excuse themselves from the theory because now they look really bad. Edited April 12, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 Are you serious? A cat NEVER becomes a dog. A dog NEVER becomes a bear. An ape NEVER becomes a man. You seem like an intelligent person, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution. Please educate yourself. You are right- cats are always cats and all the evidence shows that cats have always been just that- cats. The same with dogs, apes, man, etc. So yes, you are right, evolution only shows micrevolutionary changes within species. I will agree.
Recommended Posts