Book Of Mormon Problems?

[MormonFreeThinker]

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.

 

Successful because there are more evidences that confirm the Theory of Evolution than any other theory. It is true that some things are not yet understood, but it doesn't mean they will never be understood. The gaps are getting smaller, but even if they are never be fully solved, it does't mean the theory is false, we can say that God intervened. 

 

Dr. John S. Lewis appears in LDS.org video 

https://www.lds.org/pages/we-lived-with-god?lang=eng

 

Dr. John S. Lewis said that the assertion that there was no death before the fall "is simply in conflict with all observational evidence" See 26:50

Edited May 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[longview]

Successful because there are more evidences that confirm the Theory of Evolution than any other theory. It is true that some things are not yet understood, but it doesn't mean they will never be understood. The gaps are getting smaller, but even if they are never be fully solved, it does't mean the theory is false, we can say that God intervened.

"Successful" is such a subjective term. There can be multiple theories. They conflict with other in varying degrees. "Data" and "facts" are subject to many possible interpretations. At this point we cannot say any theory is true or false. There is still a huge amount of speculating. There is no "smoking gun" in Evolution. We can only expect to come up with more and more questions.

 

Dr. John S. Lewis said that the assertion that there was no death before the fall "is simply in conflict with all observational evidence" . . .

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that we do not know if earth and sun were formed out of the gaseous clouds or if earth was cobbled together with fragments from dead, used up planets. There is a whole array of events that could have occurred that allow for earth to be put together and placed into a Terrestrial state (meaning no death for any creatures, just a quickening to another sphere after a certain period of time). That creative period would entail an earth not subject to death before the "Fall" even though there were layers of fossils from previous planets. We simply do not have enough information to prove anything. "All observational evidence" are still subject to a range of interpretations, allowing for multiple competing theories.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 That creative period would entail an earth not subject to death before the "Fall" even though there were layers of fossils from previous planets. We simply do not have enough information to prove anything. "All observational evidence" are still subject to a range of interpretations, allowing for multiple competing theories.

 

Henry Eyring wrote, "the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds" 

From Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983), 53-62.

 

Elder Talmage wrote, "These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (“The Earth and Man.”)"  See https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

""Data" and "facts" are subject to many possible interpretations. At this point we cannot say any theory is true or false. There is still a huge amount of speculating. There is no "smoking gun" in Evolution."

 

There is no "smoking gun" for theory of plate tectonics, or even for the theory of the Solar System. There are "smoking guns" for the theory of Evolution, for example  

 

 

But Evangelicals know how to twist the evidence.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

Edited May 30, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tacenda]

Successful because there are more evidences that confirm the Theory of Evolution than any other theory. It is true that some things are not yet understood, but it doesn't mean they will never be understood. The gaps are getting smaller, but even if they are never be fully solved, it does't mean the theory is false, we can say that God intervened. 

 

Dr. John S. Lewis appears in LDS.org video 

https://www.lds.org/pages/we-lived-with-god?lang=eng

 

Dr. John S. Lewis said that the assertion that there was no death before the fall "is simply in conflict with all observational evidence" See 26:50

I bolded the statement above.  So God only intervened?  This evolution happened and then created a God rather than God create it?  I've got to get my head around that, in my thinking it was the other way around. But that is a sticky situation also, so tough now to have to come to terms with science and embrace it rather than look the other way.  I can see how atheism can become rampant from it. 

Edited May 30, 2014 by Tacenda

[longview]

Henry Eyring wrote, "the orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds" 

From Henry Eyring, Reflections of a Scientist, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983), 53-62.

 

Elder Talmage wrote, "These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (“The Earth and Man.”)"  See https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

Interesting statements for sure. But NOT necessarily representative of church teachings or the final word. There are plenty of knowledgeable LDS church members who have well considered opinions. But they are just that, opinions.

 

""Data" and "facts" are subject to many possible interpretations. At this point we cannot say any theory is true or false. There is still a huge amount of speculating. There is no "smoking gun" in Evolution."

 

There is no "smoking gun" for theory of plate tectonics, or even for the theory of the Solar System. There are "smoking guns" for the theory of Evolution, for example

DNA research is still in its infancy. I remember years ago that people were saying the DNA match between apes and man was something like 98%. Then we find out recently that only one chromosome was being compared. Which dropped the percentage considerably. There will always be ever more questions to be asked. There is NO "smoking gun" in Evolution. Only massive speculation and interpretations.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Interesting statements for sure. But NOT necessarily representative of church teachings or the final word. There are plenty of knowledgeable LDS church members who have well considered opinions. But they are just that, opinions.

 

 

I agree that there are a lot of intelligent LDS members that don't believe in Evolution, but there is probably no LDS that has a PhD in Genetics, Paleontology, or Biology that doesn't believe in Evolution. Virtually all LDS PhD Paleontologists, Geneticists, and Biologists believe that Evolution is a fact. Can you name me one that doesn't?

 

"There is NO "smoking gun" in Evolution. Only massive speculation and interpretations"

That is what Evangelicals think.

If there was no "smoking gun" then no LDS scientist would believe in Evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It is never a good idea to put words in other peoples mouths. The Theory of Evolution is the underpinning of all our understandings of Biology. Just as the Germ Theory is the underpinning of Disease, Atomic Theory for the Atom, Etc., Etc., Etc..

 

The Theory of Gravity does not accurately describe the stable orbits of the planets. Newton himself recognized the inherent instability over time. Newton had to appeal to God as the answer. LaPlace over 100 years later developed Perturbation Theory that does accurately describe the stability of planet orbits over time. LaPace has no need for the hypothesis of God doing it.

 

The Theory of Evolution is not based on fossils layers, various dating techniques, or even speculations. It is based on the fact of Descent with Modification. That in multicellular organisms offspring tend to look slightly different than their parents. That is it. Fossil layers, various dating techniques, logical conclusions. etc., etc., etc., are merely the proofs for the evidence.

 

There is nothing easy about science. It requires "hard" work to make sure that it works as projected. Which it fails at some 99.999% of the time. Was the discovery of DNA some how easier than looking through a telescope and seeing spots on the sun? If it was why did it take so long after discovery of sun spots to discover DNA. The basic principle of ALL Science is to do the easy stuff first. So you don't keep re-inventing the wheel.

 

The God of the Gaps argument is a logical fallacy. God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Plus while of necessity there will always be gaps in any record. The gaps in the records of Evolution are not enormous, and are getting smaller every day.

[Rob Osborn]

It is never a good idea to put words in other peoples mouths. The Theory of Evolution is the underpinning of all our understandings of Biology. Just as the Germ Theory is the underpinning of Disease, Atomic Theory for the Atom, Etc., Etc., Etc..

 

The Theory of Gravity does not accurately describe the stable orbits of the planets. Newton himself recognized the inherent instability over time. Newton had to appeal to God as the answer. LaPlace over 100 years later developed Perturbation Theory that does accurately describe the stability of planet orbits over time. LaPace has no need for the hypothesis of God doing it.

 

The Theory of Evolution is not based on fossils layers, various dating techniques, or even speculations. It is based on the fact of Descent with Modification. That in multicellular organisms offspring tend to look slightly different than their parents. That is it. Fossil layers, various dating techniques, logical conclusions. etc., etc., etc., are merely the proofs for the evidence.

 

There is nothing easy about science. It requires "hard" work to make sure that it works as projected. Which it fails at some 99.999% of the time. Was the discovery of DNA some how easier than looking through a telescope and seeing spots on the sun? If it was why did it take so long after discovery of sun spots to discover DNA. The basic principle of ALL Science is to do the easy stuff first. So you don't keep re-inventing the wheel.

 

The God of the Gaps argument is a logical fallacy. God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Plus while of necessity there will always be gaps in any record. The gaps in the records of Evolution are not enormous, and are getting smaller every day.

The gaps in the records of evolution only get smaller every day because their imaginations get bigger. You keep saying this whole "god ogf the gaps" argument but I don't have any god of the gaps things. So you are generally giving out false information. God of the gaps only works when one believes in an atheist system- then there must be a god of the gaps to discredit others. LDS theology requires there to be A God in order for there to be life. LDS theology does not posit that life is the result of chance happenings in nature. AS Latter day Saints of Jesus Christ we know that Jesus is the Creator- the intelligent designer, and that there would have been no life whatsoever without his very actions. The only gaps here to be filled is where and how God did his actions of the which we do know or believe actually happened. When you say "god of the gaps" you are either arguing an atheists position or you are ignorant of your own God in the creation.

[Rob Osborn]

I agree that there are a lot of intelligent LDS members that don't believe in Evolution, but there is probably no LDS that has a PhD in Genetics, Paleontology, or Biology that doesn't believe in Evolution. Virtually all LDS PhD Paleontologists, Geneticists, and Biologists believe that Evolution is a fact. Can you name me one that doesn't?

 

"There is NO "smoking gun" in Evolution. Only massive speculation and interpretations"

That is what Evangelicals think.

If there was no "smoking gun" then no LDS scientist would believe in Evolution.

CFR on your statement please. Of LDS people you list, how many of them believe that Adam was the process of animal evolution preceding him?

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

I don't see why the temperature prevents the sun being popluated by resurrected beings (eternal burnings and all that) as speculated by some early leaders.  It's not like we can go there and check, or even see resurrected beings without removing the veil.

 

 

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?

 

Forget evolution.  The one scientific teaching that I think should be revisited is their ability to measure time/age.

There was once a theory in Mormonism that the Earth fell from near Kolob slowly until it became completely fallen/mortal at the time of the flood (hence baptism) and as it fell the ages of men and our measuring of time changed.  Men no longer lived to be near 1000 years old, and what was only a day in the orbit of Kolob would take 1000 years in our current state.

 

If I understand correctly scientists measure the ages of cities, artifacts, geological formations, and all their other observable evidences based on the decay of certain isotopes (used to be Carbon 14, something else now I think).

The information they assume (and may not have the ability to observe) is that the decay rate of these particles has been the unchanging and the same since the earth was formed.

 

If fallen man lives to 100 years old but less fallen man can live to nearer 1000 something not observed in the rate of decay of all mortal elements could easily affect the organic particles used to measure age.  We are in a more rapid state of decay than prior to the flood after all.  What seems now to be the result of millions of years of decay could have taken far less time than we believe which would throw many scientific theories into doubt.

 

Maybe I misunderstand the exact methodology used to date things, but I understand the scriptures that tell me that measurement of time and rate of mortal elements aging have changed since the creation, fall and flood.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't see why the temperature prevents the sun being popluated by resurrected beings (eternal burnings and all that) as speculated by some early leaders.  It's not like we can go there and check, or even see resurrected beings without removing the veil.

 

 

Forget evolution.  The one scientific teaching that I think should be revisited is their ability to measure time/age.

There was once a theory in Mormonism that the Earth fell from near Kolob slowly until it became completely fallen/mortal at the time of the flood (hence baptism) and as it fell the ages of men and our measuring of time changed.  Men no longer lived to be near 1000 years old, and what was only a day in the orbit of Kolob would take 1000 years in our current state.

 

If I understand correctly scientists measure the ages of cities, artifacts, geological formations, and all their other observable evidences based on the decay of certain isotopes (used to be Carbon 14, something else now I think).

The information they assume (and may not have the ability to observe) is that the decay rate of these particles has been the unchanging and the same since the earth was formed.

 

If fallen man lives to 100 years old but less fallen man can live to nearer 1000 something not observed in the rate of decay of all mortal elements could easily affect the organic particles used to measure age.  We are in a more rapid state of decay than prior to the flood after all.  What seems now to be the result of millions of years of decay could have taken far less time than we believe which would throw many scientific theories into doubt.

 

Maybe I misunderstand the exact methodology used to date things, but I understand the scriptures that tell me that measurement of time and rate of mortal elements aging have changed since the creation, fall and flood.

 

 

You don't really expect them to believe that just a few thousand years ago man lived to be almost a 1,000 years old do you? If they even hinted at believing it they would have to dismiss pretty much all aspects of modern scientific thought, heaven forbid!.

[thesometimesaint]

The gaps in the records of evolution only get smaller every day because their imaginations get bigger. You keep saying this whole "god ogf the gaps" argument but I don't have any god of the gaps things. So you are generally giving out false information. God of the gaps only works when one believes in an atheist system- then there must be a god of the gaps to discredit others. LDS theology requires there to be A God in order for there to be life. LDS theology does not posit that life is the result of chance happenings in nature. AS Latter day Saints of Jesus Christ we know that Jesus is the Creator- the intelligent designer, and that there would have been no life whatsoever without his very actions. The only gaps here to be filled is where and how God did his actions of the which we do know or believe actually happened. When you say "god of the gaps" you are either arguing an atheists position or you are ignorant of your own God in the creation.

 

Because you don't have the imagination to "see" an idea. Doesn't blind the rest of us.

 

Yes you do. You put God in any place you see necessary to uphold your teleological expectations.

 

I give out correct information. It just doesn't fit your use of Bibliolatry for explanations.

 

The God of the Gaps is a theological argument developed largely by theologians to demonstrate the illogic of teleological arguments.

 

I have no problems with LDS Theology. What I have repeatedly said is that any appeal to any Prophet, Pope, Archbishop, Minister, Priest, Monk, Shaman, Divine Being, Holy Writ, Giant Spaghetti Monster, Little Green Men from Mars, and/or the like, is not science. That as not only a LDS and as a scientist I am comfortable in both worlds.

 

How many times does it take to get through your Bibliolatry filled head that Evolution is not chance? In fact it is just the opposite. Whether it is human involved selective breeding(whom we marry ) or the unknown reasons why a certain Peahen selects a certain Peacock to breed with. It is all Evolution and not chance.

 

That God was involved in the creation of the first life, or any other subsequent event is a non-falsifiable claim.

 

The God of the Gaps is a theological argument developed largely by theologians to demonstrate the illogic of teleological arguments.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

Edited May 30, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see why the temperature prevents the sun being popluated by resurrected beings (eternal burnings and all that) as speculated by some early leaders.  It's not like we can go there and check, or even see resurrected beings without removing the veil.

 

 

Forget evolution.  The one scientific teaching that I think should be revisited is their ability to measure time/age.

There was once a theory in Mormonism that the Earth fell from near Kolob slowly until it became completely fallen/mortal at the time of the flood (hence baptism) and as it fell the ages of men and our measuring of time changed.  Men no longer lived to be near 1000 years old, and what was only a day in the orbit of Kolob would take 1000 years in our current state.

 

If I understand correctly scientists measure the ages of cities, artifacts, geological formations, and all their other observable evidences based on the decay of certain isotopes (used to be Carbon 14, something else now I think).

The information they assume (and may not have the ability to observe) is that the decay rate of these particles has been the unchanging and the same since the earth was formed.

 

If fallen man lives to 100 years old but less fallen man can live to nearer 1000 something not observed in the rate of decay of all mortal elements could easily affect the organic particles used to measure age.  We are in a more rapid state of decay than prior to the flood after all.  What seems now to be the result of millions of years of decay could have taken far less time than we believe which would throw many scientific theories into doubt.

 

Maybe I misunderstand the exact methodology used to date things, but I understand the scriptures that tell me that measurement of time and rate of mortal elements aging have changed since the creation, fall and flood.

 

God is omnipotent, at least in LDS Theology he follows his rules. Therefore if he follows his own rules life on the sun is impossible. Essentially yours is a teleological argument and is non-falsifiable.

 

God is omnipotent, at least in LDS Theology he follows his rules. Essentially that is a teleological argument and is non-falsifiable.

 

C-14 dating has been established as accurate(within known tolerances) of very close to 40,000 years. For it to be at least 4 fold off would make it so inaccurate as to make it useless for any dating purpose, and would have been abandoned many many moons ago. Scientists aren't known for deliberately using stuff that doesn't work. Here is a list of radioactive decay methods used in dating.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

• Uranium-lead dating method
• Samarium-neodymium dating method
• Potassium-argon dating method
• Rubidium-strontium dating method
• Uranium-thorium dating method
•  Radiocarbon dating method
• Fission track dating method
• Chlorine-36 dating method
• Luminescence dating methods

 

That is a Non Sequitur. IE; If "A" is true. Then "Z" must be also true.

 

That is a Non Sequitur. IE; If "A" is true. Then "Z" must be also true.

[JLHPROF]

 

C-14 dating has been established as accurate(within known tolerances) of very close to 40,000 years. For it to be at least 4 fold off would make it so inaccurate as to make it useless for any dating purpose, and would have been abandoned many many moons ago. Scientists aren't known for deliberately using stuff that doesn't work. Here is a list of radioactive decay methods used in dating.

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

 

Again, how do they know?  Since they discovered the principle of decay rate of C-14, an organic material, the rate has been unchanged.

But was anyone checking it, oh, say 6000 years ago when the earth was a little less fallen into decay and death?

I 100% believe that:

 

An organism acquires carbon during its lifetime. Plants acquire it through photosynthesis, and animals acquire it from consumption of plants and other animals. When an organism dies, it ceases to take in new carbon-14, and the existing isotope decays with a characteristic half-life (5730 years).

 

This could certainly be used to measure age today.  But it is the claim of science that this rate of decay has never changed.  I think it could very well have changed when the fall occurred.  We decay more rapidly, why wouldn't C-14, an organic isotope?

 

Is that scientific proof?  Of course not.  But don't tell me that something happened 6000 years ago the same way it happens today when conditions were recorded as being different and nobody was around to observe them.

[thesometimesaint]

Again, how do they know?  Since they discovered the principle of decay rate of C-14, an organic material, the rate has been unchanged.

But was anyone checking it, oh, say 6000 years ago when the earth was a little less fallen into decay and death?

I 100% believe that:

 

This could certainly be used to measure age today.  But it is the claim of science that this rate of decay has never changed.  I think it could very well have changed when the fall occurred.  We decay more rapidly, why wouldn't C-14, an organic isotope?

 

Is that scientific proof?  Of course not.  But don't tell me that something happened 6000 years ago the same way it happens today when conditions were recorded as being different and nobody was around to observe them.

 

Without really getting deep into the science of radioactive decay. We do know that it exists Madam Curie among others established that fact about 100 years ago.

All we do is measure the rate of decay(Half Life) and compare it to the original sample. That gives its age. The rest is just bookkeeping. With C-14, it is generated in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays on Nitrogen. Only living things are known to take up any form of Carbon. Once dead it is highly unlikely that they can take up any more carbon. Repeat the same process as with other radioactive elements. The rest is just bookkeeping. BTW Bookkeeping is what scientists are trained to be very good at.

 

Decay and death are part of our natural universe. What God does is part of our supernatural experience of this universe. So if God caused radioactive elements to change to axeheads that float or to see the whole globe at once from a tall mountain just outside of the walls of Jerusalem is not the realm of science. For right now the two are not reconcilable, but I have faith that someday they will be. I have made the mental accommodation that science tells me the how God did it, and my religion tells me why he did it.

 

There are always relatively minor changes in our environment. We are evolved enough that the minor changes don't cause us to die. Biologically speaking we savannah apes and don't survive well in hot or cold without protective clothing and/or shelter. A large part of our bodies energy is spent just keeping it warm enough to keep our brain alive. Big sudden environmental changes and even small changes accumulated over time do kill us.

 

No one has to be "around" for an event to happen. IE; We do know that trees don't normally grow horizontal to the ground. If a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it. Did it fall?

[longview]

It is never a good idea to put words in other peoples mouths.

You and I had a discussion earlier in the thread comparing "hard" science with speculative theories. If you totally deny that, then I'll apologize and take you off the hook. But my point still stands.

 

The Theory of Evolution is the underpinning of all our understandings of Biology. Just as the Germ Theory is the underpinning of Disease, Atomic Theory for the Atom, Etc., Etc., Etc..

This is a distubingly absolutist statement. Surely many discoveries in Biology were made thru the centuries without reference to Evolution.

 

The Theory of Gravity does not accurately describe the stable orbits of the planets. Newton himself recognized the inherent instability over time. Newton had to appeal to God as the answer. LaPlace over 100 years later developed Perturbation Theory that does accurately describe the stability of planet orbits over time. LaPace has no need for the hypothesis of God doing it.

A lot of hot air here.

 

The Theory of Evolution is not based on fossils layers, various dating techniques, or even speculations. It is based on the fact of Descent with Modification. That in multicellular organisms offspring tend to look slightly different than their parents. That is it. Fossil layers, various dating techniques, logical conclusions. etc., etc., etc., are merely the proofs for the evidence.

Do you have one verified example of macro evolution where it shows unambiguously the rise of new species thru the successive layers?

 

There is nothing easy about science. It requires "hard" work to make sure that it works as projected. Which it fails at some 99.999% of the time. Was the discovery of DNA some how easier than looking through a telescope and seeing spots on the sun? If it was why did it take so long after discovery of sun spots to discover DNA. The basic principle of ALL Science is to do the easy stuff first. So you don't keep re-inventing the wheel.

Another absolutist statement. Surely there are some science that are easy. Like in Elementary School?

[JLHPROF]

Without really getting deep into the science of radioactive decay. We do know that it exists Madam Curie among others established that fact about 100 years ago.

All we do is measure the rate of decay(Half Life) and compare it to the original sample. That gives its age. The rest is just bookkeeping. With C-14, it is generated in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays on Nitrogen. Only living things are known to take up any form of Carbon. Once dead it is highly unlikely that they can take up any more carbon. Repeat the same process as with other radioactive elements. The rest is just bookkeeping. BTW Bookkeeping is what scientists are trained to be very good at.

 

Oh I agree with this.  But once again, you assume that the half-life/radioactive decay of C-14 is the same now as it was 6000 years ago when the earth was not fallen and mortal.

 

If Madam Curie looked at something 100 years ago and you looked at it today I have no doubt the decay rate would make the item 100 years old.  You then take that rate and work backwards and apply it backwards.  It is pure assumption to assume that because the current half life of C-14 is 5730 years that these organic isotopes decayed at that same rate at the time of the fall.  It is not provable.

 

But when the earth was more perfect, more pure, less fallen, the decay rate of C-14 may not have been a 5730 year half-life.

Just as our organic flesh today cannot sustain life much beyond 100 years due to its fallen state, so C-14 decays at the rate it does today.

But 6000 years ago when the patriarchs lived to be 900 years perhaps C-14 also took longer to decay being that the earths elements were likewise purer.

[Rob Osborn]

Because you don't have the imagination to "see" an idea. Doesn't blind the rest of us.

 

Yes you do. You put God in any place you see necessary to uphold your teleological expectations.

 

I give out correct information. It just doesn't fit your use of Bibliolatry for explanations.

 

The God of the Gaps is a theological argument developed largely by theologians to demonstrate the illogic of teleological arguments.

 

I have no problems with LDS Theology. What I have repeatedly said is that any appeal to any Prophet, Pope, Archbishop, Minister, Priest, Monk, gShaman, Divine Being, Holy Writ, Giant Spaghetti Monster, Little Green Men from Mars, and/or the like, is not science. That as not only a LDS and as a scientist I am comfortable in both worlds.

 

How many times does it take to get through your Bibliolatry filled head that Evolution is not chance? In fact it is just the opposite. Whether it is human involved selective breeding(whom we marry ) or the unknown reasons why a certain Peahen selects a certain Peacock to breed with. It is all Evolution and not chance.

 

That God was involved in the creation of the first life, or any other subsequent event is a non-falsifiable claim.

 

The God of the Gaps is a theological argument developed largely by theologians to demonstrate the illogic of teleological arguments.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument

You think science has to be godless. In our religion we believe that God is "required" for life to exist here on this earth. We also believe that this earth exists because of the actions of a designer- God in this case. These are not appeals to magic or something to explain something. Without a belief in God here nothing in nature adds up for why life exists here on this planet. We may not know exactly how God did it, all we know is that it required his knowledge to do it. As LDS we are supposed to embrace the belief in the Creator and as such we must include him in discussion as to why life is here. Appealing to naturalism is not the key- it will never answer the question of who we are, why life is here, and what will become of us. Science should embrace truth. The truth is that there is an intelligent designer and as LDS, that designer is God and his Son Jesus Christ. Beyond this, we too are gods in embryo and will in like fashion become gods and Creators of life in the universe also. Science is on a course to meet these truths. The only question is- when will we open our eyes to see this reality and include God in the very science that he works and glorifies all of his creations with?

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Do you have one verified example of macro evolution where it shows unambiguously the rise of new species thru the successive layers?

 

 

Are you expecting a crocoduck? If you are, you don't understand Evolution. 

 

Virtually all LDS that have a PhD in Biology, Genetics, or Paleontology believe that Evolution is a fact.

The reason for that is because the evidence is very strong.

 

Can you name a PhD LDS Biologist, LDS Geneticist, or LDS Paleontologist that doesn't believe in Evolution? 

[longview]

Are you expecting a crocoduck? If you are, you don't understand Evolution. 

 

Virtually all LDS that have a PhD in Biology, Genetics, or Paleontology believe that Evolution is a fact.

The reason for that is because the evidence is very strong.

 

Can you name a PhD LDS Biologist, LDS Geneticist, or LDS Paleontologist that doesn't believe in Evolution? 

Your statements are irrational.  I not interested in argument.  You appear to be changing the subject.  Are you or anyone able to shed some light on this question:  "Do you have one verified example of macro evolution where it shows unambiguously the rise of new species thru the successive layers?"

[thesometimesaint]

"Successful" is such a subjective term. There can be multiple theories. They conflict with other in varying degrees. "Data" and "facts" are subject to many possible interpretations. At this point we cannot say any theory is true or false. There is still a huge amount of speculating. There is no "smoking gun" in Evolution. We can only expect to come up with more and more questions.

 

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that we do not know if earth and sun were formed out of the gaseous clouds or if earth was cobbled together with fragments from dead, used up planets. There is a whole array of events that could have occurred that allow for earth to be put together and placed into a Terrestrial state (meaning no death for any creatures, just a quickening to another sphere after a certain period of time). That creative period would entail an earth not subject to death before the "Fall" even though there were layers of fossils from previous planets. We simply do not have enough information to prove anything. "All observational evidence" are still subject to a range of interpretations, allowing for multiple competing theories.

 

Successful in science means it works. A theory is simply the best explanation for a given observation. Facts(data) are not open to interpretation they are just facts.

IE; We make the observation that things tend to fall down. That is the fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of Gravity. Repeat after me a theory is simply the best explanation for a given observation. The "Smoking Gun" in Evolution is that you don't look exactly like your parents.

 

Our planet was formed from long ago exploded stars. That dust slowly formed an accretion disk that through gravity formed not only our planet, but our sun and the other 7 planets in our solar system. The very Iron in your blood was formed when long ago stars exploded sending their remains, elements heavier than Helium, into space. You and I literally are made of star stuff. Whether God or natural forces caused that accretion disk to coalesce is a subject for religion.

[thesometimesaint]

You and I had a discussion earlier in the thread comparing "hard" science with speculative theories. If you totally deny that, then I'll apologize and take you off the hook. But my point still stands.

 

This is a distubingly absolutist statement. Surely many discoveries in Biology were made thru the centuries without reference to Evolution.

 

A lot of hot air here.

 

Do you have one verified example of macro evolution where it shows unambiguously the rise of new species thru the successive layers?

 

Another absolutist statement. Surely there are some science that are easy. Like in Elementary School?

 

Theories are simply the best explanation for the observation. By definition it is always tentative; subject to change. IE; The Ptolemaic Theory(Model) for orbits of the wandering stars(planets) was a geocentric universe. That theory held sway for 1600 years to be replace with the more accurate Heliocentric Model. The motion of planets didn't change, just our explanation for it. There is no such thing as "hard" science in the sense you are using it. There are simply facts(observations) and our explanations for those observations.

 

That has absolutely no relevance. IE; We know about lightning long before we had an accurate explanation for it. And it wasn't the Greek God Zeus throwing lightning bolts at us that were made by the Greek God Mars.

 

Newton was not able to explain the stable orbits of planets in our solar system. He had to appeal to his God as doing it. BTW There is no air in space hot or cold.

 

I have a lot more than one.

 

Science is not easy. Science presented at the elementary school level is easy to someone that understands it a High School level. Which is easy for someone that understands it at the University level. That is easy for someone to understand at the professional scientist level. It is the professional scientists that know what they are talking about, and present their ideas to Peer Review for critique and/or substantiation.

[thesometimesaint]

Your statements are irrational.  I not interested in argument.  You appear to be changing the subject.  Are you or anyone able to shed some light on this question:  "Do you have one verified example of macro evolution where it shows unambiguously the rise of new species thru the successive layers?"

 

Here is a Crockaduck.And No! No scientist has ever looked for it.

 

Here is the science against a Crockaduck

[thesometimesaint]

You think science has to be godless. In our religion we believe that God is "required" for life to exist here on this earth. We also believe that this earth exists because of the actions of a designer- God in this case. These are not appeals to magic or something to explain something. Without a belief in God here nothing in nature adds up for why life exists here on this planet. We may not know exactly how God did it, all we know is that it required his knowledge to do it. As LDS we are supposed to embrace the belief in the Creator and as such we must include him in discussion as to why life is here. Appealing to naturalism is not the key- it will never answer the question of who we are, why life is here, and what will become of us. Science should embrace truth. The truth is that there is an intelligent designer and as LDS, that designer is God and his Son Jesus Christ. Beyond this, we too are gods in embryo and will in like fashion become gods and Creators of life in the universe also. Science is on a course to meet these truths. The only question is- when will we open our eyes to see this reality and include God in the very science that he works and glorifies all of his creations with?

 

Science is Agnostic when it concerns God. Science is not dependent on God. Whether Zeus, El, Yahway, a Cosmic Egg, Gods, Demigods, Devils, Angels, Giant Invisible Spaghetti Monsters, or what have you, did it. It is not a concern of science.

 

Appeals to God are by definition appeal to the Supernatural, and outside the realm of science. I've shown it to you in the dictionary.

 

I am a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So quit telling me what I am "supposed" to believe.

 

I fully expect that some day Science and Religion will reconcile. However that day isn't likely to be today. 5/31/2014.

[Rob Osborn]

Science is Agnostic when it concerns God. Science is not dependent on God. Whether Zeus, El, Yahway, a Cosmic Egg, Gods, Demigods, Devils, Angels, Giant Invisible Spaghetti Monsters, or what have you, did it. It is not a concern of science.

 

Appeals to God are by definition appeal to the Supernatural, and outside the realm of science. I've shown it to you in the dictionary.

 

I am a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So quit telling me what I am "supposed" to believe.

 

I fully expect that some day Science and Religion will reconcile. However that day isn't likely to be today. 5/31/2014.

The evidence clearly points to our existence being the cause of an intelligent design. This is not an appeal to the supernatural, its called drawing the logical conclusion.