Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Is evolution Compatible with the Bible?

snowflake

By snowflake
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

waveslider Experienced

waveslider

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Please explain what a Scientific Theory is.

For help SEE A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

SEE http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

I understand that:

  • Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  • Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  • Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  • Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

This comes from: https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
 

1
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, waveslider said:

I understand that:

  • Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  • Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  • Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  • Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

This comes from: https://ncse.com/library-resource/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work
 

So evolution is a scientific theory that has been repeatedly tested to incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

1
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Until then we're required to learn everything we can.

I am not debating this (though I might, not sure it is a requirement/commandment though I think it is a natural consequence of life), but am curious what you used to support this idea, so CFR please.

bcuzbcuz Veteran

bcuzbcuz

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not debating this (though I might, not sure it is a requirement/commandment though I think it is a natural consequence of life), but am curious what you used to support this idea, so CFR please.

Although not specifically a requirement/commandment, such as "do this or else", the concept of learning everything we can, while we live, would seem to me to be the absolute minimum needed if one strives toward perfection. Would one consider a being to be  ready for godhood if they didn´t understand basic maths or sciences?

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Although not specifically a requirement/commandment, such as "do this or else", the concept of learning everything we can, while we live, would seem to me to be the absolute minimum needed if one strives toward perfection. Would one consider a being to be  ready for godhood if they didn´t understand basic maths or sciences?

Looks like a commandment to me.

SEE https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.118?lang=eng

JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Until then we're required to learn everything we can. I have lots of questions.

I guess that encyclopedic learning only applies to science, not  the gospel?
Or to all science but only those religious things that are approved for us to learn?

Since you recently said:

On 9/16/2016 at 1:54 PM, thesometimesaint said:
On 9/16/2016 at 1:48 PM, Oliver_Cowdery said:

This post reminds me of Mormons who refuse to read any about religion unless its "church-approved".

Those that do so are not following the prophet.

I wonder if the science we are required to learn everything we can concerning would all be approved by the Church.
 

JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Although not specifically a requirement/commandment, such as "do this or else", the concept of learning everything we can, while we live, would seem to me to be the absolute minimum needed if one strives toward perfection. Would one consider a being to be  ready for godhood if they didn´t understand basic maths or sciences?

I wonder how well Christ understood what we would consider math and science while in mortality.
Now he had full access to any knowledge he needed through revelation and the holy spirit I am sure.  But just how personally educated in what we would consider basic math and science would our Savior have been in mortality?
Or Moses, Noah, Abraham, Peter, Moroni, Joseph Smith...
 

Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I guess that encyclopedic learning only applies to science, not  the gospel?
Or to all science but only those religious things that are approved for us to learn?

Since you recently said:

I wonder if the science we are required to learn everything we can concerning would all be approved by the Church.
 

I think you may have misunderstood or perhaps I did.  I read it as STS saying if one waited to only read what was approved or refused to read about other religions, one wouldn't actually be following the prophet, but instead disobeying him since we have the scriptural instructions to study, etc.

1
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you may have misunderstood or perhaps I did.  I read it as STS saying if one waited to only read what was approved or refused to read about other religions, one wouldn't actually be following the prophet, but instead disobeying him since we have the scriptural instructions to study, etc.

Perhaps.
If I did get his meaning backwards then I apologize to STS.
His statement seemed to say that reading "non-approved" texts is disobeying the prophets. 
If he really meant that those that refuse to read non-approved texts are the ones not following the prophets, then I agree completely.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I guess that encyclopedic learning only applies to science, not  the gospel?
Or to all science but only those religious things that are approved for us to learn?


 

I never limited learning to just science.

How can we become like God if we don't know everything he knows?

SEE https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/education-is-a-commandment?lang=eng

Edited by thesometimesaint
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps.
If I did get his meaning backwards then I apologize to STS.
His statement seemed to say that reading "non-approved" texts is disobeying the prophets. 
If he really meant that those that refuse to read non-approved texts are the ones not following the prophets, then I agree completely.

I would not say that either. The list of "non-approved books" is very long. IE; A long time ago I read "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie. I found it dishonest and factually incorrect. We really do need to know the arguments of our critics in order to dispel them. But then so did Hugh Nibley. Do you really believe that God doesn't know about such things?

bcuzbcuz Veteran

bcuzbcuz

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I wonder how well Christ understood what we would consider math and science while in mortality.
Now he had full access to any knowledge he needed through revelation and the holy spirit I am sure.  But just how personally educated in what we would consider basic math and science would our Savior have been in mortality?
Or Moses, Noah, Abraham, Peter, Moroni, Joseph Smith...
 

But if someone asks a question sincerely in prayer and the answer is: "I don´t know. I haven´t a clue. That was my worst subject in school.", does that fit to the idea of a God who is all-seeing, all-knowing?

waveslider Experienced

waveslider

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But if someone asks a question sincerely in prayer and the answer is: "I don´t know. I haven´t a clue. That was my worst subject in school.", does that fit to the idea of a God who is all-seeing, all-knowing?

Every sincere question I have ever asked in prayer never had that kind of answer. I have had answers that told me that I don't need to know the answer to that particular question, but that someday when I was ready, I would eventually learn that answer. Do you know of anyone receiving the type of answer that you proposed, that God doesn't know? I have never heard of such a thing.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, waveslider said:

Every sincere question I have ever asked in prayer never had that kind of answer. I have had answers that told me that I don't need to know the answer to that particular question, but that someday when I was ready, I would eventually learn that answer. Do you know of anyone receiving the type of answer that you proposed, that God doesn't know? I have never heard of such a thing.

A lot of the time God tells me to figure it out in my own mind then ask him.

1
Bobbieaware Grand Master

Bobbieaware

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

But if someone asks a question sincerely in prayer and the answer is: "I don´t know. I haven´t a clue. That was my worst subject in school.", does that fit to the idea of a God who is all-seeing, all-knowing?

The Lord often says he's not going to answer our  questions until we're ready. I believe there is not a single instance when he said, "I don't know."

mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2016 at 9:41 AM, Larry Cotrell said:

Evidence that God created the Earth:

1)Everything that begins to exist has a cause

2)The universe began to exist

3) Therefore, The universe has a cause

*It cannot cause itself because it would have had to already exist to cause itself. Because of this, it had to have been an eternal supernatural being.

Refuted by Hume 300 years ago

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Cau

1
mfbukowski Grand Master

mfbukowski

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2016 at 9:08 PM, maklelan said:

The Bible isn't compatible with the Bible. Evolution is a fact. That it is considered questionable at all in this day and age is one of the most damning indictments of religious ideology I could ever imagine. It would be utterly laughable if it weren't so absolutely horrifying that it is actually taken seriously by people in positions of power in our country and even in our church community. 

There are no facts, only interpretations, but yeah, I agree on the rest. Hermeneutics, Gadamer and all..... ;)

bcuzbcuz Veteran

bcuzbcuz

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 18 September 2016 at 6:12 AM, waveslider said:

Actually Evolution is a theory.

That you say the above indicates that you have no real grasp of what the word "theory" (in its scientific usage) means. Quoting an explanation doesn´t mean that someone understands. The mis-concept that "evolution is ´just a theory" has been spread by creationists, ID´ers, and young earthers. Those of them who have had the actual explanation given to them and that persist in using the idea that "it´s just a theory" are guilty of misleading and lying. 

Edited by bcuzbcuz
waveslider Experienced

waveslider

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

That you say the above indicates that you have no real grasp of what the word "theory" (in its scientific usage) means. Quoting an explanation doesn´t mean that someone understands. The mis-concept that "evolution is ´just a theory" has been spread by creationists, ID´ers, and young earthers. Those of them who have had the actual explanation given to them and that persist in using the idea that "it´s just a theory" are guilty of misleading and lying. 

Where did I use the word, "Just," when I stated:

9 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Actually Evolution is a theory.

?

bcuzbcuz Veteran

bcuzbcuz

Posted
Posted
On 16 September 2016 at 9:17 PM, waveslider said:

They can't fly, but they can appear on other islands that they are more than capable of swimming to. I'm quite certain that primitive people may have assumed they flew there if they didn't see them swim there. Also if a primitive person were ever bit by one, I'm quite certain that it would seem like there were some magical properties in it's breath that cause such severe burning sensations as the wound festers and causes an extremely high temperature as the body goes septic. Just a few thoughts anyway. I'm not saying they were certainly what is meant by dragons in the bible and other ancient writings and depictions, only that it is possible that these creatures may have existed outside of the island of Komodo at some earlier period, before they were killed off since there were no taboos, as are found on Komodo, against killing them.

P.S. As a side note, I find the images, I saw of that gate, in the link from another poster, uncannily similar to Komodo Dragons, except that the legs seemed a bit longer.

I´ve seen all the images from the gates and the alley, walkway with the absolutely marvelous depictions of lions, warriors and mystical creatures. All are found in the Pergammon museum in Berlin Germany.

In the 1800´s the Germans cut out entire sections of the ceramic tiles from the buried finds from the ancient Babylonia.

The lions and warriors are superb in their detail. The musculatures of the lions, their gait, the form of their heads and mouths, the warriors build and even the wave of the curls in their beards and hairdos. But the mystical monsters, as you pointed out, don´t quite look life like. The warriors and lions could stand model for the sculptures, the mythical creatures were and are, creatures of imagination. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...