The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I wish this was an illusion.

It's like fingernails on a chalkboard.

The ignore function is always available.

I actually use it quite a bit to avoid being annoyed when flipping through threads.  I usually use the "show post" option, but since it thus becomes my choice to read, I don't get annoyed by the material as I would if it just popped up.

Edited March 6, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

23 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

God can make our bodies survive on the Sun if he wanted to. Our bodies are fine-tuned, not the universe. The fine-tuning of the Universe is just an illusion. Right?

 

[Freedom]

On 3/5/2018 at 9:38 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course he does.  Why do you think he wouldn't properly prepare planets for his children?  You are disagreeing just to be disagreeable, Sam.

No, they were organized from preexisting matter by him, according to natural law.

Where in our doctrine does it say God prepared planets?

[Freedom]

On 3/5/2018 at 10:06 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

God can make our bodies survive on the Sun if he wanted to. Our bodies are fine-tuned, not the universe. The fine-tuning of the Universe is just an illusion. Right?

Do you have a scripture to back up this claim?

[mfbukowski]

On 3/5/2018 at 9:22 PM, Michael Sudworth said:

False.

My shoe laces don't need a V8 diesel engine.  Therefore, my laces and a V8 diesel engine are compatible.  Nonsense, brother.

I am sorry to say so but your point agrees with mine, and you don't see it.

I said

Quote

Since Evolution doesn't need God and God doesn't need Evolution they are in fact compatible not incompatible.

Two concepts which are not relevant to each other are "compatible" because they are irrelevant to each other, and therefore do not conflict, and you agree with that, show an example, and yet call it false.

Of course you used things- and not concepts but still clearly they are compatible.  Obviously if you wear shoelaces while working on a diesel engine, there will be no conflict because they are compatible.  If you smoke a cigarette while working with diesel, because they are "incompatible" you may have an undesirable result

In short, this makes no sense whatsoever.  You agree with my principle while calling it "false".

Absurd.  

That is besides the fact that things are not propositions. 

You have done this multiple times, made pronouncements without backing them up

Your posts amount to saying "neener neener you are wrong" without saying anything or making any argument.  They are irrelevant wastes of time.

Edited March 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Freedom said:

Where in our doctrine does it say God prepared planets?

Are you concerned with the plural "planets," or with the preparation?  The preparatory work is systematically described in Gen 1, Moses 2, and Abraham 4.  In addition, Moses 3 makes it clear that every aspect of that preparation of Earth was first formulated in a spiritual template before the physical preparation.  That the creation of planet Earth and the heavens accompanying it was done with preexisting material is a cardinal principle of LDS theology, and it is also clear from the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 (Speiser, Genesis).  See the Wikipedia entry on "Mormon Cosmology," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology .

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you concerned with the plural "planets," or with the preparation?  The preparatory work is systematically described in Gen 1, Moses 2, and Abraham 4.  In addition, Moses 3 makes it clear that every aspect of that preparation of Earth was first formulated in a spiritual template before the physical preparation.  That the creation of planet Earth and the heavens accompanying it was done with preexisting material is a cardinal principle of LDS theology, and it is also clear from the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 (Speiser, Genesis).  See the Wikipedia entry on "Mormon Cosmology," https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_cosmology .

Planet and earth are not synonymous. Moses 1:29 each land is called earth. Earth is land, not planet. Genesis 1 is not a description of how the universe was created, it is a liturgical text of how God prepared a place for us to learn the gospel. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

Planet and earth are not synonymous. Moses 1:29 each land is called earth. Earth is land, not planet. Genesis 1 is not a description of how the universe was created, it is a liturgical text of how God prepared a place for us to learn the gospel. 

False.  Although it is true that the Hebrew word for "land, earth" is the same, it should be abundantly clear from the LDS Endowment liturgy and Scripture that the Earth being discussed in Moses is a planet/world:

Moses 1:35,38, “…only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.”

“…as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.”

D&C 76:24, “by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.”

Joseph Fielding Smith:  “We are not the only people that the Lord has created. We have brothers and sisters on other earths. They look like us because they, too, are the children of God and were created in his image, for they are also his offspring.”  Doctrines of Salvation I:62.

Abraham 3:5-9, “The planet which is the lesser light, lesser than that which is to rule the day, even the night, is above or greater than that upon which thou standest in point of reckoning, for it moveth in order more slow; this is in order because it standeth above the earth upon which thou standest, therefore the reckoning of its time is not so many as to its number of days, and of months, and of years.

And the Lord said unto me: Now, Abraham, these two facts exist, behold thine eyes see it; it is given unto thee to know the times of reckoning, and the set time, yea, the set time of the earth upon which thou standest, and the set time of the greater light which is set to rule the day, and the set time of the lesser light which is set to rule the night.

Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest.

And where these two facts exist, there shall be another fact above them, that is, there shall be another planet whose reckoning of time shall be longer still;

And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.”

 Abraham facsimile 2:5, “this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.”

Job 9:6-9, “Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.

Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

Which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, and the chambers of the south.”

 

[strappinglad]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Now the set time of the lesser light is a longer time as to its reckoning than the reckoning of the time of the earth upon which thou standest.

I wonder what this refers to. The moon orbits the sun in about the same time as the earth , but it travels a greater distance in doing so. The moon orbits the earth in less time than the earth orbits the sun. Calling all astronomers!!!

[Freedom]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.  Although it is true that the Hebrew word for "land, earth" is the same, it should be abundantly clear from the LDS Endowment liturgy and Scripture that the Earth being discussed in Moses is a planet/world. 

 

 

Ya no. You are the one with the false notions. It is very clear from the LDS endowment that the creation story is a story, not a history. It is highly symbolic. Although the story is literal (as opposed to fictional), it is abstract (as opposed to concrete). The creation story, according to your approach, is preaching flat earth. The people of Moses and Abraham had no concept of planet. There was no global flood, despite Moses recounting the entire earth being covered in water, and the Nephite battles took place over a very small area, despite claims by Mormon that the bodies covered the whole earth. 

 

[Freedom]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

Two concepts which are not relevant to each other are "compatible" because they are irrelevant to each other, and therefore do not conflict, and you agree with that, show an example, and yet call it false.

 

I think a better term would be they are not mutual exclusive. Compatible suggests that they work together. Milk and eggs are compatible for example in making an omelet. I am not saying your argument is wrong, but perhaps a better term would clarify your point so that you do not muddy the water with semantics. 

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Ya no. You are the one with the false notions. It is very clear from the LDS endowment that the creation story is a story, not a history. It is highly symbolic. Although the story is literal (as opposed to fictional), it is abstract (as opposed to concrete). The creation story, according to your approach, is preaching flat earth. The people of Moses and Abraham had no concept of planet. There was no global flood, despite Moses recounting the entire earth being covered in water, and the Nephite battles took place over a very small area, despite claims by Mormon that the bodies covered the whole earth. 

I cited the sources which completely falsify this ridiculous understanding of many texts.  You are unable to read in context,, deny that explicit references to "planets" & "worlds" exist, and entirely miss the point of virtually all of those texts -- including the statement by Mormon that bodies covered the whole earth (a common biblical phrase meant to be taken locally -- "whole land").  Your flat earth nonsense is a transparent attempt to deflect from a serious engagement with real texts.  And here I thought that  Sam was the least able of anyone to coherently understand texts.  We have a new contender, Freedom.

[Michael Sudworth]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am sorry to say so but your point agrees with mine, and you don't see it.

LOL. Nah, I just think you are wrong.

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Two concepts which are not relevant to each other are "compatible" because they are irrelevant to each other, and therefore do not conflict, and you agree with that, show an example, and yet call it false.

Of course you used things- and not concepts but still clearly they are compatible.  Obviously if you wear shoelaces while working on a diesel engine, there will be no conflict because they are compatible.  If you smoke a cigarette while working with diesel, because they are "incompatible" you may have an undesirable result

Uh oh. You are breaking your own rules, mfbukowski!

You intentionally choose the words "compatible" and "incompatible" to play a rhetorical game. By exploiting a narrow, overly-literal definition of a word in stating the basis of your analogy, and then turning right around and using the common, colloquial meaning when drawing the comparison, you are not employing sound reason. Its sophistry and whether intentional or not, misleads your reader. And the use of sophistry in defense of the Gospel is profoundly counterproductive. 

In my view, defense of the Gospel requires humility, solid reasoning, and a coherent message. Not just attempts to fit the Gospel into a pet - and very very narrow - philosophical viewpoint.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Freedom said:

I think a better term would be they are not mutual exclusive. Compatible suggests that they work together. Milk and eggs are compatible for example in making an omelet. I am not saying your argument is wrong, but perhaps a better term would clarify your point so that you do not muddy the water with semantics. 

Thanks- good point.

The issue in my mind was more about "not conflicting" as opposed to "compatible".  It can be a fine line, but thanks for the comment!

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

LOL. Nah, I just think you are wrong.

Uh oh. You are breaking your own rules, mfbukowski!

You intentionally choose the words "compatible" and "incompatible" to play a rhetorical game. By exploiting a narrow, overly-literal definition of a word in stating the basis of your analogy, and then turning right around and using the common, colloquial meaning when drawing the comparison, you are not employing sound reason. Its sophistry and whether intentional or not, misleads your reader. And the use of sophistry in defense of the Gospel is profoundly counterproductive. 

In my view, defense of the Gospel requires humility, solid reasoning, and a coherent message. Not just attempts to fit the Gospel into a pet - and very very narrow - philosophical viewpoint.

He speaks and reasons!!

OK fair enough- I think Freedom pointed that out as well, and to some extent you caught me doing it knowingly because I was aware of the problem but went with it anyway.

I thought if I got into the real problem as I see it, it would not be understood but in fact I obviously guessed wrong, and appreciate you catching it and pointing it out

As I see it the real problem is that I was talking about linguistic contexts or "language games" which do not entail each other cannot "conflict" each other. 

Thus in my view science cannot conflict with religion because the basic assumptions and purposes of the two subjects are completely different from the other (in my view)

Science is based on objective observation and religion is not.  We do not see God for example and cannot make objective observations which may or may not differ between individuals.  "No His hair is grey, not white" or "Clearly He is over six feet tall"  vs "No he's not"

You appeared to be a member of the "No He's not" club without backing up anything.

Similar cases would be those I mentioned earlier, basketball and knitting.  Each are similar to religion and science in requiring rules, producing contexts which  can be expressed verbally which,  when followed, lead to achieving productive goals.  In basketball the productive goal would be entertainment, in  knitting the production of clothing, and in religion, knowledge of the teleology of the world and man and in science, knowledge of predictable results about how the world operates.  All include presumptions which are expressed in verbal contexts.

Your examples were nothing like mine, and were things, not activities, they contained no rules, nor led to productive goals involving language.  They were diesel engines and shoelaces.

Those examples of course make the use of the word "compatible" absurd in describing any relationship between your two examples, whereas mine, though perhaps equivocating somewhat, did not have that central flaw

But thanks for the response

And for the record I do not viewpoint as "narrow" at all but the only one which makes sense in constructing a position showing science is not in conflict with the gospel and in which Alma 32 and D&C 93 make sense

I would like to see how you resolve those problems in a way which is "compatible" with delivering the message of the gospel in a secular world.- my goals.

Edited March 8, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I cited the sources which completely falsify this ridiculous understanding of many texts.  You are unable to read in context,, deny that explicit references to "planets" & "worlds" exist, and entirely miss the point of virtually all of those texts -- including the statement by Mormon that bodies covered the whole earth (a common biblical phrase meant to be taken locally -- "whole land").  Your flat earth nonsense is a transparent attempt to deflect from a serious engagement with real texts.  And here I thought that  Sam was the least able of anyone to coherently understand texts.  We have a new contender, Freedom.

yes yes, you cites sources which you completely misunderstand and take out of context and link together when they were not meant to be linked together. I am in good company with many scholars and you stand alone in your own pretension.  

 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Freedom said:

yes yes, you cites sources which you completely misunderstand and take out of context and link together when they were not meant to be linked together. I am in good company with many scholars and you stand alone in your own pretension.  ........................................

At least Walton  & Fleener accept modern scholarship on Gen 1 -4 as a temple story, and Walton correctly insists that God speaks to man according to human language and cultural understanding.  Otherwise, unfortunately, they are bound by the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim dogma of creation from nothing, and cannot properly understand the Hebrew text, leading them to eisegesis, rather than sound exegesis.  The argument from inerrancy is particularly unfortunate.  Naturally, they would not accept the LDS Scriptures (D&C, Moses, and Abraham), and would thus disregard the substantive arguments made there -- just as you do.  Real scholars have long since left that sort of phony "scholarship" behind.  If you read James Barr or Ephraim Speiser, you at least gain some sound interpretations, without even considering the LDS POV.

Were you to take a serious course on this subject matter at the UCLA Dept of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures (NELC), you would garner Ds and Fs, and I don't mean "F" for Freedom.  I find that most of those who make the sort of empty claims you make here have a very poor gpa in college -- if they even bothered to go to college.

[Freedom]

On 3/8/2018 at 3:35 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Were you to take a serious course on this subject matter at the UCLA Dept of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures (NELC), you would garner Ds and Fs, and I don't mean "F" for Freedom.  I find that most of those who make the sort of empty claims you make here have a very poor gpa in college -- if they even bothered to go to college.

You have developed the talent of being a biggest prick on this site. 

I will let Kevin Christensen, Terry Givens and Dan Peterson know about your concerns.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, Freedom said:

You have developed the talent of being a biggest prick on this site. 

I will let Kevin Christensen, Terry Givens and Dan Peterson know about your concerns.

Sorry, buddy, I call them as I see them.  You had an opportunity to speak coherently, and chose to obfuscate and pretend instead.  It's called "free agency."

[Hestia]

Freedom has been banned from this thread for personal insults.  Disagree with opinions, not people.

[mfbukowski]

On 3/5/2018 at 9:56 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, God organized human bodies to survive on the planet Earth he fine-tuned for us.  So?

This  way of seeing is exactly why I post here- and I know you understand that.  To me, what you have said here is "gospel truth"- I think that this is the way "it really is"

But on the other hand, because we are here to walk by faith, we must also understand that God is going to leave that open and give us other ways to see it.

That is why I think it is so important to realize that the message of the gospel is NOT "incompatible" with secularism in any way, but is simply another paradigm- a different way of interpreting the data.

If everyone understood this, atheists and theists could co-exist and see each other as equally rational, and see the case for both sides and simply pick the interpretation which struck them as being "true".  Atheists could see that in every phase of their lives, they live by faith in making every crucial decision about what is important to them and use emotion and feelings constantly in making the most important decisions of their lives including what beliefs give their lives purpose and direction and realize that scientific data has its purposes, but in other areas of life than deciding the most important issues in their lives.

In these most important issues, all of us as humans turn to "what feels right" in picking a mate, an occupation, what to study in school and what non-falsifiable story we choose to model our lives around and give ourselves a purpose for being here.

But none of this will work if both sides don't see it.

That to me is the importance of seeing the gospel as spiritual humanism.  With our Mormon Human Man of Holiness we have a single paradigm which fulfills both options in seeking human perfection since we all want to "be better people".  That is a hugely humanistic goal- witness all the talk of wealth equality, compassion, kindness toward others which is seen as "political correctness" etc.- goals which parallel "being Christlike" while most who espouse those values having no concept of the true Christ who was a Human God.

What a victory for Satan to take those values and make them seem incompatible with theism as it has been misrepresented!

"Fides et Ratio" makes it so clear to me that the apostasy clearly is a historical fact, and with the search for "objective reality" in matters of faith illustrated perfectly to this day in every post demanding scientific evidence for spiritual values.   And all this from a fellow Goral Pole who is probably a distant relative!  How odd to think of someone who looks like John Paul  II being part of an "Indigenous Tribe"    

The same conflict we have seen in Galileo vs Bellarmine - the presumption that science and religion speak of the same subject- still exists in "Fides et Ratio" and everywhere in the world where people are ignorant of branches of contemporary philosophy which, at least to me, provide even atheists with a reason to be believers if they but find them.

And by the way, of course those texts speak of other worlds- I agree- who could miss that?   That is literally what they are saying- to take them metaphorically we can see them as individual worlds even we as mini-godlings make in our own lives- but beyond a doubt what is literally being spoken is about multiple worlds/planets.

I don't want to carry that forward now with Freedom gone, but I do not see how he could have seen it that way.

Just letting off steam and frustration I guess- thanks for listening!!  

Edited March 13, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

This  way of seeing is exactly why I post here- and I know you understand that.  To me, what you have said here is "gospel truth"- I think that this is the way "it really is"

But on the other hand, because we are here to walk by faith, we must also understand that God is going to leave that open and give us other ways to see it.

That is why I think it is so important to realize that the message of the gospel is NOT "incompatible" with secularism in any way, but is simply another paradigm- a different way of interpreting the data.

If everyone understood this, atheists and theists could co-exist and see each other as equally rational, and see the case for both sides and simply pick the interpretation which struck them as being "true".  Atheists could see that in every phase of their lives, they live by faith in making every crucial decision about what is important to them and use emotion and feelings constantly in making the most important decisions of their lives including what beliefs give their lives purpose and direction and realize that scientific data has its purposes, but in other areas of life than deciding the most important issues in their lives.

In these most important issues, all of us as humans turn to "what feels right" in picking a mate, an occupation, what to study in school and what non-falsifiable story we choose to model our lives around and give ourselves a purpose for being here.

But none of this will work if both sides don't see it.

That to me is the importance of seeing the gospel as spiritual humanism.  With our Mormon Human Man of Holiness we have a single paradigm which fulfills both options in seeking human perfection since we all want to "be better people".  That is a hugely humanistic goal- witness all the talk of wealth equality, compassion, kindness toward others which is seen as "political correctness" etc.- goals which parallel "being Christlike" while most who espouse those values having no concept of the true Christ who was a Human God.

What a victory for Satan to take those values and make them seem incompatible with theism as it has been misrepresented!

"Fides et Ratio" makes it so clear to me that the apostasy clearly is a historical fact, and with the search for "objective reality" in matters of faith illustrated perfectly to this day in every post demanding scientific evidence for spiritual values.   And all this from a fellow Goral Pole who is probably a distant relative!  How odd to think of someone who looks like John Paul  II being part of an "Indigenous Tribe"    

The same conflict we have seen in Galileo vs Bellarmine - the presumption that science and religion speak of the same subject- still exists in "Fides et Ratio" and everywhere in the world where people are ignorant of branches of contemporary philosophy which, at least to me, provide even atheists with a reason to be believers if they but find them.

And by the way, of course those texts speak of other worlds- I agree- who could miss that?   That is literally what they are saying- to take them metaphorically we can see them as individual worlds even we as mini-godlings make in our own lives- but beyond a doubt what is literally being spoken is about multiple worlds/planets.

I don't want to carry that forward now with Freedom gone, but I do not see how he could have seen it that way.

Just letting off steam and frustration I guess- thanks for listening!!  

Yeh, it is as if most see this as a zero sum game, when in reality we all win, the faithful and the secularists.

[mfbukowski]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yeh, it is as if most see this as a zero sum game, when in reality we all win, the faithful and the secularists.

That is exactly right! !