No Death Before the Fall?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

You are deflecting, as usual.  why are you afraid to deal with the issues I raise?  Why do you refuse to acknowledge your obvious errors?

[thesometimesaint]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

In science we must control the variables. Say you are a farmer and want to know if putting fertilizer on your fields of corn make a difference. So you devise an experiment to see for yourself if it does. On one field you put the fertilizer on in the correct manner, and the other you don't put any fertilizer. You pray that God will not effect the field you put fertilizer on. You otherwise treat both fields the same way. Is it reasonable to expect that God will intervene and not effect your fields?

That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that he can't effect natural events. What it does mean is that we have no scientific means to tell the difference.

[Ouagadougou]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are deflecting, as usual.  why are you afraid to deal with the issues I raise?  Why do you refuse to acknowledge your obvious errors?

What errors?  I'm not deflecting anything. The only ones deflecting are apologists.  They use words like "appear" ...not me.  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

In science we must control the variables. Say you are a farmer and want to know if putting fertilizer on your fields of corn make a difference. So you devise an experiment to see for yourself if it does. On one field you put the fertilizer on in the correct manner, and the other you don't put any fertilizer. You pray that God will not effect the field you put fertilizer on. You otherwise treat both fields the same way. Is it reasonable to expect that God will intervene and not effect your fields?

You are confusing the scientific method with faith -- two very separate epistemic modes.

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or that he can't effect natural events. What it does mean is that we have no scientific means to tell the difference.

Correct.  It may mean that there are obvious limits to our knowledge, and we have to face that everyday.  For, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson points out, nearly everything in the universe is composed of dark energy and dark matter -- about which we know nearly nothing.  Science does have limits, and we need to openly acknowledge that.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

What errors?  I'm not deflecting anything. The only ones deflecting are apologists.  They use words like "appear" ...not me.  

You're in denial, which seems to be a popular mode of non-discourse in the age of Trump.

[snowflake]

43 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over time.

SEE

 

Not true, macroevolution has not been observed.  Look at the fruit fly experiment done in high school and colleges.  After literally tens of thousands of generations and over a hundred years of trying to "force" the fruit fly to evolve we still end up with.......a fruit fly. Moths produce moths everytime, maybe a little bigger, or smaller or a little different color but always moths, no exception has ever been observed.  

[snowflake]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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?

Excellent explanation of Mormonism. Unbiblical fantasy...... but well said sir.

[clarkgoble]

34 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Not true, macroevolution has not been observed.  Look at the fruit fly experiment done in high school and colleges.  After literally tens of thousands of generations and over a hundred years of trying to "force" the fruit fly to evolve we still end up with.......a fruit fly. Moths produce moths everytime, maybe a little bigger, or smaller or a little different color but always moths, no exception has ever been observed.  

Macroevolution as used by creationists is a category based purely upon arbitrary "we haven't seen that" criteria. As soon as something is seen then the definition of macroevolution changes. Originally it was just evolution at the level of species or higher. When speciation was seen it became complex morphology. The point is that it's always something that takes too long to see in the lab even if there's abundant evidence for it in fossil records. You can even find particular genes that lead to speciation and it convinces no one. A friend of mine was studying evidence for macroevolution in plants, including one major speciation event that happened in west Utah when two plant populations were separated by a road leading to changes in the number of chromosomes (macroevolution by anyone's definition).

Even the requirement of "observation" assumes that having records over time isn't really observation. But there's tends of speciation events one can point to.

The raising of fruit flies as an example demonstrates this since of course speciation in fruit flies has been observed. The goal posts move though since the creationists say that both species still look like fruit flies. The problem is a commitment to a "kind" that they never specify and any morphological change that can be demonstrated is no longer enough.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

Read D&C 77.  7,000 years, huh?  

 

Yes 7k years.

No comprehension whatsoever.

Scripture is METAPHORICAL and symbolic. All scripture. Cite as many as you like.

Scripture is about changing our lives, not science.

How will your personal life change if the universe lasts 70 more, 700 more, 7 thousand or 7 trillion more years?

In some cases your universe may not last 7 more years or 7 minutes.

Clue: In any of these cases you will not be there. Change your life while you can. Your end is near. That is all that matters.

Edited May 26, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Ouagadougou]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes 7k years.

No comprehension whatsoever.

Scripture is METAPHORICAL and symbolic. All scripture. Cite as many as you like.

Scripture is about changing our lives, not science.

How will your personal life change if the universe lasts 70 more, 700 more, 7 thousand or 7 trillion more years?

In some cases your universe may not last 7 more years or 7 minutes.

Clue: In any of these cases you will not be there. Change your life while you can. Your end is near. That is all that matters.

Symbolic -- that is the classic answer.    7,000 years doesn't actually mean 7,000...it's just some arbitrary number as a spiritual metaphor. 

Are the battles with 2 million people in the BoM also just symbolic?  

"6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence."

You answer is just damage control because even the heading of 77 states that:

"This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years."

It doesn't say "symbolic" and/or "metaphorical."  If you can just change the underlying meaning of words in the scriptures, then the words no longer have any meaning, due to the fact that any word could technically mean anything in a symbolic sense.  

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Excellent explanation of Mormonism. Unbiblical fantasy...... but well said sir.

Fantasy?  The problem is that the best non-Mormon biblical scholars actually agree with the Mormon interpretation of the Bible, which is not really a Mormon interpretation, but is simply the best scholarship applied to Holy Writ.  For example, Ronald Hendel, “Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel,” in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book  (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 205–228.  Online at http://berkeley.academia.edu/RonHendel/Papers/848639/Aniconism_and_Anthropomorphism_in_Ancient_Israel .  See esp. 222-223 on anthropomorphism in the Bible.  Norbert Samuelson, "That the God of the Philosophers is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." Harvard Theological Review, 65 (1972):1-27.  Non-Mormon scholar Ernst Benz has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis,  

Quote

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith=s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.  Benz, "Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God," in Truman Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

Based on the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible, Jewish scholar Yohanan Muffs insists that "the biblical God is anthropomorphic.  Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture."  Muffs, Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

In science we must control the variables.

Not entirely true. There's a lot of science or near science where we don't control the variables. Say historical cosmology or the history of evolution.

[Thinking]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 0:06 AM, The Nehor said:

"It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

Ah yes, the all important disclaimer. Where would LDS doctrine be without it.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Macroevolution as used by creationists is a category based purely upon arbitrary "we haven't seen that" criteria. As soon as something is seen then the definition of macroevolution changes. Originally it was just evolution at the level of species or higher. When speciation was seen it became complex morphology. The point is that it's always something that takes too long to see in the lab even if there's abundant evidence for it in fossil records. You can even find particular genes that lead to speciation and it convinces no one. A friend of mine was studying evidence for macroevolution in plants, including one major speciation event that happened in west Utah when two plant populations were separated by a road leading to changes in the number of chromosomes (macroevolution by anyone's definition).

Even the requirement of "observation" assumes that having records over time isn't really observation. But there's tends of speciation events one can point to.

The raising of fruit flies as an example demonstrates this since of course speciation in fruit flies has been observed. The goal posts move though since the creationists say that both species still look like fruit flies. The problem is a commitment to a "kind" that they never specify and any morphological change that can be demonstrated is no longer enough.

The problem is that an obvious lack of transitional species (lack of fossils) necessarily led Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to fornulate their 1972 doctrine of punctuated equilibriua, i.e., sudden change in species.  One must not confuse simple adaptation within a species with actual evolutionary change.  They are not the same.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Ah yes, the all important disclaimer. Where would LDS doctrine be without it.

So there can be no honest disclaimers, and LDS doctrine can only be supported through deflection and dishonest disclaimers?

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Symbolic -- that is the classic answer.    7,000 years doesn't actually mean 7,000...it's just some arbitrary number as a spiritual metaphor. 

Are the battles with 2 million people in the BoM also just symbolic?  

"6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence."

You answer is just damage control because even the heading of 77 states that:

"This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years."

It doesn't say "symbolic" and/or "metaphorical."  If you can just change the underlying meaning of words in the scriptures, then the words no longer have any meaning, due to the fact that any word could technically mean anything in a symbolic sense.  

Isn't your argument just that with many passages it's not terribly obvious how to read them? I assume you acknowledge that such things could be symbolic and that in some cases unambiguously are symbolic. I assume you recognize that the number seven pops up in lots of odd places that likely isn't a coincidence.

Now it certainly is frustrating to critics who want clear unambiguous texts to critique that some texts are open to lots of justifiable readings. It's not like these "non-literalistic" readings are coming from left field. There's lots of texts from the general cultural and historical epochs one can point to that make similar use. So these readings are arbitrary however annoying they might be to some people.

The problem you have with D&C 77 is that the notion of the figurative already plays a huge role in the text. Likewise we know how Joseph reads time often is more complex - especially since you yourself quoted the bit of numerology using 1 year = 1000 years to get a 2.55 billion year history during Nauvoo. So that's the context for things like D&C 77 along with the various commentaries, masonic traditions and so forth Joseph had as a context. To simply say everything must have its straightforward reading the way you read it simply ignores the entire history of Joseph's writing. That the text in question is explicitly a revelation about a highly symbolic and figurative text, The Book of Revelation, that itself explicitly talks of figurative symbols, makes your critique less than compelling. Knowing the literary form a text is participating in is an important step in the hermeneutic process. To argue that apocalyptic literature isn't figurative and symbolic is just to be ignorant of that genre of literature.

In any case, even if one was inclined to be literal despite the obvious context, there's a problem. The verse doesn't say the earth was only around 7000 years. It just talks about the hidden economy during a 7000 year stretch. Nowhere does it say in that verse that the earth didn't exist before then. Just that the things in revelation deal with "the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." To talk of 7000 years of existence is not to claim there are only 7000 years.

 

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Symbolic -- that is the classic answer.    7,000 years doesn't actually mean 7,000...it's just some arbitrary number as a spiritual metaphor. 

Are the battles with 2 million people in the BoM also just symbolic?  

"6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?

A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence."

You answer is just damage control because even the heading of 77 states that:

"This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years."

It doesn't say "symbolic" and/or "metaphorical."  If you can just change the underlying meaning of words in the scriptures, then the words no longer have any meaning, due to the fact that any word could technically mean anything in a symbolic sense.  

Oh my gosh. 

See these little squiggles, these 26 little squiggles or their equivalent that make up all of human wisdom? You are looking at them right now.

Language itself is symbolic.

And if you think scientific literature, as literature, is not symbolic, you are just incorrect.

Different subject, but words are not things and all words are subject to interpretation and change.

Have you read Kuhn?

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem is that an obvious lack of transitional species (lack of fossils) necessarily led Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge to fornulate their 1972 doctrine of punctuated equilibriua, i.e., sudden change in species.  One must not confuse simple adaptation within a species with actual evolutionary change.  They are not the same.

One need not know every particular to infer a pattern. That's the whole point of induction vs. deduction. We can debate how to make that fill of course. We then make further hypothesis and test those.

But adaptation within a species is evolutionary change as is speciation and larger change. They're all just evolution. To say adaptation is not evolution is to misunderstand what evolutionary change is. Ultimately all that's going on are changes in DNA (and in the short term potential epigenetic change). Big DNA changes are just as much change as small DNA changes. All that matters is whether the changes get successfully passed to progeny.

The debate Gould and company had wasn't over evolution but simply whether it proceeded at a constant rate or not. Obviously that will depend upon how big of changes occur within the physical environment around the species. But that has nothing to do with transitional species being seen or not. Rather it has to do with a claim of gradualism as a general principle. But there's no doubt some species can be very successfully adapted to their environment and see relatively little change. Alligators are a relatively good example of that as are many other species. Likewise certain species may see rapid evolution due to rapid environment change to which they are not well adapted. The particulars of evolution will always be significantly tied to the particular environment and capabilities of that group.

Edited May 26, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't your argument just that with many passages it's not terribly obvious how to read them? I assume you acknowledge that such things could be symbolic and that in some cases unambiguously are symbolic. I assume you recognize that the number seven pops up in lots of odd places that likely isn't a coincidence.

Now it certainly is frustrating to critics who want clear unambiguous texts to critique that some texts are open to lots of justifiable readings. It's not like these "non-literalistic" readings are coming from left field. There's lots of texts from the general cultural and historical epochs one can point to that make similar use. So these readings are arbitrary however annoying they might be to some people.

The problem you have with D&C 77 is that the notion of the figurative already plays a huge role in the text. Likewise we know how Joseph reads time often is more complex - especially since you yourself quoted the bit of numerology using 1 year = 1000 years to get a 2.55 billion year history during Nauvoo. So that's the context for things like D&C 77 along with the various commentaries, masonic traditions and so forth Joseph had as a context. To simply say everything must have its straightforward reading the way you read it simply ignores the entire history of Joseph's writing. That the text in question is explicitly a revelation about a highly symbolic and figurative text, The Book of Revelation, that itself explicitly talks of figurative symbols, makes your critique less than compelling.

In any case, even if one was inclined to be literal despite the obvious context, there's a problem. The verse doesn't say the earth was only around 7000 years. It just talks about the hidden economy during a 7000 year stretch. Nowhere does it say in that verse that the earth didn't exist before then. Just that the things in revelation deal with "the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." To talk of 7000 years of existence is not to claim there are only 7000 years.

 

Agree completely of course.

I don't think this will communicate to him though

And D&C 77? With so many 7's?

SIGNificance is where you find it

[strappinglad]

I do have to chuckle when I hear ND Tyson say we KNOW that the majority of the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy. Such are inferred or implied from observations but there is no actual evidence that such exists at all. To me it is the same as saying that one KNOWS that God exists , even though it can be inferred or implied from experiences/ faith , the atheists insist on actual concrete evidence while letting dark stuff slide.

To me , the massive information storage capacity of DNA and the incredible mechanisms within the cell , scream intelligence, not random mutations over billions of years. I simply lack faith in the application of random energy to a complex system. Been in too many thunderstorms.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

Excellent explanation of Mormonism. Unbiblical fantasy...... but well said sir.

Oh gosh.

I guess that makes the Bible total fantasy.

References to known cities does not give one salvation.  

If I can show that Jerusalem exists, or even that Jesus existed, does that prove I am saved from hell?  Talk about far-fetched tales......

It's testimony or nothing.

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So there can be no honest disclaimers, and LDS doctrine can only be supported through deflection and dishonest disclaimers?

I'll answer your question with a question. Do the missionaries use disclaimers when they teach investigators?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

I'll answer your question with a question. Do the missionaries use disclaimers when they teach investigators?

Jesus and his apostles didn't use disclaimers when they taught, so why should the Gospel be taught with disclaimers?  Sounds like something that a wuss would do.  Does modern political correctness demand that everything be preceded by disclaimers?  If so, are all disclaimers dishonest, or are they just PC?

[strappinglad]

My favorite disclaimer,  " Your mileage may vary "

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

One need not know every particular to infer a pattern. That's the whole point of induction vs. deduction. We can debate how to make that fill of course. We then make further hypothesis and test those.

But adaptation within a species is evolutionary change as is speciation and larger change. They're all just evolution. To say adaptation is not evolution is to misunderstand what evolutionary change is. Ultimately all that's going on are changes in DNA (and in the short term potential epigenetic change). Big DNA changes are just as much change as small DNA changes. All that matters is whether the changes get successfully passed to progeny.

The debate Gould and company had wasn't over evolution but simply whether it proceeded at a constant rate or not. Obviously that will depend upon how big of changes occur within the physical environment around the species. But that has nothing to do with transitional species being seen or not. Rather it has to do with a claim of gradualism as a general principle. But there's no doubt some species can be very successfully adapted to their environment and see relatively little change. Alligators are a relatively good example of that as are many other species. Likewise certain species may see rapid evolution due to rapid environment change to which they are not well adapted. The particulars of evolution will always be significantly tied to the particular environment and capabilities of that group.

You clearly do not understand the true nature of simple adaptation within a species as differentiated from actual evolutionary change to a new species.  You choose to infer the transition, even though direct evidence does not exist, and that is a logical inference.  But it is not proof, but only a good inference, and the pattern does make sense.  Natural selection and within species adaptation do not entail genetic changes.  They are simply survival mechanisms which leave a species still the same species, but better able to survive in a particular environment.  And this occurs over time, leaving the newly adaptive individuals still capable of interbreeding with their former neighbors -- who are now somewhat different.  That is the nature of polytypism, and it exists among dogs just as it does among humans.  To understand it you need only to understand the Mendelian laws of inheritance.