Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 5 minutes ago, Ahab said: 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? What I'm wondering is how we can fund these scientists who have no access to scientific equipment and instruments or computers or even advanced mathematics. Who dropped the ball here? Then again, from your description, it sounds like scientists are actually lawyers or maybe police detectives, interviewing witnesses. I guess that means we don't know anything about the world from more than a generation ago?
snowflake Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours 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. Is there some scientific test that can prove abiogenesis is true? According to Genesis chapter 1, the earth is older (just by a few days) than the sun, modern "science" would disagree, is this provable and if so how? According to Genesis the plants were created before the Sun, is this provable as well?
Ahab Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Gray said: What I'm wondering is how we can fund these scientists who have no access to scientific equipment and instruments or computers or even advanced mathematics. Who dropped the ball here? Then again, from your description, it sounds like scientists are actually lawyers or maybe police detectives, interviewing witnesses. I guess that means we don't know anything about the world from more than a generation ago? Equipment used by scientists is programmed to work within parameters which the scientists believe are correct. The machines aren't actually telling the scientists when this planet was formed, for example. The machines give some information about the elements in the earth and that data is then interpreted by the scientists to mean this planet in its present form is that many years old, when actually it is only the elements that are that old, if even that is correct considering there may be other factors they haven't considered. And math is merely a language to communicate ideas which may or may not be true. And on and on it goes. Happy learning!
Marmonboy Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour 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. Nobody has ever seen complex life transported from one planetary system to another, either. 2
clarkgoble Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 12 hours 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'm going to go out on a limb and say you are not at all familiar with what Nagel is actually criticizing. i.e. he's not disputing what new earth creationists are. 1
Ahab Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Marmonboy said: Nobody has ever seen complex life transported from one planetary system to another, either. It's called birth. We came from the celestial area of heaven.
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 16 minutes ago, snowflake said: Is there some scientific test that can prove abiogenesis is true? Probably not. We could at best demonstrate plausibility by modeling or recreating. Organic molecules don't tend to fossilize. 16 minutes ago, snowflake said: According to Genesis chapter 1, the earth is older (just by a few days) than the sun, modern "science" would disagree, is this provable and if so how? According to Genesis the plants were created before the Sun, is this provable as well? Actually, the earth and the sun formed from the same cloud of matter, and have a similar age. 4.6 billion years for the sun, 4.543 billion years for the earth (approximately). We can observe the formation of solar systems elsewhere in the galaxy, we know how it works. Dating comes from various materials on the earth and moon and modeling, I think. You can't have plant life as we know it without the sun, so that's impossible. Life on earth seems to have formed somewhat less than 4 billion years ago, with multi-cellular organisms like plants coming much later.
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 23 minutes ago, Ahab said: Equipment used by scientists is programmed to work within parameters which the scientists believe are correct. The machines aren't actually telling the scientists when this planet was formed, for example. The machines give some information about the elements in the earth and that data is then interpreted by the scientists to mean this planet in its present form is that many years old, when actually it is only the elements that are that old, if even that is correct considering there may be other factors they haven't considered. And math is merely a language to communicate ideas which may or may not be true. And on and on it goes. Happy learning! I'm learning so much! Scientists are police detectives and scientific equipment works on wild assumptions.
Ahab Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 8 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm learning so much! Scientists are police detectives and scientific equipment works on wild assumptions. Close enough. Happy learning! 1
snowflake Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, Gray said: Probably not. We could at best demonstrate plausibility by modeling or recreating. Organic molecules don't tend to fossilize. Actually, the earth and the sun formed from the same cloud of matter, and have a similar age. 4.6 billion years for the sun, 4.543 billion years for the earth (approximately). We can observe the formation of solar systems elsewhere in the galaxy, we know how it works. Dating comes from various materials on the earth and moon and modeling, I think. You can't have plant life as we know it without the sun, so that's impossible. Life on earth seems to have formed somewhat less than 4 billion years ago, with multi-cellular organisms like plants coming much later. So you can't prove it scientifically, exactly my point. One thing's for sure, these dates constantly change, all of your dates were different when I was in high school. How do you scientifically prove your theory? Do you have any experiments? I know you really "believe"....I'm looking for scientific evidence, not a bunch of scientists just saying so.
Gray Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, snowflake said: So you can't prove it scientifically, exactly my point. Let's not use the unscientific term, "prove." But yes, abiogenesis is much more difficult to demonstrate than evolution, although I'm not aware of any serious competitors for it. 13 minutes ago, snowflake said: One thing's for sure, these dates constantly change, all of your dates were different when I was in high school. How do you scientifically prove your theory? Do you have any experiments? I know you really "believe"....I'm looking for scientific evidence, not a bunch of scientists just saying so. The dates have been refined over the years as we've had better and better data. It's not as if they're wildly swinging around. We can directly date materials that we find. The oldest are almost 4.5 billion years old. We can directly observe the formation of solar systems elsewhere, and we understand the physics of solar system formation. It's simply how clouds of matter behave in space. Not much different in principle from understanding how rain forms. It's just physics and chemistry.
MormonVideoGame Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) On 3/8/2017 at 4:58 PM, Robert F. Smith said: (1) the Hebrew Bible does not describe six 24-hour days of creation, However, the Torah never uses the word "hours". It is not fair to expect "hours" in Gen 1 Quote Orthodox scholar, Seraphim Rose (1932–1982), who openly disdains conservative Protestant interpretation of Scripture, nevertheless writes the Holy Fathers do say that those Days were twenty-four hours long. St. Ephraim the Syrian even divides them into two periods, twelve hours each. St. Basil the Great says that, in the book of Genesis, the First Day is called not the “first day” but “one day” because that is the one day by which God measured out the entire rest of the creation; that is, this First Day, which he says was twenty-four hours long, is exactly the same day which is repeated in the rest of creation. If you think about it, there is nothing particularly difficult in that idea, since the creation of God is something totally outside our present knowledge. The accommodation of days to epochs does not make any sense; you cannot fit them together. Therefore, why do you need to have a day that is a thousand or a million years long? The Holy Fathers say again with one voice that the creative acts of God are instantaneous. St. Basil the Great, St. Ambrose the Great, St. Ephraim and many others say that, when God creates, He says the word and it is, faster than thought. There are many Patristic quotations about this, but we will not go into them here. None of the Holy Fathers say that the creation was slow It is extremely easy to get creative an explain scripturs such as Exodus 20:8-11 with an Old World view. However, the young earth interpretation does seem to be the most reasonable. Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
carbon dioxide Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) On 3/9/2017 at 9:59 AM, Alan said: It doesn't. I don't believe human beings have been here for a million years. I am inclined to believe that there may have been "humans" on the earth before Adam but these "humans" are different than the ones that came after Adam. We focus a lot of attention on biology but there is an aspect of life that biology and science can not measure and that is the spirit. All life has its own spirit whether it be cats, dogs, birds, or apes. They are a different kinds or classes of spirit and intelligence that is special to their species. The humans that lived before Adam also had a spirit but the spirits that inhabited these people may have been of a higher level, they are not the highest level being those that are the "sons and daughters of God." They are not part of the family of Adam. No temple work will be done for the "humans" anymore than temple work will be done for a monkey. The sons and daughters of God have not been on the earth for that long. They may have biological relation to us but there is no reason to believe they are our spiritual brothers and sisters. They will be resurrected like all other life will be but they will not be exalted anymore than my two dogs will be exalted. Edited March 10, 2017 by carbon dioxide
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 9 hours ago, PeterPear said: 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. ....................................................... You misunderstand that 1909 First Presidency statement, as you regularly do so much else. This is probably because you have no training in (1) Bible, (2) science, or (3) logic..
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 9 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. Again, you are confusing two separate categories of thought. Faith and science may be compatible, but they do not address the issues in the same way. Your apriorism stands out here. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 21 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: However, the Torah never uses the word "hours". It is not fair to expect "hours" in Gen 1 It is extremely easy to get creative an explain scripturs such as Exodus 20:8-11 with an Old World view. However, the young earth interpretation does seem to be the most reasonable. Both biblical scholars and scientists reject the absurd Young Earth Creationist position -- which is an apriori position dependent on the premises of Greek philosophy, which is the underpinning of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology. 1
MormonVideoGame Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Both biblical scholars and scientists reject the absurd Young Earth Creationist position -- which is an apriori position dependent on the premises of Greek philosophy, which is the underpinning of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology. CFR for your "biblical scholars" claim. I can quote many Hebrew scholars that disagree with you. Edited March 10, 2017 by MormonVideoGame
Robert F. Smith Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said: CFR for your "biblical scholars" claim. I can quote many Hebrew scholars that disagree with you. You might want to start with Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), and go on from there. Also helpful would be for you to learn to read biblical Hebrew, and to familiarize yourself with philosophy and logic. I can give you some suggestions along those lines, if you are at all interested.
snowflake Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Both biblical scholars and scientists reject the absurd Young Earth Creationist position -- which is an apriori position dependent on the premises of Greek philosophy, which is the underpinning of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology. By rejecting the young earth position, would it be safe to say you also reject 1. No death before the fall of Adam and Eve 2. A global flood. 3. The genealogies in Genesis, Matthew and Luke. 4. The old ages men lived pre-flood?
clarkgoble Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 1 hour ago, snowflake said: By rejecting the young earth position, would it be safe to say you also reject 1. No death before the fall of Adam and Eve 2. A global flood. 3. The genealogies in Genesis, Matthew and Luke. 4. The old ages men lived pre-flood? Just to quibble, but (4) is really a separate issue from (1-2). If one accepts translated beings who continue to walk the earth in a quasi-immortal fashion like the theologies of the 3 Nephites attest then having select individuals who for some reason lived longer than normal isn't a big deal. It may well be that the dates and genealogies in Genesis are wrong or at least misleading. I rather suspect, just from the way the text was developed, that they are. 1
Alan Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You misunderstand that 1909 First Presidency statement, as you regularly do so much else. This is probably because you have no training in (1) Bible, (2) science, or (3) logic.. Whereas you do of course. I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but just to let you know, I am a scientist.
Johnnie Cake Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 On 3/8/2017 at 6:21 AM, ERayR said: Some scientists take a new look at the genesis story. Maybe the science isn't so settled. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5350538925001/?#sp=show-clips Fox News??? Now that's fair and balanced...no bias or agenda there... 1
MormonVideoGame Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You might want to start with Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), and go on from there. Also helpful would be for you to learn to read biblical Hebrew, and to familiarize yourself with philosophy and logic. I can give you some suggestions along those lines, if you are at all interested. but you said "bible scholars" CFR that most Hebrew scholars agree.
blueglass Posted March 10, 2017 Posted March 10, 2017 4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: I am inclined to believe that there may have been "humans" on the earth before Adam but these "humans" are different than the ones that came after Adam. We focus a lot of attention on biology but there is an aspect of life that biology and science can not measure and that is the spirit. All life has its own spirit whether it be cats, dogs, birds, or apes. They are a different kinds or classes of spirit and intelligence that is special to their species. The humans that lived before Adam also had a spirit but the spirits that inhabited these people may have been of a higher level, they are not the highest level being those that are the "sons and daughters of God." They are not part of the family of Adam. No temple work will be done for the "humans" anymore than temple work will be done for a monkey. The sons and daughters of God have not been on the earth for that long. They may have biological relation to us but there is no reason to believe they are our spiritual brothers and sisters. They will be resurrected like all other life will be but they will not be exalted anymore than my two dogs will be exalted. From God's perspective we're all like sheep in intelligence. What is the real difference between the intelligence of an 18year old human in 2017 vs a Göbekli Tepe temple builder in 9,000 BC? What does it mean to carry the imprint of imago dei, or to receive the ruach strong's 7307 of God? As we look for an understanding of the past when God needed a neolithic helper for his agriculture project, we also look to the future when we begin to breathe life into AI.
MormonVideoGame Posted March 11, 2017 Posted March 11, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You might want to start with Ephraim Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964), He was an Assyriologist, his Sub discipline Biblical commentary. CFR that most Hebrew scholars don't agree the Torah teaches young earth creationism.
Recommended Posts