Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Buffalo »

bcspace wrote:
Science 4,586,384,421, God 0


God and science are not in opposition, God being the ultimate scientist. God has certainly not come out against Evolution, even in LDS doctrine.


"God" is always quick to retroactively take credit whenever scientists discover something that evaded prophetic revelation concerning creation.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Buffalo »

Ceeboo wrote:Is that REALLY the score?

4,586,384,421 to zero?

Wow!

Talk about an ass kicking.


Peace,
Ceeboo


It depends on if you're counting in British pounds of American baskets.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _DrW »

Ezias wrote:Don't want to debate a whole lot here but the whole premise reaks of strawman. Here we go again with creating a "god" out of straw that is easy for us to rip apart (well, a flying spagetti monster but you get the drift). by the way, there really are flying spaghetti monsters out there, just look up spaghettification, it is quite frightening.

My 2 cents is that all this bickering and aruguing and intellectualism isn't going to define God, or prove or disprove anything about It. Good luck trying to find God with your brains people. Gotta let go of your mind and the pride thereof to see God within.

I am facinated by evolution. I certainly believe the universe and God itself evolves. I hope we can evolve intellectually beyond putting God in a box and then crushing it. God doesn't fit in boxes anyway.

The simple fact is that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for a creator God, and especially not for the laws-of-physics-violating anthropomorphic God that Joseph Smith described. Humankind does not need such a God to explain its existence or that of this universe. The creation of, and belief in, such a God by humans causes far more problems in the world than it solves.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Ceeboo
_Emeritus
Posts: 7625
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 1:58 am

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Ceeboo »

Buffalo wrote:
Ceeboo wrote:Is that REALLY the score?

4,586,384,421 to zero?

Wow!

Talk about an ass kicking.


Peace,
Ceeboo


It depends on if you're counting in British pounds of American baskets.



LOL

:)

Peace, Buffalo
Ceeboo
_mikwut
_Emeritus
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:20 am

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _mikwut »

Hello BCSpace,

Can you define "temporal existence" to try to understand your answer better?

regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell.
-Michael Polanyi

"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

So what specifically in the 1909 statement precludes evolution? The Grant first presidency in 1931 didn't seem to think there was anything.

I provided the quote. It is fairly clear what they are saying about the origin of man which conflicts with established theory of evolution.


You;ve yet to point out any part of it that precludes evolution. I think you know it doesn't and therefore are afraid to because it's a chestnut you've always believed and it's failed you when it comes down to it.

Now how about quoting the 1931 statment/s.


Already have; the pertinent part. Would you like it in full?

TO THE COUNCIL OF THE TWELVE,
THE FIRST COUNCIL OF SEVENTY,
AND THE PRESIDING BISHOPRIC.
Dear Brethren:

On the 5th of April, 1930, at a conference of the Genealogical Society of Utah, Elder Joseph Fielding Smith [of the Council of the Twelve] delivered a sermon under the title "Faith Leads to a Fullness of Truth and Righteousness."

This sermon was published in the Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, and copies of it in pamphlet form were distributed, which gave it wide circulation.

In the sermon referred to, Elder Smith devotes the greater portion of his remarks to the subject of the creation of the earth and the relationship of our Father Adam to it and its inhabitants. He refers to the conflict which exists between geologists and the scripture dates which are given, in regard to the period of time that has elapsed since the creation to the present, and definitely states that there was no death upon the earth, either vegetable, insect or animal, prior to the fall of man, and that human life did not exist upon the earth prior to Adam.

On the 15th of December, 1930, Elder B. H. Roberts [of the First Council of the Seventy] submitted the following letter to the First Presidency:

[Elder Roberts' letter asks the First Presidency if Elder Smith's article was approved by the First Presidency as doctrine, or if it is unofficial and represents Elder Smith's personal views. Elder Roberts objected to the dogmatic tone of the article, and claimed that Elder Smith was in conflict with the scriptures, and the statements of an earlier apostle.]

The sermon referred to, with this letter, was handed by the Presidency to the Council of Twelve with the request that the matter be taken up, and the difference of opinion which existed between the two brethren be composed.

At a meeting of the Council of Twelve, Elder Roberts was invited to be present and submit his findings upon the question at issue, the principal point involved being: Is the age of the earth greater than that set forth in the scripture, as it is given in the Bible, and was Adam the first human life upon it, or does he represent the first of the human race that now occupy it, and may human life have existed prior to his advent.

Elder Roberts appeared before the Council of Twelve and submitted a paper of fifty pages, in which he quotes copiously from the sermon of Elder Smith, and then proceeds to discuss the following statements made in the sermon:

"All life in the sea, on the earth, in the air, was without death. Things were not changing, as we find them changing in this mortal existence, for mortality had not come. I denounce as absolutely false the opinion of some that this earth was peopled by a race before Adam. I do not care what scientists say in regard to dinosaurs and other creatures upon the earth millions of years ago, that lived and died, and fought and struggled for existence."
Elder Roberts quotes from the scripture and extensively from the conclusions reached by the leading scientists of the world, to show that the earth is older than the time given to its creation in Genesis indicates. He places much stress upon the command of the Lord to Adam in which he says: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." The word replenish he defines to mean to do a thing which has been done before, or refill that which has been made empty.
He quotes a statement made by Apostle Orson Hyde who, at a general conference of the Church, held October, 1854, declared that there were people upon the earth prior to the advent of Adam. Brigham Young and other of the presiding officers were present, and after the remarks made by Elder Hyde, President Young arose and said: "I do not wish to eradicate any items from the lecture Elder Hyde has given us this evening, but simply to give you my views in a few words on the portion touching Bishops and Deacons. We have had a splendid address from Brother Hyde, for which I am grateful. I say to the congregation treasure up in your hearts what you have heard tonight, and at all other times."

Two weeks after Elder Roberts had submitted his paper Elder Smith appeared before the Council of Twelve and submitted a paper consisting of fifty-eight pages, in which he answers the arguments advanced by Elder Roberts, his contention being that Adam was the first man to come to this earth, and that consequently it could not have been previously inhabited by man; that there was no death upon the earth prior to the fall, neither vegetable, insect , or animal, which of course includes man.

In support of his argument he quotes extensively from the scripture, and from sermons of presiding men of the Church, particularly from the sermons of Orson Pratt, who refers to Adam as the first man, the first of all men, the Ancient of Days, etc. To meet the argument of Elder Roberts in the application of the word replenish he shows that the word may be used, and signifies, to fill as well as to fill again.

To meet the statement of Orson Hyde, Elder Smith says that Orson Hyde was not discussing the subject of Pre-Adamites, but was preaching upon marriage, and referred to Pre-Adamites incidentally. He admits that President Young was present, and that he endorsed the remarks made.

While there are many quotations cited by Elder Smith which refer to Adam as the first man, the following is the only one in which a pre-Adamic race is referred to. It is quoted under the heading: "Testimony of Charles W. Penrose":

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was the first of all men, (Moses 1:34) and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race.
(signed) Joseph F. Smith
John R. Winder
Anthon H. Lund."

While this quotation is signed by the Presidency of the Church, it is given under the heading of "Testimony of President Charles W. Penrose."
After hearing granted to Elder Smith the following communication was received by the Presidency:

[A letter to the First Presidency from the Council of the Twelve (signed by its president, Rudger Clawson) reported that, as reviewed above, the Council devoted three lengthy meetings to the issue, in which Elders Roberts and Smith submitted papers and were permitted to defend their views. The papers submitted to the Twelve were turned over to the First Presidency.]

It will be observed that no suggestion is made in this communication regarding the attitude of the Council of Twelve in respect to the question involved in the controversy under consideration.

On February 9th the following communication was received from Elder Roberts:

[A letter to the First Presidency from Elder Roberts makes reference to the discussion and papers presented to the Council of the Twelve. Elder Roberts requests an opportunity to point out what he felt was "the weakness and inconsistency of Elder Smith's paper", which Elder Roberts characterizes as "slighter than a house of cards."]

After receipt of this latter communication the Presidency carefully reviewed the papers which had been submitted to the Council of the Twelve, and after prayerful consideration decided that nothing would be gained by a continuation of the discussion of the subject under consideration.

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.

Both parties make the scripture and the statements of men who have been prominent in the affairs of the Church the basis of their contention; neither has produced definite proof in support of his views.

We quote the following from the Millennial Star, February 19, 1931:

"The sun is giving out energy daily. In a few million (or billion) years its energy will be gone. The other heavenly bodies are radiating and losing their heat; and in time they will be no better off than the age-bitten sun. The universe will run down. Then, on earth, there will be no summer and winter, perhaps no light and day, but just eternal twilight of middle African temperature, in the monotony of which all life will perish. So warns Sir James Jeans, famous British scientist, and brilliant writer and lecturer. Well for us that day is distant - a billion years or so - but, think of the grandchildren.
There is a ray of hope.

Dr. Robert A. Millikan, famous American scientist, and brilliant writer and lecturer, as discovered cosmic rays, sources of energy, that come from the uttermost confines of the universe to replenish the energy we lose by radiation. Out in the depths of space, by means unknown to us, the lost energy is assembled, converted, concentrated and sent back to delay the evil day. In short, Dr. Millikan says that this is a self-winding, self-repairing deathless universe. Day and night, summer and winter, may follow one another endlessly. That is more cheerful.

Whom are we to believe? These men are both world famous; both experimenters of the first rank, both honest men. Perhaps Dr. Millikan gives us a clue in his address as retiring president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, delivered last Christmas week. He says:

'If Sir James Jeans prefers to hold one view and I another on this question, no one can say us nay. The one thing of which you may all be quite sure is that neither of us _knows_ anything about it.'"
This is the frank and truthful admission of one of the foremost scientists of the world, an honest man, earnestly searching after truth, which he admits has not been definitely discovered.
The Prophet Joseph Smith said: "Oh, ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell; preach, and cry aloud, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel." Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest ye be overthrown....Elder Brown, when you go to Palmyra say nothing about the four beasts, but preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about--repentance and baptism for the remission of sins."

We call attention to the fact that when one of the general authorities of the Church makes a definite statement in regard to any doctrine, particularly when the statement is made in a dogmatic declaration of finality, whether he express it as his opinion or not, he is regarded as voicing the Church, and his statements are accepted as the approved doctrines of the Church, which they should be.

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."
First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931
I agree with Dr W that the church has been inconsistant, but I have backed up what I said that the church has come out in conflict with evolutionary science.


I agree with Dr W that the church has been inconsistant, but I have backed up what I said that the church has come out in conflict with evolutionary science.


The church does not appear to be inconsistent at all. The individual opinions of the Bretheren are indeed inconsistent. But that is of no import seeing as how the Church freely admits it has no doctrine on the details of the creation.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

Hello BCSpace,

Can you define "temporal existence" to try to understand your answer better?

regards, mikwut


Considering the doctrine in the D&C manual, I think it's fair to start by saying it refers to time after the Fall.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _Buffalo »

bcspace wrote:
Hello BCSpace,

Can you define "temporal existence" to try to understand your answer better?

regards, mikwut


Considering the doctrine in the D&C manual, I think it's fair to start by saying it refers to time after the Fall.


When was that? When the first protobiont ate the forbidden RNA?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

BCSpace,

You should make up your mind as to what constitutes doctrine in the Church.


I have consistently articulated the Church's position on what is doctrine which is official publication; not limited to the scriptures.

Is it scripture itself, or is it the unfounded, ad hoc and off the wall "revelations" and "Saturday Night Thoughts" as to what the scriptures are "supposed" to mean when what they actually say is too absurd to be believed even by the faithful?


That portion of "Saturday Night Thoughts" quoted in the D&C manual is official doctrine. Any part of "Saturday Night Thoughts" not published by the Church is not doctrine.


Truth be told, while reading your response I had a bit of a revelation myself (in the form of a vision). I was suddenly swept away to a great and spacious lecture hall at MIT (where I did my post doc). There I beheld BCSpace at the lectern of a combined planetary sciences / biology section as a special guest lecturer. Quoting from the LDS scriptures, the Ensign and the various lesson manuals of correlated LDS doctrinal information, BCSpace was explaining the LDS (true revealed) version of planetary science and ascent of man to the elite science students there assembled.


Awesome! (being an amatuer astronomer myself) But I think you would be disappointed seeing as how there is very little doctrine on the subject. But there is an injunction to learn these kinds of things through science.

BC Space went over the spiritual creation of the Earth and the fall of Adam. To enhance his credibility with the students, he even threw in some information about Kolob and the the real source of the light given off by the sun.


The concept of gravity (the source of the Sun's power) does not seem to conflict with LDS doctrine or scripture

He explained how LDS doctrine proves that modern humans were not found upon the Earth until approximately 7,000 years ago, and that this meant that most of evolution took place during epochs wherein there was no death (he thought). Regardless of the fossil record, he explained, the students would just have to trust him on this because the LDS Church does not have enough information to really make a call one way or the other on evolution.


It's not something I would state. I would state that full and complete evolution as taught by science does not conflict with LDS doctrine and neither does the appearance of anatomically modern homo sapiens 200,000 years ago.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
_bcspace
_Emeritus
Posts: 18534
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:48 pm

Re: Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

Post by _bcspace »

Considering the doctrine in the D&C manual, I think it's fair to start by saying it refers to time after the Fall.

When was that? When the first protobiont ate the forbidden RNA?


I tend to think that the fall most likely ocurred before the start of the first civilization, Sumer in 8000 B.C. Traditional LDS thinking along the lines of 4000 B.C. is just that, traditional; and that because there is no specific revelation.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
Post Reply