Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

[_Morley]

Here is how it should read:

"Anyone who believes that there is conflict between science and Mormonism needs to read more about Mormonism, or science, or both."

Much more accurate.

If you have a substantive argument, please present it, Simon. I'm interested.

[_DrW]

Here is how it should read:

"Anyone who believes that there is conflict between science and Mormonism needs to read more about Mormonism, or science, or both."

Much more accurate.

Simon,

If I am not mistaken, there is a rule on this board against altering the statements of others.

If you wish to make your unsupportable statement, fine. Please do not attribute it to me or make it appear that I made the statement.

Thank you.

[_Simon Belmont]

If you wish to make your unsupportable statement, fine. Please do not attribute it to me or make it appear that I made the statement.
Thank you.

I'll change it. You can change it to, in your quote of me which included my quote of the hypothetical you.

But my statement has exactly as much support as your's does. The difference is, mine doesn't come from a jaded perspective.

[_Buffalo]

The difference is, mine doesn't come from a jaded perspective.

It comes from an ignorant perspective.

[_bcspace]

The simian is merely a stage (near the end) of the creative process, using evolution, to make bodies in God's own image. Evolution or literally shaped clay, both are merely processes to achieve the desire result. No conflict. Evolution does not preclude the fact that man is ceated in God's image.


Quote:
and they came about through random mutation and natural selection.


Processes that God would have instituted in the Creation as He set up the universe by smashing two branes together (String theory).

That's in direct contradiction to the theory of evolution.

How so?

Traits are selected for through random mutation and natural selection.

Indeed.

There is nothing inevitable about the evolution of man.

Sure, but as we know, selection can also be brought about by human intervention (such as the banana). Therefore, selection can also be a result of Divine intervention. It is not possible to preclude God because of support for evolution.

If the dinosaurs hadn't by chance been wiped out, it's possible that one of their species could have become sentient.

Sure.

[_Buffalo]

The simian is merely a stage (near the end) of the creative process, using evolution, to make bodies in God's own image. Evolution or literally shaped clay, both are merely processes to achieve the desire result. No conflict. Evolution does not preclude the fact that man is ceated in God's image.


Quote:
and they came about through random mutation and natural selection.


Processes that God would have instituted in the Creation as He set up the universe by smashing two branes together (String theory).

That's in direct contradiction to the theory of evolution.

How so?

Traits are selected for through random mutation and natural selection.

Indeed.

There is nothing inevitable about the evolution of man.

Sure, but as we know, selection can also be brought about by human intervention (such as the banana). Therefore, selection can also be a result of Divine intervention. It is not possible to preclude God because of support for evolution.

If the dinosaurs hadn't by chance been wiped out, it's possible that one of their species could have become sentient.

Sure.

I'm not sure how you don't get that randomness and intention are incompatible with each other.

[_bcspace]

I'm not sure how you don't get that randomness and intention are incompatible with each other.

I'm fairly certain you don't understand randomness at all and what seems random is often discovered later to be based on some deterministic principle. Also, in biology it is said that "the characteristics of an organism arise to some extent deterministically (e.g., under the influence of genes and the environment) and to some extent randomly."

But I did not claim that human or even divine intervention in selection was necessarily random. Evolution certainly doesn't claim that.

[_Buffalo]

I'm not sure how you don't get that randomness and intention are incompatible with each other.

I'm fairly certain you don't understand randomness at all and what seems random is often discovered later to be based on some deterministic principle. Also, in biology it is said that "the characteristics of an organism arise to some extent deterministically (e.g., under the influence of genes and the environment) and to some extent randomly."

But I did not claim that human or even divine intervention in selection was necessarily random. Evolution certainly doesn't claim that.

Natural selection isn't random - it's based on whatever happens to be most advantageous in a given environment.

But no where in the twin movers of random mutation and natural selection is there any room for a meddling god.

[_bcspace]

Natural selection isn't random - it's based on whatever happens to be most advantageous in a given environment.

I'm not talking about natural selection though randomness is not necessarily indeterministic and Biology seems to understand that. I'm talking about human selection, which is extant in evolution today and paves the way for Divine selection. Also the are the factors which drive natural (and human) selection, such as environment which are not random.

Therefore, nothing in science precludes God from driving evolution.

[_DrW]

Natural selection isn't random - it's based on whatever happens to be most advantageous in a given environment.

I'm not talking about natural selection though randomness is not necessarily indeterministic and Biology seems to understand that. I'm talking about human selection, which is extant in evolution today and paves the way for Divine selection. Also the are the factors which drive natural (and human) selection, such as environment which are not random.

Therefore, nothing in science precludes God from driving evolution.

I am pretty sure you understand that the ideas that you are describing here are in direct conflict with recent and specific statements by a General Authority of the Church based on his inspiration and interpretation of LDS scripture, including the Bible.

This General Authority (BKP) is in a much better position to say what is, and what is not, Mormon belief (or Mormonism) than you are at this point.

So instead of saying that there is no conflict between science and Mormonism, perhaps you would be better off to say that there is no conflict between science as you understand it and Mormonism as fabricated by you as you go along - keeping in mind that the Mormonism that BKP makes up as he goes along is a Mormonism from a much more credible (to Mormons) source.

In other words (and I think you would agree here) "BKP Mormonism" Trump's "BC Space Mormonism".

However, since I am confident that BKP would never agree to defend his beliefs in any kind of free and open public forum (because he would get his clock cleaned in short order), I suppose that you have nothing to worry about.