Popular Post cinepro Posted May 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 1, 2015 Elder Nelson dedicates Life Sciences Building: 'There is no conflict between science and religion' 5
Popular Post jwhitlock Posted May 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 1, 2015 To be accurate, the full quote should be used: "There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both" Oddly, I don't find that particularly ironic. I'm sure, however, that you'll explain it to us. 10
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Actually I am convinced that Cinepro is only here to kick the hornets nest. Sometimes he is entertaining and sometimes not. 4
Popular Post The Nehor Posted May 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 1, 2015 I think In a fight God could take out science. 6
bcuzbcuz Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 To be accurate, the full quote should be used: "There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both" Oddly, I don't find that particularly ironic. I'm sure, however, that you'll explain it to us.I won't hold my breath waiting for an explanation. It's a statement that says absolutely nothing. "Conflict only arises from incomplete knowledge"? That's like a comment on one of my kids report cards. He got an A+ in the subject and the teacher's comment, "He is capable of much better". Incomplete knowledge is a foregone conclusion when dealing with science. And the same holds true for religion.
Duncan Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Actually I am convinced that Cinepro is only here to kick the hornets nest. Sometimes he is entertaining and sometimes not. I like Cinepros posts!!!! 1
Jeanne Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Me too..and you have to admit that sometimes many cannot refute nor actually answer some of his questions..which are good questions. He makes you think..I hope. All of you do.
Popular Post Nevo Posted May 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 1, 2015 I think the irony may have something to with an outspoken anti-evolutionist dedicating a Life Sciences building. 7
Senator Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 To be accurate, the full quote should be used: "There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both" Oddly, I don't find that particularly ironic. I'm sure, however, that you'll explain it to us.Wouldn't it therefore require a complete knowledge of either science or religion, or both, to know that there is a conflict or not? Is Elder Nelson claiming he has such a knowledge? 3
rodheadlee Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Elder Nelson dedicates Life Sciences Building: 'There is no conflict between science and religion'What is ironic is the Big Bang will probably turn out to be a false theory. This theory has the ring of truth. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
JLHPROF Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 I think In a fight God could take out science. That's because God understands Science. Science doesn't understand God.Know thine enemy. :ph34r: 4
jwhitlock Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Wouldn't it therefore require a complete knowledge of either science or religion, or both, to know that there is a conflict or not? Is Elder Nelson claiming he has such a knowledge? No, and no from what I understand. If you believe there is a God and that He is the Creator of this universe, then He would have a full understanding and control of the scientific principles involved. There would be no conflict. I see it as more of a rational deduction by Elder Nelson based on what he knows of God. I would agree with that deduction.
cinepro Posted May 1, 2015 Author Posted May 1, 2015 I think In a fight God could take out science. Well, God would have to show up. 4
cinepro Posted May 1, 2015 Author Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) To be accurate, the full quote should be used: "There is no conflict between science and religion. Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion, or both" Oddly, I don't find that particularly ironic. I'm sure, however, that you'll explain it to us. That brings us to the Fall. Scripture teaches that “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.”7 The Fall of Adam (and Eve) constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies, including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well.8 They were now able to have children. They and their posterity also became subject to injury, disease, and death. And a loving Creator blessed them with healing power by which the life and function of precious physical bodies could be preserved. For example, bones, if broken, could become solid again. Lacerations of the flesh could heal themselves. And miraculously, leaks in the circulation could be sealed off by components activated from the very blood being lost.9 https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/the-atonement?lang=eng If you believe in pre-Adamites, do you believe they did not have blood in their veins, the ability to procreate, or were subject to injury, disease, or death, or to naturally heal scrapes and bruises in the thousands of years leading up to Adam and Eve? (And if you don't believe in pre-Adamites, see OP) Edited May 1, 2015 by cinepro
JLHPROF Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Well, God would have to show up. Patience grasshopper! 1
Popular Post The Nehor Posted May 1, 2015 Popular Post Posted May 1, 2015 Well, God would have to show up. So would the pagan deity or personification of Science. But think how much you could charge on pay-per-view to watch the match. 5
cinepro Posted May 1, 2015 Author Posted May 1, 2015 What is ironic is the Big Bang will probably turn out to be a false theory. This theory has the ring of truth. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html Luckily, astronomy is a physical science, not a life science.
The Nehor Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 What is ironic is the Big Bang will probably turn out to be a false theory. This theory has the ring of truth. http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html This is putting the cart before the horse and whipping the horse so it rams its face into the cart repeatedly. There is a lot of work needed on this theory to make it nearly as explanatory as the Big Bang and to explain things so far the Big Bang is the best explanation for. It could turn out to work but assuming that it will "probably" win out at some point is silly. 2
jwhitlock Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 If you believe in pre-Adamites, do you believe they did not have blood in their veins, the ability to procreate, or were subject to injury, disease, or death, or to naturally heal scrapes and bruises in the thousands of years leading up to Adam and Eve? (And if you don't believe in pre-Adamites, see OP) Circular reasoning. I gather you believe in pre-Adamites (also a matter of faith). If so, do you believe that in our time, science has things nailed down so completely that we cannot doubt the conclusions of scientists? If you do believe that (again, a matter of faith), then consider Elder Nelson's full quote in the context of alchemy, phrenology, and AGW.
Avatar4321 Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 Well, God would have to show up.he already did. He atoned for our sins. And He will be back soon 1
Avatar4321 Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 So would the pagan deity or personification of Science. But think how much you could charge on pay-per-view to watch the match.winner gets the tithe?
omni Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 Circular reasoning. I gather you believe in pre-Adamites (also a matter of faith). If so, do you believe that in our time, science has things nailed down so completely that we cannot doubt the conclusions of scientists? If you do believe that (again, a matter of faith), then consider Elder Nelson's full quote in the context of alchemy, phrenology, and AGW.Isn't that like a smoker saying he doesn't trust his doctor who recommends he quit smoking because doctors used to recommend bloodletting? 1
cinepro Posted May 2, 2015 Author Posted May 2, 2015 he already did. He atoned for our sins. And He will be back soon Unfortunately he showed up about 1700 years before science. Not much of a "fight" until we can get them in the same room. And if you think about it, there are many opportunities to compare the two. God has given his followers the power to heal illnesses. Science has also worked really hard to develop the power to heal illnesses. There are many ways the two different methods could be compared to each other and I suspect the difference in "power" would be obvious. But I also suspect God wouldn't "show up" for the comparison.
cinepro Posted May 2, 2015 Author Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I love this quote from Elder Nelson from a Pew Forum interview: Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It’s interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Why is that? Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works. I would love to start a Kickstarter campaign for a huge sign with that last sentence on it for the entrance of the Life Sciences building at BYU. It would be awesome for all those teachers and students to have to walk by this everyday: "To think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible. Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works. - Elder Russell M. Nelson" Edited May 2, 2015 by cinepro 1
Robert F. Smith Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I think the irony may have something to with an outspoken anti-evolutionist dedicating a Life Sciences building.So, Dr Russell Nelson is an anti-evolutionist? I am ignorant. Could you supply a few quotations to that effect? Thanks.Edited to add: Thanks for that excellent quote, cinepro. Moreover, since the BYU biology faculty is basically evolutionist, is that the source of perceived irony? Edited May 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 2
Recommended Posts