Book Of Mormon Problems?

[longview]

Also, science is based on mortal ability to observe the universe.  The idea that we have seen enough to draw absolute conclusions seems a little arrogant.  Who knows how many things have occurred over the life of this earth that we have been unable to see?

 

Scientists are like the blind men in Kiplings tale describing the elephant and assuming their description is an absolute.

They are often right, but they are often just seeing small amounts of the evidence.

 

Yes science is based on our ability to observe the universe. No we don't make absolute conclusions about anything in science. We merely draw theories as to how best to describe the universe. By definition it is always tentative. If we can't observe it it isn't science. The tools we use to observe the universe simply extend our ability to observe it.

 

Science isn't always right. It is just right many more times than any other method, so far developed, for making internally consistent predictions about the observations.

 

 

We cannot rely on Science to be right at ANY time.  Yes, we can make observations.  Yes we can take measurements on SOME things.  But even so-called facts are still SUBJECT to interpretations.

 

Isaac Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation was a pretty impressive work.  But was it the last word?  NO!  We needed non-euclidean geometry and other scientific developments before Albert Einstein could present his more accurate theory of relativity.  Is Einstein the last word?  We can be sure it is not. I am not saying to give up on science.  We just need to carefully search and ponder and study the scriptures as well as seek understanding in many fields of knowledge (as the Lord intends for us to do).  It is up to us to obtain the spirit for guidance.

[thesometimesaint]

We cannot rely on Science to be right at ANY time.  Yes, we can make observations.  Yes we can take measurements on SOME things.  But even so-called facts are still SUBJECT to interpretations.

 

Isaac Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation was a pretty impressive work.  But was it the last word?  NO!  We needed non-euclidean geometry and other scientific developments before Albert Einstein could present his more accurate theory of relativity.  Is Einstein the last word?  We can be sure it is not. I am not saying to give up on science.  We just need to carefully search and ponder and study the scriptures as well as seek understanding in many fields of knowledge (as the Lord intends for us to do).  It is up to us to obtain the spirit for guidance.

 

The very fact that you are communicating with me right now by means of the most sophisticated scientific machine so far invented by man makes that statement unsupportable and self contradictory.

 

Yes we make observations. Measurements are just a different type of observation.

 

If it not measurable it is not science. IE; We observe that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. How is it doing that? The best explanation presented so far is that it is the effect of gravity not accounted for by all the known matter in the universe. So we simple call it "dark matter and energy", because we don't know enough about it to more accurately explain it.

 

Actually it was Perturbation Theory that better explained universal gravitation and allowed for the Theory of Relativity to be developed. Great mind that he was Einstein never came to grips with Quantum Mechanics on the small scale, and Relativity still works on large scales. Just as universal gravitation still is good enough to send space craft to outside our solar system.  Now whether or not Klingon's will use the Voyager space craft as target practice in about 400 more years is a different question.

 

I think God wants us to learn everything, the good, the bad, the ugly. How else can we become like God?

[longview]

The very fact that you are communicating with me right now by means of the most sophisticated scientific machine so far invented by man makes that statement unsupportable and self contradictory.

This is a non sequitur.

 

Yes we make observations. Measurements are just a different type of observation.

 

If it not measurable it is not science. IE; We observe that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate. How is it doing that? The best explanation presented so far is that it is the effect of gravity not accounted for by all the known matter in the universe. So we simple call it "dark matter and energy", because we don't know enough about it to more accurately explain it.

 

Actually it was Perturbation Theory that better explained universal gravitation and allowed for the Theory of Relativity to be developed. Great mind that he was Einstein never came to grips with Quantum Mechanics on the small scale, and Relativity still works on large scales. Just as universal gravitation still is good enough to send space craft to outside our solar system.  Now whether or not Klingon's will use the Voyager space craft as target practice in about 400 more years is a different question.

 

I think God wants us to learn everything, the good, the bad, the ugly. How else can we become like God?

Generally I would agree. The field of electronics and consumer products have a more confined and controllable and verifiable field of inquiry. But there are too much projecting and assuming occurring in science. Like in the case of macro evolution. There is simply too many unknowns to have anything more than a modest degree of confidence in the current theories. We simply do not know enough about the conditions in previous epochs nor do we know for sure if earth and sun were formed out of the gaseous clouds or if earth was cobbled with fragments of dead, used up planets.

[thesometimesaint]

This is a non sequitur.

 

Generally I would agree. The field of electronics and consumer products have a more confined and controllable and verifiable field of inquiry. But there are too much projecting and assuming occurring in science. Like in the case of macro evolution. There is simply too many unknowns to have anything more than a modest degree of confidence in the current theories. We simply do not know enough about the conditions in previous epochs nor do we know for sure if earth and sun were formed out of the gaseous clouds or if earth was cobbled with fragments of dead, used up planets.

 

If there is nothing reasonably certain then we are all Ken Hams making it up as we go along. Far better to go live in a cave being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

 

While important the goodies that science has brought us.IE; It was Ben Franklin playing with kites in storms that lead directly to the lightning rod, and later to modern electronics. And Dr. Edward Jenner playing around with Cow Pox that lead directly to the eradication of Small Pox and modern immunology. To me, and the scientists that I know, it is the pursuit of knowledge that is most important. I'll very mildly disagree with Dr. Tyson. I am uncomfortable with my ignorance. I want to know everything God knows.

 

If it is unconfined and unverifiable then it isn't science. 

 

Macro-Evolution is well accepted science. Biology doesn't work with it.

 

While there is always more to learn we actually do have a pretty good understanding of what happened in earlier epoch's. We have their bones. So some method is used to determine how long ago they lived.

 

While there is always more to learn. The nonuniform nature of the early universe is just one of the strong evidences for the coalescing gas theory of our universe and planet.

[longview]

If there is nothing reasonably certain then we are all Ken Hams making it up as we go along. Far better to go live in a cave being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

More non sequiturs.

 

While important the goodies that science has brought us.IE; It was Ben Franklin playing with kites in storms that lead directly to the lightning rod, and later to modern electronics. And Dr. Edward Jenner playing around with Cow Pox that lead directly to the eradication of Small Pox and modern immunology. To me, and the scientists that I know, it is the pursuit of knowledge that is most important. I'll very mildly disagree with Dr. Tyson. I am uncomfortable with my ignorance. I want to know everything God knows.

It is more important to "enjoy the journey" here on earth. We are to gain profound experiences and undergo great stretchings. God wants us to act on gifts and revelations given to us so that we can continue in the process of "BECOMING" or "BEING" more and more like our Father in Heaven.

 

If it is unconfined and unverifiable then it isn't science.

Various sciences like "Cosmic Evolution" and "Planetary Development" are pretty unconfined, subject to tremendous amount of speculations, projections, and assumptions. We simply can not verify what the conditions were in previous ages. What processes were in play, in what order, whether earth was transported from one place to another. For every bit of supposed assumption, there is a huge array of other possibilities. In a previous thread I had a discussion with Nehor about the possibility of the "red shift" being caused by infinitesimally steady decay of photons (loss of energy) to account the "apparent" expansion of the universe (rather than the Doppler effect of receding galaxies). There are a LOT more questions than "settled science".

 

Macro-Evolution is well accepted science. Biology doesn't work with it.

This is a confusing statement.

 

While there is always more to learn we actually do have a pretty good understanding of what happened in earlier epoch's. We have their bones. So some method is used to determine how long ago they lived.

No. Most assuredly not. There is no such thing as a "pretty good understanding of what happened in earlier epoch's". We do not have complete information about the conditions in which these creatures deposited into. We do not know how long it took for minerals to change within the "cast" that preserved the shape of the creatures and the shape of the boines.

 

While there is always more to learn. The nonuniform nature of the early universe is just one of the strong evidences for the coalescing gas theory of our universe and planet.

Your "strong evidence" is still based on projections, speculations, and even a whole array of fuzzy thinking. I reiterate my statement from post # 101: "But even so-called facts are still SUBJECT to interpretations."

[ERayR]

Macro-Evolution is well accepted science. Biology doesn't work with it.

 

 

Scientific advancement comes on the back of more error than what is true.  What is well accepted today is often out of vogue tomorrow.  Flat earth was the best science available for many years and was widely accepted for a long time.  Macro-evolution is well accepted now and is based on extrapolation from observations from micro-evolution.  Like the flat earth theory, which was based on the best observations available at the time, macro-evolution may fall out of vogue.  If that were to happen biology would still work just fine.  There is nothing in biology hinging on macro-evolution.

Edited May 29, 2014 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Longview:

 

You do know what a non sequitur is?

 

Most people that I know enjoy the journey though not many enjoy the bumps along the road. Personally I've always want to know everything, even before I became a member of the Church at age 20.

 

How is it confusing? Modern biology only makes sense with Evolution.

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

 

Scientific organizations that support evolution

http://ncse.com/media/voices/science

 

So called micro and macro evolution are exactly the same thing.

 

Incorrect. IE; We have a pretty good understanding of how electricity works(you are using it right now), but no idea as to what it is other than it is the flow of electrons. No matter how fast you break the connection between poles there are exactly the same number of electrons from before the connection was broken.

We equally have a pretty good understanding of conditions in earlier epoch's. Of course the earlier they are the less is known, and it is always possible to learn something that does require abandonment of previous theories. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.

 

While a complete knowledge is desirable, we're not likely to get it anytime soon. So we build theories that are the best explanation we have so far for a given observation. IE; Here is how coal is formed http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm Here is how fossils are formed http://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html & http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/fossil_foolishness.htm

 

Don't be ridiculous. Without supporting evidence please prove that you are nothing more than a series of electronic dots on my computer screen.

[Rob Osborn]

If there is nothing reasonably certain then we are all Ken Hams making it up as we go along. Far better to go live in a cave being afraid of things that go bump in the night.

 

While important the goodies that science has brought us.IE; It was Ben Franklin playing with kites in storms that lead directly to the lightning rod, and later to modern electronics. And Dr. Edward Jenner playing around with Cow Pox that lead directly to the eradication of Small Pox and modern immunology. To me, and the scientists that I know, it is the pursuit of knowledge that is most important. I'll very mildly disagree with Dr. Tyson. I am uncomfortable with my ignorance. I want to know everything God knows.

 

If it is unconfined and unverifiable then it isn't science. 

 

Macro-Evolution is well accepted science. Biology doesn't work with it.

 

While there is always more to learn we actually do have a pretty good understanding of what happened in earlier epoch's. We have their bones. So some method is used to determine how long ago they lived.

 

While there is always more to learn. The nonuniform nature of the early universe is just one of the strong evidences for the coalescing gas theory of our universe and planet.

Ken Ham is probably more intelligent than you.

[thesometimesaint]

Scientific advancement comes on the back of more error than what is true.  What is well accepted today is often out of vogue tomorrow.  Flat earth was the best science available for many years and was widely accepted for a long time.  Macro-evolution is well accepted now and is based on extrapolation from observations from micro-evolution.  Like the flat earth theory, which was based on the best observations available at the time, macro-evolution may fall out of vogue.  If that were to happen biology would still work just fine.  There is nothing in biology hinging on macro-evolution.

 

Scientific advancement like any other human invention is subject to error. That is a given.

 

Appealing to a Flat Earth model is a nonstarter as it was the Ancient Greeks that disproved it.

 

No it is not based on an extrapolation of micro-evolution. It was an independent but related discovery by Gregor Mendel that provided the mechanism for both.

 

Of course it may fall out of favor. But science being what it is. A more accurate theory needs to take its place. I know it is a long video but it does clarify the problem.

[thesometimesaint]

Ken Ham is probably more intelligent than you.

 

I never said he was stupid. He just thinks you are.

[Rob Osborn]

I never said he was stupid. He just thinks you are.

So, when Bill Nye the "science guy" debates him and gets hist butt kicked by him what does this say about "science"?

[Rob Osborn]

Please don't sick Neil DeGrasse Tyson on me...

[Rob Osborn]

Its so comical to listen to evolutionists/atheists try to debunk intelligent design....they truly have no clue!

[longview]

Longview:

 

You do know what a non sequitur is?

 

Most people that I know enjoy the journey though not many enjoy the bumps along the road. Personally I've always want to know everything, even before I became a member of the Church at age 20.

 

Incorrect. IE; We have a pretty good understanding of how electricity works(you are using it right now), but no idea as to what it is other than it is the flow of electrons. No matter how fast you break the connection between poles there are exactly the same number of electrons from before the connection was broken.

We equally have a pretty good understanding of conditions in earlier epoch's. Of course the earlier they are the less is known, and it is always possible to learn something that does require abandonment of previous theories. But don't count on it happening anytime soon.

 

Don't be ridiculous. Without supporting evidence please prove that you are nothing more than a series of electronic dots on my computer screen.

It appears you are arguing for the sake of argument.  I have responded in detail to your points but you are evading the main points I have offered.  Such as the fact we live in a mortal chaotic world, that most sciences (if not all) are inexact, that most scientists by necessity have to make projections and assumptions in order to develop a working theory, that practically all fields of inquiry will continue make new discoveries, that old assumptions will continue to be revised and corrected.  Sure there are some fields that are more concrete and applicable to the use and benefit of mankind.

[thesometimesaint]

So, when Bill Nye the "science guy" debates him and gets hist butt kicked by him what does this say about "science"?

 

Ken Ham, and his coconut eating Adam and Eve riding T-Rex, did not kick Bill Nye "The Science Guy"'s butt. They talked past each other. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140205-creationism-debate-bill-nye-ken-ham-opinion/

 

BTW Bill Nye is not and never has been a scientist. He is a well educated engineering technologist from Boeing. Science is not established by public debate. It is established by Peer Review published in established scientific periodicals such as Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.

[JLHPROF]

The tract record of religion is absolutely abysmal. IE; May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu:

"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. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

 

To his credit he did admit to being wrong.

 

Well, I did say revelation, not any particular man/prophet...

 

But if the Bible says there was a worldwide flood, and the NT, BOM and modern revelation claim it happened and God has never corrected his prophets, then I will just wait for science to catch up in its observation of evidence.  They're clearly missing something.

 

See, this is my issue with science.  Not in the things they claim to know by the unarguable evidence and direct observation (these are the things they generally get right) such as electricity and its effects.  We know there are no 8ft tall quakers on the moon (at least that we can see now) since we've actually been there.  But do we know the sun to be unpopulated?

 

But in the things they claim "can't be" because of lack of evidence the arrogant dismissal of the "impossible" bothers me.  Who knows what "evidence" God has chosen to keep hidden from our observation.  Evidence of people on the Sun.  Evidence that the earth has only been populated by men for 6000 years.  Evidence of a worldwide flood.  Evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt.  To say these things can't be because there's no observable evidence is not proof anymore than to say there is no God because I haven't seen him is proof.

Scientists become like the anti-mormons who find Joseph keeping the plates hidden from the public just a bit too convenient.

[thesometimesaint]

It appears you are arguing for the sake of argument.  I have responded in detail to your points but you are evading the main points I have offered.  Such as the fact we live in a mortal chaotic world, that most sciences (if not all) are inexact, that most scientists by necessity have to make projections and assumptions in order to develop a working theory, that practically all fields of inquiry will continue make new discoveries, that old assumptions will continue to be revised and corrected.  Sure there are some fields that are more concrete and applicable to the use and benefit of mankind.

 

I've never argued that we in this world aren't mortal.

 

Science is a way to make order out of the apparent chaos of our mortal lives. As mortal humans we want answers to our questions. How does this work. We build,  take apart, and rebuild everything we can to find out how it works.

 

No scientist that I know of says that science is absolutely exact. The very best we can presently do is within tolerances. Fudge factors if you will. +/- so many inches, years, etc.. It is simply incorrect to transmogrify that inexactness to cluelessness.

 

Sure there are some fields that are more concrete and applicable to the use and benefit of mankind. But we never know in advance what those fields are. There was no apparent use for kites in storms in before Ben Franklin. But you are using it right now.  There was no apparent use for the telescope beyond looking for sailing ships until Galileo turned his towards the heavens. There was no apparent use for the microscope unto Leeuwenhoek used it to see cells in cork. 

[longview]

I've never argued that we in this world aren't mortal.

 

Science is a way to make order out of the apparent chaos of our mortal lives. As mortal humans we want answers to our questions. How does this work. We build,  take apart, and rebuild everything we can to find out how it works.

 

No scientist that I know of says that science is absolutely exact. The very best we can presently do is within tolerances. Fudge factors if you will. +/- so many inches, years, etc.. It is simply incorrect to transmogrify that inexactness to cluelessness.

 

Sure there are some fields that are more concrete and applicable to the use and benefit of mankind. But we never know in advance what those fields are. There was no apparent use for kites in storms in before Ben Franklin. But you are using it right now.  There was no apparent use for the telescope beyond looking for sailing ships until Galileo turned his towards the heavens. There was no apparent use for the microscope unto Leeuwenhoek used it to see cells in cork. 

OK.  You still are not addressing the point that major scientific theories have more uncertainties and guesswork than "established" facts . . . you can keep arguing and evading all you want . . .

[cinepro]

Scientists become like the anti-mormons who find Joseph keeping the plates hidden from the public just a bit too convenient.

 

So scientists should be more like the Mormons who find Joseph Smith keeping the plates hidden from the public to be a really good evidence that he had authentic ancient Nephite plates?

[MormonFreeThinker]

OK.  You still are not addressing the point that major scientific theories have more uncertainties and guesswork than "established" facts . . . you can keep arguing and evading all you want . . .

 

The Theory of Evolution is the most successful theory in science. Scientists understand Evolution better than they understand the theory of Gravity. The evidences are powerful. 

 

If the Theory of Evolution is wrong, then the theory of the solar system may also be wrong. 

Edited May 29, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Well, I did say revelation, not any particular man/prophet...

 

But if the Bible says there was a worldwide flood, and the NT, BOM and modern revelation claim it happened and God has never corrected his prophets, then I will just wait for science to catch up in its observation of evidence.  They're clearly missing something.

 

See, this is my issue with science.  Not in the things they claim to know by the unarguable evidence and direct observation (these are the things they generally get right) such as electricity and its effects.  We know there are no 8ft tall quakers on the moon (at least that we can see now) since we've actually been there.  But do we know the sun to be unpopulated?

 

But in the things they claim "can't be" because of lack of evidence the arrogant dismissal of the "impossible" bothers me.  Who knows what "evidence" God has chosen to keep hidden from our observation.  Evidence of people on the Sun.  Evidence that the earth has only been populated by men for 6000 years.  Evidence of a worldwide flood.  Evidence of a mass exodus from Egypt.  To say these things can't be because there's no observable evidence is not proof anymore than to say there is no God because I haven't seen him is proof.

Scientists become like the anti-mormons who find Joseph keeping the plates hidden from the public just a bit too convenient.

 

Now when either God comes to me or I go him I'll be sure to personally ask him how he did it. Until that time you are merely prooftexting.

 

Evidence is ALWAYS arguable. Science is ALWAYS arguing over what is evidence for something and what is against the proposition. Unlike religion where the prooftext is supposed holy writ there is no arbitrary limit on the amount of evidence is needed to settle the argument in science.

 

It isn't the lack of evidence that negates the possibility of life on the sun. It's is the 27,000,000 degrees at its core and the 10,000,000 degrees at its surface that does.

 

It isn't the lack of evidence the possibility for man being only 6000 years old. It is the bones, cities, and paintings that does.

 

No scientist that I know of denies a world wide flood. In fact we confirm it. What we have no evidence for and mountains of evidence against is a world wide flood flood in Noah's time. The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

 

God is not falsifiable by any known Scientific Method. We are free to believe or not believe in God as we choose. I choose to believe.

[thesometimesaint]

OK.  You still are not addressing the point that major scientific theories have more uncertainties and guesswork than "established" facts . . . you can keep arguing and evading all you want . . .

 

A theory is simply the best explanation for a fact that we have at this time. Sure we have people all the time that claim their God did such and such. Ptolemy with his geocentric universe wasn't the first nor will he be the last to make that claim. I'm pretty sure you don't pray to Zeus for the answers on how he did it. The latest incarnation of that belief is Ken Ham and his coconut eating Adam and Eve riding T-Rex.

Edited May 29, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[longview]

The Theory of Evolution is the most successful theory in science.

Says who? Why would you make that kind of statement? If we know that there are boat-loads more questions than there are supposed "facts" ?  And those "facts" are subject to an array of interpretations?

TSS would disagree with you. He would say that electronics and other "hard" sciences have very important applications in our civilization with many wonderful technological benefits. Those things are far more "successful" than the Theory of Evolution.

 

Scientists understand Evolution better than they understand the theory of Gravity. The evidences are powerful.

Theory of Gravity has solid mathematics for describing and predicting trajectories and orbits and relating the mass of attractive bodies. It is more of a "hard" science than Evolution.

All Evolution has is interpretation of fossil layers, different dating methods that are based on several assumptions of conditions in previous ages, and huge amount of speculations. There are also enormous gaps in the evolutionary layers. The geological record is not fully understood. Too many questions.

 

If the Theory of Evolution is wrong, then the theory of the solar system may also be wrong.

I don't think there is a direct dependency between the two theories. There 4 possibilities: both are correct; one or the other are correct (but not both); both are incorrect. Again, I have to say that there is a huge range of possibilities. We are hard pressed to determine what really transpired in various ages. Only the Lord can reveal the complete history to us.

[Rob Osborn]

The Theory of Evolution is the most successful theory in science. Scientists understand Evolution better than they understand the theory of Gravity. The evidences are powerful. 

 

If the Theory of Evolution is wrong, then the theory of the solar system may also be wrong.

What part of the theory are we talking about? You make such a vague blind statement here. For instance- how successful is the theory in it saying that man and ape share a common ancestor? What is it successful about in that? What about the part which says that fish grew limbs and came onto land? What part about that is so successful? And I am not really sure that they really understand it. Take the theory on the evolution of the eye for example- they do not know the direct biologic path that eyes took to where they are now in humans. There are sure tons of opinions and such but there really is no biologic pathway written out, tested and verified. In fact most of these major evolutionary changes are not really seen or even understood. So how is it so successful? Is it so successful just because it gets publishe din everything without any real proof? This is the stuff of science fiction.

[longview]

A theory is simply the best explanation for a fact that we have at this time. Sure we have people all the time that claim their God did such and such. Ptolemy with his geocentric universe wasn't the first nor will he be the last to make that claim. I'm pretty sure you don't pray to Zeus for the answers on how he did it. The latest incarnation of that belief is Ken Ham and his coconut eating Adam and Eve riding T-Rex.

Then you have to agree that each field of inquiry can have several "competing" theories.  For the most part, we simply cannot describe what transpired in previous ages to a "sufficient" degree.  There are too many questions.

 

I remember a PBS show (probably NOVA) where Dr. Leaky stated that Evolution was a "fact".  I knew in my guts that he was propagandizing.  It was an unscientific thing to say when he knew that there are still many questions to address.  As it is, there is far more speculating than there are "hard" sciences.