Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I think it depends on your faith. A dyed in the wool Babylonian pagan might find scientific evidence suggesting that the heavens and the earth are not made of the corpse of the giant sea dragon Tiamat to be a threat to their faith. Yes, but thankfully a small cohort of brave Babylonian pagan scientists is fighting against the scientific conspiracy to undermine the giant sea dragon Tiamat hypothesis. Fake science says the earth is made iron, nickle, and other non-formerly living elements. Those failed scientists will be overturned! Bad (or sick) guys! Sad.
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, strappinglad said: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mind-and-cosmos-9780199919758?cc=us&lang=en T. Nagel, has a couple of things to say about all that incontrovertible evidence. I didn't mention anything specific. But already Dr. Nagel has a response?
Alan Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: .......The other comes through the experimental and logical methods of science, which must be repeatedly demonstrated to independent observers....... That is what science should be, but it isn't. Evolution for example.
RevTestament Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Gray said: A 4,000 BCE creation date is completely impossible. For the earth scientifically, yes. Not for Adam. Quote To believe in a historical Moses, I'd like some evidence tying him to history, it wouldn't take a lot. Something contemporary or shortly after his death, similar to Jesus. Adam is another impossibility, he's an obvious metaphor for humanity. Evidence for Moses outside of the Bible is there, but is circumstantial. If you believe in Jesus, you should believe in Moses, since Jesus testified of him, and Moses visited Him on the mount of transfiguration. Adam is not an impossibility at all. But, the traditional interpretation is definitely outside the realm of scientific possibilities.
PeterPear Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 On 3/8/2017 at 5:58 PM, Robert F. Smith said: There is an young-earth-creationist (YEC) movement among some evangelicals who are poorly informed on both the science and on the Bible. Those evangelicals who are better informed realize two things; (1) the Hebrew Bible does not describe six 24-hour days of creation, and (2) the science does not allow for a young Earth.. http://smithandfranklin.com/current-issues/Scandal-of-the-Evangelical-Mind-A-Biblical-and-Scientific-Critique-of-Young-Earth-Creationism/9/5/43 . "(2) the science does not allow for a young Earth." Now that's the point being disputed in the FOX video; and the interviewed guests film: https://isgenesishistory.com/theaters
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Alan said: That is what science should be, but it isn't. Evolution for example. Faith and science are different categories of thought or action. As to whether biological evolution theory is correct or not, that is for scientists to decide. The LDS Church takes no stand on the issue, and all BYU biologists (for example) are evolutionary biologists.
PeterPear Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, strappinglad said: As a young student I was told that humans existed back around 20,000 years. As I got older that date marched back to 50,000 years , then 100,000 years. The accepted age of modern man now lies around 200,000 years. Robert tells me that we are looking at 1,000,000 years. Michael Cremo in his book ' Forbidden Archeology ' claims human artifacts have been found in layers dated over 100,000,000 years. I am beginning to suspect that the Mayan idea of long age cycles of civilizations has merit. Joseph Smith suggested that this earth was created for more than one purpose, our current iteration being just the latest expression. Ah yeah... Another iteration of the Earth is it will be changed from its Telestial state to a Terrestial state during the Millenium. Then another iteration is that it will be changed from a Terrestial state to a Celestial state, after being wrapped together like a scroll, (can't wait to see the expressions on the face of scientists when that happens, assuming we're all glorified beings at that point when it occurs) then glorified and Celestialized (is that a word?) then becoming the Celestial Kingdom for the children of God assigned to be born here (us) and who kept their second estate; not unlike the Sun in the sky and other stars which is why Joseph Fielding Smith suggested the Sun is inhabited by Celestial beings because the Lord's creations have purpose because he's not a mind-numbed robot, but a being of purpose and order, and Isaiah stated the righteous will live in everlasting burnings or glory. Isaiah 33:14,15. One can learn about those iterations by reading the scriptures, attending the Temple...it isn't difficult to understand the iterations when you learn of them from the perspective of HE who revealed it about HIS creation; not from some blind guides who look at rocks and the ground albeit their observations are accurate for short-term cycles, but ignore the words spoken from the dust translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other Prophets of God. Edited March 10, 2017 by PeterPear Typos
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, PeterPear said: "(2) the science does not allow for a young Earth." Now that's the point being disputed in the FOX video; and the interviewed guests film: https://isgenesishistory.com/theaters Well, yes, but that is just my point: There are Young Earth Creationists who are ignorant of the Bible, and so attempt to wrest both Scripture and science to fit their apriori notions. In that they fail miserably. Yet that is so unnecessary.
PeterPear Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Faith and science are different categories of thought or action. As to whether biological evolution theory is correct or not, that is for scientists to decide. The LDS Church takes no stand on the issue, and all BYU biologists (for example) are evolutionary biologists. Apparently, the BYU biologists are not keeping their subscription to the Ensign Magazine up to date about the First Presidency's stand: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng at least in 2002. Unless of course, you are stating the BYU biologists believe Adam was not a Monkey's Uncle (to be in compliance with the First Presidency) and Eve not their Aunt, but monkeys evolved from lower beings like a single-celled bacteria because the Creator used a roulette wheel to create life in it's myriad forms, because the BYU Statistics department is understaffed. Yours was an appeal to an authority: BYU biologists (rolling my eyes) - who are employed by a University named after a Prophet. Oh lookie! The Church has an official position on the Theory of Evolution. And the 2002 magazine is collecting dust in your closet. "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” Edited March 10, 2017 by PeterPear
Alan Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Faith and science are different categories of thought or action. As to whether biological evolution theory is correct or not, that is for scientists to decide. The LDS Church takes no stand on the issue, and all BYU biologists (for example) are evolutionary biologists. The problem is, most scientists decide biological evolution is correct first, and then let that inform their investigations. A mathematician schooled in the science of statistical analysis would start from the view that evolution is impossible. Ultimately, it's all about the assumptions upon which faith is based. 2
snowflake Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 16 hours ago, Gray said: A 4,000 BCE creation date is completely impossible. To believe in a historical Moses, I'd like some evidence tying him to history, it wouldn't take a lot. Something contemporary or shortly after his death, similar to Jesus. Adam is another impossibility, he's an obvious metaphor for humanity. And scientifically speaking, why is a 4000 BCE creation date completely impossible? I have no problem with you not believing what the book of Genesis says, that's fine. But it seems pretty clear to me the dates indicated are there for a reason and the men involved existed, Jesus said so in the NT. You can pick and chose whatever you like in the bible, you want to cross out Moses and Adam, ok. I just try to take Genesis for what it says and not try to "press" my own ideas into it so that it, so that it says what I want it to say. I know more EV's that think the "big bang theory" is more accurate than the Genesis account, they have decided to "press" what they learned at university onto the text, and that is fine, I just don't think that is what Genesis is saying. Can you scientifically prove where the energy, time, space, physical laws and matter came from? Of course not.
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: For the earth scientifically, yes. Not for Adam. If by Adam you mean some man living 4,000 years ago, then not impossible. If by Adam you mean the first human male, then yes, impossible. Quote Evidence for Moses outside of the Bible is there, but is circumstantial. If you believe in Jesus, you should believe in Moses, since Jesus testified of him, and Moses visited Him on the mount of transfiguration. Jesus was not a historian, and is not a historical source for Moses, since they're not contemporaries. Visions or theological stories about visions are also not historical sources for Moses. Quote Adam is not an impossibility at all. But, the traditional interpretation is definitely outside the realm of scientific possibilities. Depends on what you mean by Adam. If you mean that God created the very first man and woman from scratch or from clay, and humanity literally descended from that pair and no previous living beings on earth, then yes, it's impossible. Edited March 10, 2017 by Gray
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, snowflake said: And scientifically speaking, why is a 4000 BCE creation date completely impossible? Because we have mountains of evidence that the earth is billions of years old. We have living organisms today that were alive before 4000 BCE. 3 minutes ago, snowflake said: I have no problem with you not believing what the book of Genesis says, that's fine. Just like I have no problem with you misinterpreting Genesis as some literal narration of real events. 3 minutes ago, snowflake said: But it seems pretty clear to me the dates indicated are there for a reason and the men involved existed, Jesus said so in the NT. You can pick and chose whatever you like in the bible, you want to cross out Moses and Adam, ok. I just try to take Genesis for what it says and not try to "press" my own ideas into it so that it, so that it says what I want it to say. I know more EV's that think the "big bang theory" is more accurate than the Genesis account, they have decided to "press" what they learned at university onto the text, and that is fine, I just don't think that is what Genesis is saying. You know, the Bible is a text. Not a historical text, but an important one. But creation is also a kind of text, that can be read for those with eyes to see. And unlike the Bible, the universe is a book written by God. The Bible was written by men. I trust the universe a lot more than the Bible when it comes to the question of how the universe works. When we're talking about Biblical figures, we're talking about people who didn't really have our understanding of the difference between literal and metaphorical, as a clear cut dichotomy. That's our post-enlightenment bias. But even so, my wife recently finished a graduate degree, and I compared her experience to Frodo finally throwing the ring into Mount Doom. That doesn't mean I think Frodo was a figure of history. It means I think the story resembles her tough journey. 3 minutes ago, snowflake said: Can you scientifically prove where the energy, time, space, physical laws and matter came from? Of course not. No, you're right. Isn't it great?
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 5 hours ago, Alan said: The problem is, most scientists decide biological evolution is correct first, and then let that inform their investigations. No, they really don't. Scientific theories don't work like that at all. Evolution had to undergo a long battery of stress testing before it became the dominant scientific theory.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 38 minutes ago, Gray said: No, they really don't. Scientific theories don't work like that at all. Evolution had to undergo a long battery of stress testing before it became the dominant scientific theory. The idea that all kinds of life are eternal and were transported here from somewhere else makes more sense than evolution, though, and no scientist has ever seen one kind of being become another kind. 3
strappinglad Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) How does a fossil come into its state? The vast majority of fossils are marine fossils. We even have fossils of large marine creatures caught in the act of giving birth. That suggests catastrophic rapid burial in mineral rich sediments . Many of the complete dinosaur fossils are found in the arched stance indicative of drowning. Without rapid burial in massive silt beds few if any fossils would exist. Bones exposed to the air over centuries will deteriorate or be scattered long before fossilizing. Without floods and pretty big ones at that, the land animal fossil record would be very sparse. Edited March 10, 2017 by strappinglad 1
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Ahab said: The idea that all kinds of life are eternal and were transported here from somewhere else makes more sense than evolution, though, and no scientist has ever seen one kind of being become another kind. The problem with that idea is that there is no evidence to support it, and it also has no explanatory power. We've certainly observed incremental speciation, and the fossil record and genetic data strongly support more dramatic evolution over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. If science could only explore things we could observe in real time, we'd know very little about anything. Edited March 10, 2017 by Gray 1
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, strappinglad said: How does a fossil come into its state? The vast majority of fossils are marine fossils. We even have fossils of large marine creatures caught in the act of giving birth. That suggests catastrophic rapid burial in mineral rich sediments . Many of the complete dinosaur fossils are found in the arched stance indicative of drowning. Without rapid burial in massive silt beds few if any fossils would exist. Bones exposed to the air over centuries will deteriorate or be scattered long before fossilizing. Without floods and pretty big ones at that, the land animal fossil record would be very sparse. You don't need big floods to make fossils. You just need watery, muddy, silty environment, like rivers and lakes. Since all animals require water, it's not a stretch for animals to also die near water, including land animals.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Gray said: If science could only explore things we could observe in real time, we'd know very little about anything. Try again if you're trying to boost my confidence in scientific theories. Edited March 10, 2017 by Ahab
Alan Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: The idea that all kinds of life are eternal and were transported here from somewhere else makes more sense than evolution, though, and no scientist has ever seen one kind of being become another kind. Absolutely! The idea that evolutionary theory has undergone rigorous stress testing and scientifically impartial experimental investigation is pure fantasy. Most scientists are taught as children that evolution is true and never question it as they move into their professional career. Neither dare they if they value it's longevity. Scientific modeling clearly indicates that biological evolution is not possible and cannot account for the existence of life here on Earth. It just can't. The one or two brave souls in the scientific community who have declared this have, in effect, been run out of town. 1
RevTestament Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 6 hours ago, Alan said: The problem is, most scientists decide biological evolution is correct first, and then let that inform their investigations. A mathematician schooled in the science of statistical analysis would start from the view that evolution is impossible. Ultimately, it's all about the assumptions upon which faith is based. Kind of an interesting angle. When one considers everything that had to be right for life as we know to be created on the earth, it can certainly make that case that there was a controlling hand in it. The earth had to be exactly the right size and in the right place. Too close to the sun and it ends up a burning inferno like Venus or gets tidal locked to its sun, and one side burns up while the other freezes. Too far or too small, and it ends up like Mars - a frozen desert without enough atmosphere or solar energy to sustain life. Without the right guardian planet like Jupiter in the right place, it gets constantly bombarded by solar system debris like comets which we have seen Jupiter eat, and prevents life from being able to take hold. Without being in the right place in the galaxy, it would be bombarded with so much radiation that life as we know it couldn't exist, but would be constantly molecularly deconstructed and random encounters with other solar systems would completely destabilize its orbit rendering environmental stability impossible. The list goes on. All these things add up to life as we know it being virtually a statistical impossibility, and yet here we are.... everything just right. A just right planet, in a just right orbit, in a just right solar system with a just right sun and set of partner planets, in a just right outer arm of a galaxy, with a just right mix of elements, just right protection from solar radiation, etc, etc. It does seem to suggest that something created all these just right conditions, and steered events, just like they have been steered in human history. 2
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 41 minutes ago, Ahab said: Try again if you're trying to boost my confidence in scientific theories. Do really think the only tool at the disposal of scientists is direct observation?
Ahab Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Gray said: Do really think the only tool at the disposal of scientists is direct observation? No, I'm aware that they also use their minds to make guesses (which they consider to be educated guesses).
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Ahab said: No, I'm aware that they also use their minds to make guesses (which they consider to be educated guesses). Sounds like stone age science. Only looking and guessing! What a revelation.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Gray said: Sounds like stone age science. Only looking and guessing! What a revelation. Unfortunately it's the only way to know that something has happened when you could not be there to see it, unless maybe someone else tells you what they saw when they saw that happen, but even then people who were witnesses of the event do not see things the same way, and some people might not be telling the truth. Did you not realize that is how people usually learn?
Recommended Posts