jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 That's why I'm comfortable in both worlds. I can sit comfortably in Sacrament Meeting on Sundays and comfortably visit the BYU Paleontology Museum on Mondays. At least when I visit the BYU campus. Not sure I could visit the Creationist Museum with out I remember my first semester at BYU when I took Biology 101. The professor, who was soon after called as a mission president, prefaced his class with a discussion about evolution. He said that he understood why some people in the class might think that evolution conflicted with the doctrines of the church, although he did not agree. He went on to say that evolutionary theory was the best explanation for the development of species and that the department had a mandate from the university and the board of regents to teach organic evolution. At the time I wondered why he felt he had to say any of that, but I hadn't been exposed to Joseph Fielding Smith at that point. I have to say that I went through a phase in my early 20s when I was a dogmatic disciple of McConkie and JFS. I grew out of it.
ERayR Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla. Gotta love it. if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious Scientific dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla. Gotta love it. It cuts both ways. The reason I can see this is because I am ostracized from both clubs.
jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious Scientific dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla. Gotta love it. It cuts both ways. The reason I can see this is because I am ostracized from both clubs. I tend to do what Joseph Smith said we are supposed to do: take truth wherever we find it. It doesn't matter whether it comes from science or religion if it's truth.
ERayR Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I remember my first semester at BYU when I took Biology 101. The professor, who was soon after called as a mission president, prefaced his class with a discussion about evolution. He said that he understood why some people in the class might think that evolution conflicted with the doctrines of the church, although he did not agree. He went on to say that evolutionary theory was the best explanation for the development of species and that the department had a mandate from the university and the board of regents to teach organic evolution.At the time I wondered why he felt he had to say any of that, but I hadn't been exposed to Joseph Fielding Smith at that point. I have to say that I went through a phase in my early 20s when I was a dogmatic disciple of McConkie and JFS. I grew out of it. Myt experience is a little different. I have to say that I went through a phase in my early 20s when I was a dogmatic disciple of McConkie and JFS. Scientific theory I grew out of it.
ERayR Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I tend to do what Joseph Smith said we are supposed to do: take truth wherever we find it. It doesn't matter whether it comes from science or religion if it's truth. I agree with this but just don't understand how we come to different conclusions using this same method. I really don't appreciate the innuendo that my spiritual receptors are somehow deficient.
jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 Myt experience is a little different. I have to say that I went through a phase in my early 20s when I was a dogmatic disciple of McConkie and JFS. Scientific theory I grew out of it. I'm not a dogmatic disciple of scientific theory, either. Kuhn was on my reading list for my oral exams when I got my master's degree, after all. It goes back to what my biology professor said: evolutionary theory does an incredibly good job explaining the evidence. When I was in my 20s, my opposition to evolution was ideologically motivated. My acceptance of it now is just my acknowledgment that it explains things better than other theories. Some better explanation may come along, but until it does, I'll stick with evolution unless I have some reason not to. Obviously, you have your reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. Fair enough.
jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I agree with this but just don't understand how we come to different conclusions using this same method. I really don't appreciate the innuendo that my spiritual receptors are somehow deficient. I have not and would not suggest that you are somehow spiritually deficient, and I'm sorry if anything I said sounded like that's what I was doing. We just disagree.
thesometimesaint Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, but religious Scientific dogma says it is a gorilla, then it is a gorilla. Gotta love it. It cuts both ways. The reason I can see this is because I am ostracized from both clubs. Of course if you see both as clubs to beat each other over the head with. But I don't. I appreciate both for the wonderful things they do for my life here, and my hopes for a future in the Celestial Kingdom.
Rob Osborn Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I'm not a dogmatic disciple of scientific theory, either. Kuhn was on my reading list for my oral exams when I got my master's degree, after all. It goes back to what my biology professor said: evolutionary theory does an incredibly good job explaining the evidence. When I was in my 20s, my opposition to evolution was ideologically motivated. My acceptance of it now is just my acknowledgment that it explains things better than other theories. Some better explanation may come along, but until it does, I'll stick with evolution unless I have some reason not to. Obviously, you have your reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. Fair enough. How does a godless Darwinian evolution explain better than Intelligent design theory? I have never seen any accepted scientific theory from your brand of science guys that ever allows for God anywhere in the theory of how life came about. I find it quite ironic that you guys can say that God was part of it somehow but then offer no place anywhere for Him and instead demand an entirely naturalistic (void of God) paradigm to explain every last aspect to everything in the universe.
ERayR Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I'm not a dogmatic disciple of scientific theory, either. Kuhn was on my reading list for my oral exams when I got my master's degree, after all.It goes back to what my biology professor said: evolutionary theory does an incredibly good job explaining the evidence. When I was in my 20s, my opposition to evolution was ideologically motivated. My acceptance of it now is just my acknowledgment that it explains things better than other theories. Some better explanation may come along, but until it does, I'll stick with evolution unless I have some reason not to.Obviously, you have your reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory. Fair enough. I will admit that the evolutionary theory explains the evidences that the club allows in. I find things out there that are incompatible with macro-evolution and young earth creationists.
knowone Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 totally agree. these anti-BoM quotes are getting old. but then again, support evidence doesnt run rampant like anti questions. when the kiowas saw coronado for the first time on the plains of kansas, they called his horses...'big dogs'. in modern kiowa the word for horse is still big dog. or how about when pizarro got to the atacama deserts of peru & met the inca for the first time? he called the llama a tiny camel. i see it as opposite. the longer i live, the more evidence that the BoM is totally true. 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) How does a godless Darwinian evolution explain better than Intelligent design theory? I have never seen any accepted scientific theory from your brand of science guys that ever allows for God anywhere in the theory of how life came about. I find it quite ironic that you guys can say that God was part of it somehow but then offer no place anywhere for Him and instead demand an entirely naturalistic (void of God) paradigm to explain every last aspect to everything in the universe. Darwin was Anglican. Kenneth Miller is Roman Catholic. BYU is a LDS school. They all support Evolution. Science for a variety of reasons can not posit any God or Godlike force. IE; We can all agree that 2+2=4, but what does 2+2+God =? Edited June 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Darwin was Anglican. Kenneth Miller is Roman Catholic. BYU is a LDS school. They all support Evolution. Science for a variety of reasons can not posit any God or Godlike force. IE; We can all agree that 2+2=4, but what does 2+2+God =?Darwinian evolution is godless and must remain such. You still can't explain why science can't posit any God or godlike force. Your science cant even properly define "god". Just so you know- we are gods in embryo which thus makes us a "godlike force" and yet science has no problem positing all kinds of things about our godly attributes.
Gray Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 You still can't explain why science can't posit any God or godlike force. Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FalsifiabilityScience isn't in a position to try to pre-determine what "god" is. I keep saying before they can do that they have to prove that there is no God. It may be entirely possible that we are gods already in the strictest of terms. Who is to say? But for science to come out and say that they cannot posit a god or godlike source is entirely wrong on their part. What are they basing that off of? What they believe is a "god" and nothing more?
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Darwinian evolution is godless and must remain such. You still can't explain why science can't posit any God or godlike force. Your science cant even properly define "god". Just so you know- we are gods in embryo which thus makes us a "godlike force" and yet science has no problem positing all kinds of things about our godly attributes. Science is neither god less nor god full. It doesn't address the existence or nonexistence or any God or Godlike force. The four known forces are gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force. I don't see God on that list. Answer the question what does 2+2+God=, and you'll have your answer. That is a religious claim and not in the realm of science. What is a Godly attribute that doesn't depend on religion? There are all types of other animals that can see, hear, feel touch, smell. Are they Gods in embryo? Numerous other animals make plans for future events, make tools, and the Bonobo can make and use fire. Are they Gods in embryo?
thesometimesaint Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Science isn't in a position to try to pre-determine what "god" is. I keep saying before they can do that they have to prove that there is no God. It may be entirely possible that we are gods already in the strictest of terms. Who is to say? But for science to come out and say that they cannot posit a god or godlike source is entirely wrong on their part. What are they basing that off of? What they believe is a "god" and nothing more? Falsifiability is the idea that an idea can be shown to be false by wholly natural means. Religion can not be falsified. If I believed Zeus created our universe there is no way to falsify that claim using wholly natural means. A Christian coming along would have a no greater claim than I do. And no I don't believe in Zeus.
Gray Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Science isn't in a position to try to pre-determine what "god" is. I keep saying before they can do that they have to prove that there is no God. It may be entirely possible that we are gods already in the strictest of terms. Who is to say? But for science to come out and say that they cannot posit a god or godlike source is entirely wrong on their part. What are they basing that off of? What they believe is a "god" and nothing more? God isn't very well defined as a concept, given the diversity of human belief. But fundamentally, if something is untestable, it has no meaning in a scientific context. God isn't scientifically testable, and so we must approach god within other realms of inquiry.
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 God isn't very well defined as a concept, given the diversity of human belief. But fundamentally, if something is untestable, it has no meaning in a scientific context. God isn't scientifically testable, and so we must approach god within other realms of inquiry.But according to LDS theology God has a body as tangible as mans, lives in our universe, and resides on a planet. Is this scientifically testable? You bet! It doesnt necessarily mean we will find him but it certainly is testable.
jkwilliams Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 But according to LDS theology God has a body as tangible as mans, lives in our universe, and resides on a planet. Is this scientifically testable? You bet! It doesnt necessarily mean we will find him but it certainly is testable. No, it's not testable or falsifiable, but it's instructive that you think it is.
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Falsifiability is the idea that an idea can be shown to be false by wholly natural means. Religion can not be falsified. If I believed Zeus created our universe there is no way to falsify that claim using wholly natural means. A Christian coming along would have a no greater claim than I do. And no I don't believe in Zeus.Is it possible that other people live on planets in the universe?
Anijen Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 But according to LDS theology God has a body as tangible as mans, lives in our universe, and resides on a planet. Is this scientifically testable? You bet! It doesnt necessarily mean we will find him but it certainly is testable.Just how is this "testable?"
Rob Osborn Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 No, it's not testable or falsifiable, but it's instructive that you think it is.Why is it not testable or falsifiable? You are merely assuming we cannot view the physical place where God resides. But why?
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 But according to LDS theology God has a body as tangible as mans, lives in our universe, and resides on a planet. Is this scientifically testable? You bet! It doesnt necessarily mean we will find him but it certainly is testable. God is not testable by any known science. ALL religions are tautologies.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28rhetoric%29
thesometimesaint Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Why is it not testable or falsifiable? You are merely assuming we cannot view the physical place where God resides. But why? For all we know when we look up in the nights sky we are looking at where God resides. It still assumes that God exists by claiming God exists.
Recommended Posts