No Death Before the Fall?

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/25/2017 at 7:54 AM, RevTestament said:

Personally, I also reject the Garden of Eden story in America. Adam-ondi-Ahman was named here because that is where Adam will return imho. It is not the same as the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. Go to Adam-ondi-Ahman and find a valley.... just sayin. Also see the inspired Book of Moses which clearly places Eden on a river going east of Assyria. There just is no getting that in America. BY was just wrong imho.

D&C 107:53-57: "Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.  And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.  And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.  And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation."

"t was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion." (John Taylor, The Mediation and Atonement p. 69)

Adam lived there before he died.  It is not just a place where Adam will return at some point in the future.  People like to think that Eden was in the Middle East based on names in the Middle East like "Assyria" or "Euphrates".  This does not have to be the case.  If Adam and all the stories in the Old Testament up to Noah occur in the Americas but the the setting transfers to the Middle East after the flood, then that could be the source of the confusion.  Noah and his posterity could have named various places in the Middle East after their traditions from the area they came from.  The Nephites did name some of their places in the Americas after Old World areas.  When one looks at the Euphrates in regards to Adam and the Euphrates we know today, they don't really match.  Genesis 2 says that the river that watered the garden of Eden parted and into 4 heads of which one was the Euphrates. Modern day Euphrates empties into the Persian Gulf and is not connected to a larger river.  Gihon is said to "compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia" yet there is no river in the Middle East that matches this.  How about the river Pison? "The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold;  And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone" (Genesis 2:11-12)  Nothing like this exists in the Middle East. The Missouri river at least fits this description as it flows from South Dakota which holds among the largest gold reserves in North America.

Edited May 26, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

God might not be "discussed" formally in science classes at university but he certainly was scoffed at, ridiculed, and compared to Santa claus at my university biology class which I took for a year.

Well can't speak to that not having been there. It wasn't at the university I went to prior to transferring to BYU. 

Quote

The vast majority of scientists are atheists.  Now, I would agree that God was rarely discussed in my University physics or chemistry classes. 

That's actually not true depending upon how you measure scientist. I did a blog post on that a year or two ago. One study found 24.4% were agnostic or atheist while 17.1% were Evangelical, 24.9% were mainline Protestant, and 19.1% Catholic. Atheists were overrepresented but were a significant minority. Now despite that religious background they were more unsure about God. Only 35.9% claimed to know God exists with no doubt (compared to 55.5% for the general population) Of course one could critique their criteria of what constitutes a scientist. Among so-called elite scientists from 21 top universities (which thereby excludes working scientists at labs not associated with a professorship) 34% were atheists and 30% were agnostic. However even with this very narrow sense of scientist a surprising amount of closet belief was there. According to the Washington Post.

Quote

These surveys and 275 lengthy follow-up interviews reveal that scientists often practice a closeted faith. They worry how their peers would react to learning about their religious views.

Fully half of these top scientists are religious. Only five of the 275 interviewees actively oppose religion. Even among the third who are atheists, many consider themselves “spiritual.” One describes this spiritual atheism as being rooted in “wonder about the complexity and the majesty of existence,” a sentiment many nonscientists — religious or not — would recognize. By not engaging with religion more fully and publicly, “the academy is really doing itself a big disservice,” worries one scientist. As shown by conflicts over everything from evolution to stem cells to climate policy, breakdowns in communication between scientists and religious communities cause real problems, especially for scientists trying to educate increasingly religious college students.

 

Quote

It is a cardinal sin at the University to question certain things, and the holy grail of evolution and the age of the earth/universe are the big ones, another newer one would be global warming..er....climate change.

I think it's the nature of the questioning. If the question reduces down to bad understanding of science or privileging a certain reading of a text then, yeah, that's not going to go over well. If you have a real legitimate criticism then scientists tend to love those. There's little a scientist loves more than finding out something long held is wrong so new science can be done. That's why you see scientists all so excited every time the latest collider tests some physical theory. Among physicists in particular they would absolutely love the standard model to be wrong and are always a little disappointed when everything works out. (Although supersymmetry was disproven which admittedly discouraged some as it means they don't know where to go)

The main reason scientists get so frustrated with people questioning evolution is that typically they don't understand evolution and typically their criticisms are just woefully bad. One gets tired of that rather quickly especially when the criticisms aren't made in the interest of inquiry but rather dogma.

[clarkgoble]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 - oh, the Celestial turkey baster argument again.  I seriously don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea that Christ was conceived the old fashioned way.

I don't have a particular opposition to the idea. But given how trivial IVF is with our technology it ought at least increase the options for how we think about it. 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Food for thought... Here's an interesting scientific observation that measures the radioactive decay rates (the same used in carbon dating) and their relationship to variations in our solar location and distance.   For example major solar flares  and the suns rotation change the radioactive decay rates as the suns energy becomes closer to the earth.   If true, it's entirely possible that it means  that Joseph was correct when he said the earth didn't take this position with our solar system until after the fall.   The current scientific approach of carbon dating could be completely based on bad information. .

Carbon dating is only good to around 50,000 years but the readings with radiation are determined by first measuring the radiation in items you know the age of by other means such as by tree rings, ice core samples or the like. There are other materials you can measure with as well -- often used for dating earlier than the 50,000 year time.

So your theory really doesn't work.

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, snowflake said:

My point is that as a believer in God's word, I have no problem believing in Jesus, in his miracles and that he rose from the grave. I take the creation account as history and fact as well. I can accept that before the flood humans lived hundreds of years because the Word says so. Global flood, no problem, but evolution and 7 day creation whoooooaaaaaaaa  that would be "crazy and unscientific".

Historically speaking it is my understanding, that the Jews agreed with the 7 day creation period too.

I am glad you believe in Jesus. My point is that as a "believer in God's word" I have no problem believing in evolution. I gave very solid modern examples of man actually practicing it. Insisting that the English version of Genesis 1 is literally how it happened or that Genesis 2-3 is a literal story of a talking serpent and magical fruit is sort of like arguing that Jesus' parables actually happened. I pose that when you say "I take the creation account as history and fact as well"  you are actually taking an imposed English translation and traditional interpretation as "history and fact." In fact there was no literal physical tree of life in the garden of Eden. You will strain to find that physical tree in the New Jerusalem too. Why? Because it is Jesus, and we are the branches. The Jews have the same issue with the temple. They see it very physically, when in actuality we are the temple. We are building the house of the Lord. The generations of the creation of the earth are only called "a day" for the purpose of establishing a calendar and the covenant of the Sabbath - in other words God gave them as a day for purposes of reflecting the calendar and the periods of the word(seals) upon the earth. I certainly can't stop you from believing these were modern earth days, but I certainly don't, being that the Hebrew meaning is so flexible and is used various ways in scripture.

Another example is to argue that JHWH actually means LORD because that is what the KJV English reads. In fact  JHWH does not mean Lord. Adonai means lord, and is used far less frequently, but the English changes them both to Lord. This is akin to what you are doing when you insist that Hebrew yowm can only mean a 24 hr period.

Edited May 26, 2017 by RevTestament

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, Sevenbak said:

Food for thought... Here's an interesting scientific observation that measures the radioactive decay rates (the same used in carbon dating) and their relationship to variations in our solar location and distance.   For example major solar flares  and the suns rotation change the radioactive decay rates as the suns energy becomes closer to the earth.   If true, it's entirely possible that it means  that Joseph was correct when he said the earth didn't take this position with our solar system until after the fall.   The current scientific approach of carbon dating could be completely based on bad information.   Perhaps time and more research will tell.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.amp

I think this is one of those issues where the arm of flesh and the arm of faith are in a constant game of arm wrestling.

C-14 decay rates are crosschecked with other radioactive materials. C-14 dates are remarkably accurate to about 40,000 years.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, RevTestament said:

If the word organized is substituted for the word created, then God organizing the spirits before this world makes perfect sense to me. He is doing in right now for the next world. Thus, the beginning of the new world starts here.

Godfrey argues though that Joseph only uses organize to mean social organization. More akin to what we do at Church. I've not decided if that's true or not, but it is the standard view of most historians studying it.

[RevTestament]

33 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

D&C 107:53-57: "Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah, who were all high priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing.  And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.  And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever.  And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation."

"t was stated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in our hearing while standing on an elevated piece of ground or plateau near Adam-ondi-Ahman (Davis Co., Missouri,), where there were a number of rocks piled together, that the valley before us was the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman; or in other words, the valley where God talked with Adam, and where he gathered his righteous posterity, as recorded in the above revelation, and that this pile of stones was an altar built by him when he offered up sacrifices, as we understand, on that occasion." (John Taylor, The Mediation and Atonement p. 69)

Adam lived there before he died.  It is not just a place where Adam will return at some point in the future.  People like to think that Eden was in the Middle East based on names in the Middle East like "Assyria" or "Euphrates".  This does not have to be the case.  If Adam and all the stories in the Old Testament up to Noah occur in the Americas but the the setting transfers to the Middle East after the flood, then that could be the source of the confusion.  Noah and his posterity could have named various places in the Middle East after their traditions from the area they came from.  The Nephites did name some of their places in the Americas after Old World areas.  When one looks at the Euphrates in regards to Adam and the Euphrates we know today, they don't really match.  Genesis 2 says that the river that watered the garden of Eden parted and into 4 heads of which one was the Euphrates. Modern day Euphrates empties into the Persian Gulf and is not connected to a larger river.  Gihon is said to "compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia" yet there is no river in the Middle East that matches this.  How about the river Pison? "The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold;  And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone" (Genesis 2:11-12)  Nothing like this exists in the Middle East. The Missouri river at least fits this description as it flows from South Dakota which holds among the largest gold reserves in North America.

Actually, there are 4 rivers there in the Sumerian basin. One has dried up, but still has remnants passing through the Saudi desert. It wraps around to the north of current day Kuwait. It flowed out of the Arabian mountains to the west where there was much gold - the land of Havilah. "Ethiopia" is a misnomer from the Greek Septuagint. It should read Cush. Gihon is still there and actually has more volume than the Euphrates or Tigris, but is currently dammed. It flows east into the land of Elam or ancient Persia. 

Doctrine and Covenants 116:1

1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord ^aAdam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where ^bAdam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.

NOT because this the ancient valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. That is kind of like arguing Jerusalem and New Jerusalem are at the same place because they have the same name. Adam will not return to Jerusalem yet, because they have rejected their Lord, so essentially is returning to the new Adam-ondi-Ahman.

Edited May 26, 2017 by RevTestament

[snowflake]

40 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am glad you believe in Jesus. My point is that as a "believer in God's word" I have no problem believing in evolution. I gave very solid modern examples of man actually practicing it. Insisting that the English version of Genesis 1 is literally how it happened or that Genesis 2-3 is a literal story of a talking serpent and magical fruit is sort of like arguing that Jesus' parables actually happened. I pose that when you say "I take the creation account as history and fact as well"  you are actually taking an imposed English translation and traditional interpretation as "history and fact." In fact there was no literal physical tree of life in the garden of Eden. You will strain to find that physical tree in the New Jerusalem too. Why? Because it is Jesus, and we are the branches. The Jews have the same issue with the temple. They see it very physically, when in actuality we are the temple. We are building the house of the Lord. The generations of the creation of the earth are only called "a day" for the purpose of establishing a calendar and the covenant of the Sabbath - in other words God gave them as a day for purposes of reflecting the calendar and the periods of the word(seals) upon the earth. I certainly can't stop you from believing these were modern earth days, but I certainly don't, being that the Hebrew meaning is so flexible and is used various ways in scripture.

Another example is to argue that JHWH actually means LORD because that is what the KJV English reads. In fact  JHWH does not mean Lord. Adonai means lord, and is used far less frequently, but the English changes them both to Lord. This is akin to what you are doing when you insist that Hebrew yowm can only mean a 24 hr period.

It seems that Joseph thought the earth was around 7,000 years old and was created in 6 days too. But then again, he might have been translating the Nephite term "day". D&C 77

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Your fundamental error is to disregard God's word, the authority of scripture you apparently see as impossible or corrupt or am I reading my Bible wrong? 

"Science" has told us that the virgin birth is impossible.

"Science" has told us that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is impossible. 

Do you believe these things happened or has science disproved them?

Science has never told us that the virgin birth is impossible, nor that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is impossible.  You are inventing these declarations as straw men, perhaps because you have no training in science, and do not read science.  If you understood science and what it in fact does, you would be far more restrained and respectful.  Making an imaginary enemy of science may fulfill some inner need for people who do not understand it, but it is a zero sum game not worth playing.

Science and religion are entirely separate endeavors, and they do not conflict in any way.  Here are some items to help you get started:

Bruce C. Hafen,  "Reason, Faith, and the Things of Eternity," FARMS Review, 20/2 (2008):15-35, online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/review/20/2/S00003-5176a39643f053Hafen.pdf .

Stefan Lovgren, “Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say,” National Geographic News, Oct 18, 2004, online at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html .

Jeff Lindsay, “Science and Mormon Teachings: ‘Mormon Answers’ to Frequent Questions,” online at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml#age 

John Lewis, “Science and Religion – Opposing Perspectives or Complementary Witnesses?” MormonChannel, Aug 2011, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR8qIrJcJh4 , or at http://www.mormonchannel.org/our-heavenly-fathers-plan?v=1834798902001&lang=eng#video=we-lived-with-god&cid=HPMO102714514 .

C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003).

Jim Rigas, Christianity Without Fairy Tales: When Science and Religion Merge (Paevma Publ., 2004).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/25/2017 at 0:03 PM, thesometimesaint said:

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work it is religion, but it isn't science.

One does not have to do any such thing, and you have here a false dilemma.

[snowflake]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Science has never told us that the virgin birth is impossible, nor that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is impossible.  You are inventing these declarations as straw men, perhaps because you have no training in science, and do not read science.  If you understood science and what it in fact does, you would be far more restrained and respectful.  Making an imaginary enemy of science may fulfill some inner need for people who do not understand it, but it is a zero sum game not worth playing.

Science and religion are entirely separate endeavors, and they do not conflict in any way.  Here are some items to help you get started:

Bruce C. Hafen,  "Reason, Faith, and the Things of Eternity," FARMS Review, 20/2 (2008):15-35, online at https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/review/20/2/S00003-5176a39643f053Hafen.pdf .

Stefan Lovgren, “Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say,” National Geographic News, Oct 18, 2004, online at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html .

Jeff Lindsay, “Science and Mormon Teachings: ‘Mormon Answers’ to Frequent Questions,” online at http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/science.shtml#age 

John Lewis, “Science and Religion – Opposing Perspectives or Complementary Witnesses?” MormonChannel, Aug 2011, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR8qIrJcJh4 , or at http://www.mormonchannel.org/our-heavenly-fathers-plan?v=1834798902001&lang=eng#video=we-lived-with-god&cid=HPMO102714514 .

C. John Collins, Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003).

Jim Rigas, Christianity Without Fairy Tales: When Science and Religion Merge (Paevma Publ., 2004).

Would you please let us know your definition of science.

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One does not have to do any such thing, and you have here a false dilemma.

I disagree. Science rests on the idea that natural events must be explained by natural processes. Invoking the Supernatural to make it work contradict that basic idea.

SEE

 

[clarkgoble]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I disagree. Science rests on the idea that natural events must be explained by natural processes. Invoking the Supernatural to make it work contradict that basic idea.

Not sure what the Tyson video was supposed to show. I confess one of the reasons I love Mormon theology is because there is no real supernatural in it. This leads to the implication that properly understood all Mormon theology is scientific. The very notion of the supernatural, especially in the form Hume puts it, is alien to my understanding of Mormon thought.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Would you please let us know your definition of science.

Robert can of  course answer for himself. Here is the definition I use.

sci·ence

ˈsīəns/

noun

noun: science

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

   "the world of science and technology"

   synonyms:

   branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field "the science of criminology"

[thesometimesaint]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Not sure what the Cosmos video was supposed to show. I confess one of the reasons I love Mormon theology is because there is no real supernatural in it. This leads to the implication that properly understood all Mormon theology is scientific. The very notion of the supernatural, especially in the form Hume puts it, is alien to my understanding of Mormon thought.

Most LDS that I know have no problem with God or Science. Now if we must invoke God to make science work it becomes a religion and not science. IE; Newton was perhaps one of the greatest scientists that ever live. But he couldn't account for the stability of our solar system over time. He invoked his God. About 120 years later a man named Laplace explained it without invoking God.

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Most LDS that I know have no problem with God or Science. Now if we must invoke God to make science work it becomes a religion and not science. IE; Newton was perhaps one of the greatest scientists that ever live. But he couldn't account for the stability of our solar system over time. He invoked his God. About 120 years later a man named Laplace explained it without invoking God.

It's worth noting that in early modernism the line between what we'd call science and non-science was blurry. Some people like Boyle were very careful to keep the two realms (say chemistry and alchemy) separate. Others like Newton blurred them together. Also the very idea of science was still then developing. While early modernism is important for understanding the development of science I think it shouldn't be used as an example of what science is. That said new fields often aren't terribly scientific. Surprisingly medicine has really only become evidence based relatively recently. Many fields in the so-called soft sciences arguably have many non-scientific elements within them. Especially sociology and psychology. As a field matures and gets a strong predictive set of paradigms then things are more comprehensible. Until that happens there will be a lot of arm waving to the mysterious that can't really be explained. While in early modernism that was God, today in those immature fields it's just different kinds of explanations. (The 'social' or 'power' being the typical one today) Yet even in the arguably most mature fields like physics there are still many unexplainable things. Newton couldn't account for stability and physicists can't explain the ultimate laws of physics. In their own way, string theory is no less metaphysical than many of Newton's non-scientific claims.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

36 minutes ago, snowflake said:

It seems that Joseph thought the earth was around 7,000 years old and was created in 6 days too. But then again, he might have been translating the Nephite term "day". D&C 77

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

Yep, this is an example of another usage of the 7 generations - it also refers to the 7 seals. So here and in the NT you see the seventh day referring to the last 1000 years of the temporal history of the earth, and you have Peter saying that a day is as 1000 years to God. Here is your thousand years for a day - the millennium. Just FYI the temporal history or age of the earth does not apply to the period before it became fallen.

You also find a day representing a Hebrew "time" or a year throughout Daniel, and in Revelation 12. 

Ez 4:4 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: according to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.

5 For I have laid upon thee the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days: so shalt thou bear the iniquity of the house of Israel.

6 And when thou hast accomplished them, lie again on thy right side, and thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days: I have appointed thee each day for a year.

God also gave Israel 40 years in the desert - each day for a year.

In Gen 2:4 we arguably are given that the creation days are generations of the creation of the earth. Usually this word refers to human generations, but whatever the case it is not one 24 hr day.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

God might not be "discussed" formally in science classes at university but he certainly was scoffed at, ridiculed, and compared to Santa claus at my university biology class which I took for a year. Any mention of a "designer" was met with expected hostility, contempt  and disregarded as fantasy. I remember studying the Krebs cycle in biology lab and I looked at the lab tech and asked how she this complex energy transfer system just "evolved" out of amino acids. She just smiled and said I know, pretty amazing huh, and at the time I truthfully thought that evolution was possible.  The notion that God has nothing to do with science is untrue.  The vast majority of scientists are atheists.  Now, I would agree that God was rarely discussed in my University physics or chemistry classes. 

Perhaps God comes up for discussion in science classes at second and third rate colleges and universities, but I have never experienced that in any science class at UCLA -- which is a first class research university. Since God has nothing to do with the subject matter, it would be absurd to bring him up.  He didn't even come up for discussion in my archeology and anthropology classes.  Why would he? It is clearly a different matter at religious schools like Wheaton College and BYU, but they are not research schools.  Even so, at BYU virtually every professor of biology is an evolutionary biologist, and my best friend is a believing Mormon anthropologist (with PhD) who is also a theistic evolutionist -- he believes that God uses evolution.  You might want to read Robert K. Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 2nd ed. (Readers Library/W. W. Norton, 2000).  Dr. Jastrow was head of the NASA JPL at CalTech for many years.  It was not true in 1978 (when Jastrow first wrote his book), and is not true now that most scientists are atheists.  The opposite is the case:  http://news.rice.edu/2015/12/03/first-worldwide-survey-of-religion-and-science-no-not-all-scientists-are-atheists/ .

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

As I pointed out earlier Hugh Ross (and others) appear to have been stuck at the University too long.  The inability for some at the University to determine the difference between science and religion is understandable.  It is a cardinal sin at the University to question certain things, and the holy grail of evolution and the age of the earth/universe are the big ones, another newer one would be global warming..er....climate change. (To doubt these could cost one their job!) So to mentally come to terms with the facts that the Biblical text and "science" don't agree, they begin with the mental gymnastics. If you accept evolution as a "truth" you must either A) completely disregard religion and the bible or B) torture the biblical text until you can compress evolution into it, that way one can somehow come to terms that they really are compatible. Mr.Ross and others have done the latter. 

It is true that there are some ordinary people out there who disbelieve in human-caused global warming and who believe in a young earth, but those are people who know neither the Bible nor science.  Their ignorant chatter may be immediately dismissed as typical of those who didn't pay attention at school and who got poor grades.  Just to make it clear, I got As in my college biology and human anatomy classes.

It may seem like "mental gymnastics" and "torture" to bring the traditional fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible into line with science, but that traditional interpretation was always shallow and incompetent, and can be disregarded now as boorish and ridiculous.  Real science is not at odds with professional understanding of the Bible.

[snowflake]

37 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Robert can of  course answer for himself. Here is the definition I use.

sci·ence

ˈsīəns/

noun

noun: science

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

   "the world of science and technology"

   synonyms:

   branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information, area of study, discipline, field "the science of criminology"

Macroevolution is simply not supported by observation or experiment, microevolution absolutely.  My point being evolution is based on belief not experimentation and observation.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/24/2017 at 11:24 PM, Ouagadougou said:

So how then are humans killing each other around 10,000 B.C., when the Fall occurred around 4,000 B.C., but before the fall there was no death?  

Let the mental gymnastics begin...

Uh, no, just your idiocy

Are you aware that scriptures are not science text books?

Please never in your whole life take any medications not listed in the scriptures please if you think scriptures are science text books

Fundamentalism died years ago- why are you still taking the bible literally?  Flat earther? 

The problem is not in the scriptures it is in your ridiculous level of understanding.  Grow up.

How could the word "death" exist before there was human language on earth?  Explain to me how exactly the human concept of death which presumably you are speaking of, existed before human language?

Perhaps you are speaking of non-human ideas of "death"??  And pray tell how do you get outside of your human consciousness to think about death before there was a human conception of death?

Did dinosaurs bury their dead, mourn for years, and visit the graves of their relatives?  Did they worry about the welfare of their children and find the greatest tragedy of their lives to see their own children die??

THAT is the human conception of "DEATH" and I assure you that did not exist before there were conscious, speaking, humans with a sense of guilt and a fear of death and the desire for something beyond death, or speaking metaphorically in other words. "before the fall".

If you can explain how creatures had a concept of "death" before humans named the cessation of life "death" and dreaded it, and had the possibility of understanding an afterlife, please explain how you can know that.

Perhaps you are not human and can "speak" for other species?

If you had asked an honest question I would have loved to explain how I see it in another tone, but your snarky smart- alecky and ridiculous OP deserves this reply entirely in my opinion.

If you have an honest question, wonderful.  If you come here offering ridicule, expect getting it back.

[Ouagadougou]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

Uh, no, just your idiocy

Are you aware that scriptures are not science text books?

Please never in your whole life take any medications not listed in the scriptures please if you think scriptures are science text books

Fundamentalism died years ago- why are you still taking the bible literally?  Flat earther? 

The problem is not in the scriptures it is in your ridiculous level of understanding.  Grow up.

How could the word "death" exist before there was human language on earth?  Explain to me how exactly the human concept of death which presumably you are speaking of, existed before human language?

Perhaps you are speaking of non-human ideas of "death"??  And pray tell how do you get outside of your human consciousness to think about death before there was a human conception of death?

Did dinosaurs bury their dead, mourn for years, and visit the graves of their relatives?  Did they worry about the welfare of their children and find the greatest tragedy of their lives to see their own children die??

THAT is the human conception of "DEATH" and I assure you that did not exist before there were conscious, speaking, humans with a sense of guilt and a fear of death and the desire for something beyond death, or speaking metaphorically in other words. "before the fall".

If you can explain how creatures had a concept of "death" before humans named the cessation of life "death" and dreaded it, and had the possibility of understanding an afterlife, please explain how you can know that.

Perhaps you are not human and can "speak" for other species?

If you had asked an honest question I would have loved to explain how I see it in another tone, but your snarky smart- alecky and ridiculous OP deserves this reply entirely in my opinion.

If you have an honest question, wonderful.  If you come here offering ridicule, expect getting it back.

Read D&C 77.  7,000 years, huh?  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

53 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

Quote

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One does not have to do any such thing, and you have here a false dilemma.

I disagree. Science rests on the idea that natural events must be explained by natural processes. Invoking the Supernatural to make it work contradict that basic idea...........................................................

Ah, but I fully agree "that natural events must be explained by natural processes," and that "invoking the Supernatural to make it work contradicts the basic idea."  I also love Neil De Grasse Tyson, and see no problem with his scientific views.  You clearly do not understand the false dilemma you pose.

LDS theology is built on the assumption of God as an integral part of nature (as are we all) and who uses entirely natural processes to accomplish his aims.  That is, Mormonism is a humanistic and naturalistic religion which posits a god who was once a man, and which makes all of us of the genus and species of God.  We are all coeternal with him in an infinite multiverse in which matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed.  What's not to like?

Edited May 26, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Ouagadougou]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

To "seem" or to "appear" is used properly by FAIR, even though you don't seem to get it.  You appear to have entirely missed the point they are making, which is that surface impressions frequently lead the poorly informed to draw incorrect conclusions.  You appear to have a very poor command of the English language.

 

Of course apologists use words like "appear," because when does the church really ever admit to mistakes, especially as it relates to doctrine?  

[thesometimesaint]

10 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Macroevolution is simply not supported by observation or experiment, microevolution absolutely.  My point being evolution is based on belief not experimentation and observation.

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over time.

SEE