Where Science And Religion Should Meet

[Anijen]

Hes the one calling me an idiot because I believe in the creation, resurrection and that Adam was a son of God.

No he isn't we all believe in these things so it couldn't be those reasons. Perhaps because you are calling scientist idiots he is just returning the favor.

[thesometimesaint]

Please show an example where massively thick and widespread sandstone is currently forming as we see now exposed all over the world.

 

Sandstone is formed by the interaction of sand particles of different sizes under heat, pressure, and time.

 

Just a few examples.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/PU_51_B_308646_7.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Sandstone

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2008/hedberg_argentina/extended/arcuri/arcuri.htm

 

More to you point of a Global Flood being responsible for sandstone:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Collins3.pdf

[Rob Osborn]

What we need are teachers who teach with completely open minds, who are humble and teachable themselves, unselfish and seeking after real truth wherever it may be found even if it leads fdirectly to God.

[Anijen]

What we need are teachers who teach with completely open minds, who are humble and teachable themselves, unselfish and seeking after real truth wherever it may be found even if it leads fdirectly to God.

I do not disagree with this post of yours, but lets even expand that a little bit.

 

What if some of those truths are contrary to your set beliefs. What if you are so prideful that you are unable to acknowledge a modern scientific truth yet cling to a relgious myth that started long before alot of these sciences were even discovered? What if?

[Rob Osborn]

Sandstone is formed by the interaction of sand particles of different sizes under heat, pressure, and time.

 

Just a few examples.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/PU_51_B_308646_7.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Sandstone

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/abstracts/html/2008/hedberg_argentina/extended/arcuri/arcuri.htm

 

More to you point of a Global Flood being responsible for sandstone:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Collins3.pdf

All nicely arranged answers but I didn't read anywhere how you get the relatively uniform parallel layers that spread out over thousands of square miles. The problem here is basic logic. We know that ocean beds are not flat and uniform and that sediments from river deltas and such do not evenly distribute material over thousands of square miles in parallel manners as we see exposed in placeslike the GC. How hard is it to aknowledge that when we do look at the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans that we do not see these massive layers being formed?

[Rob Osborn]

I do not disagree with this post of yours, but lets even expand that a little bit.

 

What if some of those truths are contrary to your set beliefs. What if you are so prideful that you are unable to acknowledge a modern scientific truth yet cling to a relgious myth that started long before alot of these sciences were even discovered? What if?

All I am asking for is to teach correct truths and principles. If something is a theory lets not say it is a fact. If we are unsure of something being true or false lest be grownups and state truthfully that it is an opinion or that we have no way presently to confirm such and such. I have been teaching youth aged kids in Church half of my life and I am always careful to explain my beliefs as such- "my beliefs" and to truthfully state that "I could be wrong" or even that "the Church may not have all the truths" concerning such and such. The only prideful part in this whole deal is when teachers teach ideas and theories as "facts" and then hide behind a wall of mans intellect rather than allow it to be questioned for what it really is.

[The Nehor]

All nicely arranged answers but I didn't read anywhere how you get the relatively uniform parallel layers that spread out over thousands of square miles. The problem here is basic logic. We know that ocean beds are not flat and uniform and that sediments from river deltas and such do not evenly distribute material over thousands of square miles in parallel manners as we see exposed in placeslike the GC. How hard is it to aknowledge that when we do look at the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans that we do not see these massive layers being formed?

Sandstone does not form at the bottom of bodies of water (unless very deep). If forms under the earth where there is a lot of pressure and it takes a lot of time.

[thesometimesaint]

I take pride to be in the group who believe in God, the resurrection, the creation and knowledge that we are not animlas. Most LDS and other Christians believe the same. Are you atheist?

 

I too take pride to be in the group who believes in God, the resurrection, the creation, that biologically we are animals. That by studying ourselves along with the animals, we can fully appreciate, be in awe of, and to start understand the Cosmos in which we are part of. That we can cure disease, produce foods, medicines, travel to the moon. That we build space craft that explore other planets, and have gone outside of our solar system. That light from distant stars tells us about the heavens. That they are no longer just holes in the firmament between earth and Heaven.

 

I'm no Atheist. Why are you an acolyte of Ken Ham?

[The Nehor]

All I am asking for is to teach correct truths and principles. If something is a theory lets not say it is a fact. If we are unsure of something being true or false lest be grownups and state truthfully that it is an opinion or that we have no way presently to confirm such and such. I have been teaching youth aged kids in Church half of my life and I am always careful to explain my beliefs as such- "my beliefs" and to truthfully state that "I could be wrong" or even that "the Church may not have all the truths" concerning such and such. The only prideful part in this whole deal is when teachers teach ideas and theories as "facts" and then hide behind a wall of mans intellect rather than allow it to be questioned for what it really is.

Now we are back to you intentionally using the word theory in an ambiguous way and 50 pages of you stubbornly holding to your view on what it means despite being objectively wrong.

This thread is going places.

[thesometimesaint]

All nicely arranged answers but I didn't read anywhere how you get the relatively uniform parallel layers that spread out over thousands of square miles. The problem here is basic logic. We know that ocean beds are not flat and uniform and that sediments from river deltas and such do not evenly distribute material over thousands of square miles in parallel manners as we see exposed in placeslike the GC. How hard is it to aknowledge that when we do look at the bottom of lakes, rivers, and oceans that we do not see these massive layers being formed?

 

4th Link answer that question.

[katherine the great]

They speak of wanting to bring other ideas to the table but what they really mean is you can bring it and as long asit goes along with what we have agreed upon as "scientific truth" then we will listen otherwise we will run you out of town and off the face of the world. I asked Steven Peck directly where God fits into the creation and he flat out said he didn't know and couldn't actually say He was required for life to exist and that perhaps instead God is just a mechanism of nature itself. Through much dialogue with him and another prominant BYU professor it became apparent that they do not consider ideasin science that run counter to their long held theories. 

Science follows the scientific method.  If it doesn't, it doesn't get published in a scientific journal.  I may believe in evolution but I wouldn't dream of asking the Bishop if I can be the gospel doctrine teacher and then writing my own lesson plan that includes a section on human evolution.

[Ahab]

Now we are back to you intentionally using the word theory in an ambiguous way and 50 pages of you stubbornly holding to your view on what it means despite being objectively wrong.

I can fix this, I think.

Rob and The Nehor,

Do you understand that a theory is a rational explanation of how facts are supposedly connected and that the explanation isn't necessarily true?

Edited April 24, 2014 by Ahab

[thesometimesaint]

Science follows the scientific method.  If it doesn't, it doesn't get published in a scientific journal.  I may believe in evolution but I wouldn't dream of asking the Bishop if I can be the gospel doctrine teacher and then writing my own lesson plan that includes a section on human evolution.

 

Rob is determined to believe that you can't be a scientist and believe in God. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[bcuzbcuz]

Please show an example where massively thick and widespread sandstone is currently forming as we see now exposed all over the world.

Deflection. Avoiding a question by trying to point attention in a different direction.

Sidestepping an issue.

Dodging the question.

Fobbing off the question.

Nice try..

If you're capable of looking at progressions of a process,, yes, I can show you a multitude of sites where the process of forming sandstone is at various stages of development. If you've got the patience to watch grass grow I can demonstrate the principle. But I assume that after you've mown your lawn you're willing to leave it alone and accept that the natural processes will facilitate needing to cut it again next month. You don't have to,....or possibly expressed better...you don't NEED to keep your eye on your lawn to ensure that it will grow. Experience has shown you that the lawn can grow without your supervision.

However, you have reasoned several times here that unless you can observe the process of sand turning into sandstone, (actually, I think your comment was that unless you can observe the process of evolution, you do not believe it is happening) it isn't actually happening.

But back to my question. You pointed out , regarding the picture of sandstone, that the singular layer of sandstone, similar in characteristics, was a process that is not observable in our modern world. I then asked if you thought the forming of sandstone was a result of the global flood, a process that would have taken max one year? You have not answered that question.

You gave no response that demonstrates any understanding of the process of sandstone formation. Now you have your chance. Explain how the sandstone in the picture was formed. Do you believe that that sandstone came about as a process or resulted from Noah's flood?

[Anijen]

 when teachers teach ideas and theories as "facts" 

How do you explain;

The Laetoli footprints?

The skeletal remains of Lucy?

Fossils, that are older than 6000 years?

The Lascaux cave paintings?

 

Please explain in detail why you do not accept these as evidence. Just saying they are theories is not adequate. Tell me why you think God would place evidence in his creation that stretches the Genesis creation timeline? Why would He do this? 

 

Could there not be a reasonable explanation for a 3-5 billion year old earth and still believe in God (as I do).

Edited April 24, 2014 by Anijen

[thesometimesaint]

I can fix this, I think.

Rob and The Nehor,

Do you understand that a theory is a rational explanation of how facts are supposedly connected and that the explanation isn't necessary true?

 

A theory is a rationale explanation of an observation. That through test and retest over time has been shown to meet the observation. As such it is always true until observation shows it isn't. IE; Newton is still right for everyday observations. Einstein is still right for observations of the very large scale, and Quantum Mechanics is proving true for the very small scale. They are still talking about the same thing, gravity.

[Ahab]

A theory is a rationale explanation of an observation. That through test and retest over time has been shown to meet the observation. As such it is always true until observation shows it isn't. IE; Newton is still right for everyday observations. Einstein is still right for observations of the very large scale, and Quantum Mechanics is proving true for the very small scale. They are still talking about the same thing, gravity.

Let's use evolution instead of gravity as an example if you want to use an example, or you could just answer the general question.

Do you realize a theory isn't necessarily true?

[The Nehor]

Let's use evolution instead of gravity as an example if you want to use an example, or you could just answer the general question.

Do you realize a theory isn't necessarily true?

By definition a scientific theory cannot be proven true.

[thesometimesaint]

Let's use evolution instead of gravity as an example if you want to use an example, or you could just answer the general question.

Do you realize a theory isn't necessarily true?

 

Evolution is covered.

 

1. Observation: living things die.

2. Observation: Only those offspring that survive have offspring.

3. Observation: That offspring are different than their parents.

4. Observation: That in isolated populations differences accumulate faster. 

5. Repeat from number one.

[Brian 2.0]

Let's use evolution instead of gravity as an example if you want to use an example, or you could just answer the general question.

Do you realize a theory isn't necessarily true?

Ahab and Rob,

Why not use gravity?

Do you agree that the theory or gravity cannot be "proven true" but that it should STILL be taught in schools?

Do you believe that gravity should be given preambles noting that is simply "opinion" or "one of the beliefs" as to why things fall down off a table?

[Ahab]

Evolution is covered.

1. Observation: living things die.

2. Observation: Only those offspring that survive have offspring.

3. Observation: That offspring are different than their parents.

4. Observation: That in isolated populations differences accumulate faster.

5. Repeat from number one.

Can you admit that those observations do not prove that the theory of evolution is true?

[Ahab]

By definition a scientific theory cannot be proven true.

Let's hope Rob will accept what you are saying.

[The Nehor]

Let's hope Rob will accept what you are saying.

Well, he then insists it is just a guess and I go over the definition again and nothing changes. I chuckled when Rob insisted people needed to be more teachable.

[Ahab]

Ahab and Rob,

Why not use gravity?

Because I would rather use evolution as an example of a theory that while reasonable may not be true (and I believe is not true).

One reason for my preference is that it is fairly easy to see what we refer to as gravity while no living mortal has ever seen a species become another species. But, conveniently, that is covered by the explanation from proponents of evolution that it takes too long for a mortal to see.

Do you agree that the theory or gravity cannot be "proven true" but that it should STILL be taught in schools?

Taught as a theory and a reasonable explanation based on what we can observe.

Do you believe that gravity should be given preambles noting that is simply "opinion" or "one of the beliefs" as to why things fall down off a table?

For those who don't understand what a scientific theory is, that wouldn't hurt. Edited April 24, 2014 by Ahab

[Brian 2.0]

Can you admit that those observations do not prove that the theory of evolution is true?

Correct. Not definitively 100% proven true.

Same said for gravity.