Creation and Garden Story: Instructional Value?


wenglund
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

Shallow water fossils and a smooth transition to deeper in one direction and land-based plants in the other doesn't match a large cataclysmic event; that would be like throwing a handful of playing cards out the car window on the freeway, and having them land in perfect new-deck order.

Well, we see what we want to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wenglund said:

Moving on to the third day or time, the dividing continues. On the first day, light was divided from darkness and day from night (and, depending upon the account, the sun was divided from the moon and stars), with morning and evening in between. The second day the waters were divided from the waters or the heavens from the earth. On the third day the waters were divided from the dry land, or the seas divided from the earth.

What do you suppose is the significance of all this dividing?

If we remember that the story of paradise is the story of our childhood, I find the following correlations.

Day one: divide light and dark -- the war in heaven.

Day two: Separate heaven from earth -- we have the veil put upon us as we're sent from the Heavenly Realm into mortality.

Day three: The preparation of our earth life.  Parents are there to nurture us.

Day four:  Lights again divided.  Parents teach us right and wrong as well as the things of the world and the things round about.  

Day five: Life is brought forth.  We become aware as we reach the age of accountability.

Day six: Further life, but it is crowned by the creation of man.  We gain a testimony (not just borrowed light).  We reach adulthood and we leave father and mother to cleave unto our spouse.

Day seven: the Sabbath.  People were saying that the culmination of the creation was the creation of man.  But the seventh day was the spiritual connection to mortality.  This is where we commune with the Lord.  Covenants are our gift from the Lord to show us that there is more to this life that merely surviving and propagation of the species.  There is something more transcendent.

AFTER THE FALL (CH 2)
He had not caused rain to fall because man was not there to till the earth.  So, we find that we're no longer taken care of by mommie and daddy.  We have to fend for ourselves.  We need to work by the sweat of our brow so we can eat.

As we do so, the whole earth is our playground.  And the richness thereof is ours as we learn to depend on the Lord and serve Him.

Does that work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 10:57 PM, Carborendum said:

If we remember that the story of paradise is the story of our childhood, I find the following correlations.

Day one: divide light and dark -- the war in heaven.

Day two: Separate heaven from earth -- we have the veil put upon us as we're sent from the Heavenly Realm into mortality.

Day three: The preparation of our earth life.  Parents are there to nurture us.

Day four:  Lights again divided.  Parents teach us right and wrong as well as the things of the world and the things round about.  

Day five: Life is brought forth.  We become aware as we reach the age of accountability.

Day six: Further life, but it is crowned by the creation of man.  We gain a testimony (not just borrowed light).  We reach adulthood and we leave father and mother to cleave unto our spouse.

Day seven: the Sabbath.  People were saying that the culmination of the creation was the creation of man.  But the seventh day was the spiritual connection to mortality.  This is where we commune with the Lord.  Covenants are our gift from the Lord to show us that there is more to this life that merely surviving and propagation of the species.  There is something more transcendent.

AFTER THE FALL (CH 2)
He had not caused rain to fall because man was not there to till the earth.  So, we find that we're no longer taken care of by mommie and daddy.  We have to fend for ourselves.  We need to work by the sweat of our brow so we can eat.

As we do so, the whole earth is our playground.  And the richness thereof is ours as we learn to depend on the Lord and serve Him.

Does that work?

I find this very interesting - one thing I would add is that you consider other revelation concerning the creation beyond the standard works of scripture.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 9:39 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we see what we want to see.

One may think this is similar to what Jesus taught – but his wording or emphasis is what is slightly different and most telling.  In essence; he taught that many will refuse to see that which they do not want to consider or fits their paradigm.  It seems to me that truth must be sought for and requires sacrifice – but to believe falsely comes with no effort (of sacrifice or virtue).

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2018 at 10:57 PM, Carborendum said:

If we remember that the story of paradise is the story of our childhood, I find the following correlations.

Day one: divide light and dark -- the war in heaven.

Day two: Separate heaven from earth -- we have the veil put upon us as we're sent from the Heavenly Realm into mortality.

Day three: The preparation of our earth life.  Parents are there to nurture us.

Day four:  Lights again divided.  Parents teach us right and wrong as well as the things of the world and the things round about.  

Day five: Life is brought forth.  We become aware as we reach the age of accountability.

Day six: Further life, but it is crowned by the creation of man.  We gain a testimony (not just borrowed light).  We reach adulthood and we leave father and mother to cleave unto our spouse.

Day seven: the Sabbath.  People were saying that the culmination of the creation was the creation of man.  But the seventh day was the spiritual connection to mortality.  This is where we commune with the Lord.  Covenants are our gift from the Lord to show us that there is more to this life that merely surviving and propagation of the species.  There is something more transcendent.

AFTER THE FALL (CH 2)
He had not caused rain to fall because man was not there to till the earth.  So, we find that we're no longer taken care of by mommie and daddy.  We have to fend for ourselves.  We need to work by the sweat of our brow so we can eat.

As we do so, the whole earth is our playground.  And the richness thereof is ours as we learn to depend on the Lord and serve Him.

Does that work?

Awesome! This touched me deeply this morning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

One may think this is similar to what Jesus taught – but his wording or emphasis is what is slightly different and most telling.  In essence; he taught that many will refuse to see that which they do not want to consider or fits their paradigm.  It seems to me that truth must be sought for and requires sacrifice – but to believe falsely comes with no effort (of sacrifice or virtue).

 

The Traveler

So, what really are you saying? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, what really are you saying? 

 

The problem in the quest for truth is not so much in what people see - as it is in what they will not see.  Or as Jesus said – eyes that see but see not and ears that hear but hear not.  The difference between light and darkness is that in the light we see all things more clearly but in darkness the truth can be hidden. 

And then I took the concept one step further.   Satan and his lies will be brought to everyone – it is the default condition – there is no effort necessary to encounter falsehoods.  But to find truth one must seek, knock and ask (with a pure heart having real intent).  Misunderstanding and false belief is the natural standard default – the natural thinking of the natural man.  Truth is the exception that must be sought for and earned.   Thus, a Saint is disciplined or as the scriptures account – a disciple of the master.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

The problem in the quest for truth is not so much in what people see - as it is in what they will not see.  Or as Jesus said – eyes that see but see not and ears that hear but hear not.  The difference between light and darkness is that in the light we see all things more clearly but in darkness the truth can be hidden. 

And then I took the concept one step further.   Satan and his lies will be brought to everyone – it is the default condition – there is no effort necessary to encounter falsehoods.  But to find truth one must seek, knock and ask (with a pure heart having real intent).  Misunderstanding and false belief is the natural standard default – the natural thinking of the natural man.  Truth is the exception that must be sought for and earned.   Thus, a Saint is disciplined or as the scriptures account – a disciple of the master.

 

The Traveler

Yes, this is why modern science cannot see evidence for biblical events like the global flood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, this is why modern science cannot see evidence for biblical events like the global flood.

No - you are wrong - it is why (for thousands of years) those of religious stripe are so willing to go to war and murder one another in the name of G-d and religion and what they think they see as evidence that G-d favors them and their belief that they are right.  A prime recent example is the effort to use the scripture and interpretations of scripture (without Science) as an excuse to establish the “Third Reich” by Hitler and the Nazis.

I am convinced that someone has a screw loose when they say they can prove science (empirical evidence) is wrong and they can prove it – then attempt to use or provide empirical evidence to say science and the use of empirical evidence is wrong.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

No - you are wrong - it is why (for thousands of years) those of religious stripe are so willing to go to war and murder one another in the name of G-d and religion and what they think they see as evidence that G-d favors them and their belief that they are right.  A prime recent example is the effort to use the scripture and interpretations of scripture (without Science) as an excuse to establish the “Third Reich” by Hitler and the Nazis.

I am convinced that someone has a screw loose when they say they can prove science (empirical evidence) is wrong and they can prove it – then attempt to use or provide empirical evidence to say science and the use of empirical evidence is wrong.

 

The Traveler

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying Im like a Nazi because I find no evidence or support to what mainstream science claims as evidence against things like a global flood?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying Im like a Nazi because I find no evidence or support to what mainstream science claims as evidence against things like a global flood?

 

I do not understand what you mean by “mainstream science”.  Is it the kind of science that invented the automobile you drive or the electrical appliances you use in your home?  I do not understand if there is a difference in your mind between science and mainstream science?  Is there a book of mainstream science or some educational class somewhere called mainstream science?

I am also saying that historically there are those of religious stripe that refuse empirical evidence when they think it conflicts with scripture.  Another example in history is Galileo who attempted to publish a book on how to predict the tides – He was prevented from publishing his book, placed under house arrest and threatened with being put to death (if he did not recant his observations) because some religious thinkers of his time thought his book on how to predict the tides; conflicted with their understanding of the Bible and scripture.

Just for fun – do you know of any time in history (an example) that there was a conflict between the popular interpretation of scripture and an abundance of empirical evidence that the popular interpretation of scripture ended up being the correct understanding of how thing really are?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I do not understand what you mean by “mainstream science”.  Is it the kind of science that invented the automobile you drive or the electrical appliances you use in your home?  I do not understand if there is a difference in your mind between science and mainstream science?  Is there a book of mainstream science or some educational class somewhere called mainstream science?

I am also saying that historically there are those of religious stripe that refuse empirical evidence when they think it conflicts with scripture.  Another example in history is Galileo who attempted to publish a book on how to predict the tides – He was prevented from publishing his book, placed under house arrest and threatened with being put to death (if he did not recant his observations) because some religious thinkers of his time thought his book on how to predict the tides; conflicted with their understanding of the Bible and scripture.

Just for fun – do you know of any time in history (an example) that there was a conflict between the popular interpretation of scripture and an abundance of empirical evidence that the popular interpretation of scripture ended up being the correct understanding of how thing really are?

 

The Traveler

When I say "mainstream" science I do so in context of what we are talking about. An analogy would be like "mainstream Christianity" rejects Mormons as Christian because we do not conform to their definition and teachings on the Godhead. Does this mean then we arent Christian because the majority of Christianity doesnt recognize us as being Christian? No. And so it is in the context of science being applied in similar fashion. For instance, in tge field of geology the mainstream belief is "uniformatarianism" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism in that the "key to the past is in the present". This means they believe the same process and rates that are forming the geologic features we see happening at present are the same rates and processes that happened in the past. This is what "mainstream" geology teaches. It is scientifically unprovable however. Its not "empirical". As such, others, like myself, believe in catastrophism http://www.dictionary.com/browse/catastrophism where relatively short but catastrophic events caused the geologic features we see today on the earth. Actual scientists study this and believe this and have their evidences. Just as in my analogy with LDS and Christianity, does catastrophism not account as "science" because mainstream rejects it? No, its still science. Now, I use "mainstream" in a limited sense in the context of certain fields in discussions like this to define where the line of my beliefs lay. Does this mean I reject the mainstream scientific views on robotics, auromobiles, etc. No. 

Now, to address this "empirical" issue. Just because the majority of a body believe a certain way, void of actual scientific testing, doesnt make something "empirical". Thats like saying there is empirical evidence the Mormons arent Christian. Understand where Im coming from? Are you getting my drift?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

When I say "mainstream" science I do so in context of what we are talking about. An analogy would be like "mainstream Christianity" rejects Mormons as Christian because we do not conform to their definition and teachings on the Godhead. Does this mean then we arent Christian because the majority of Christianity doesnt recognize us as being Christian? No. And so it is in the context of science being applied in similar fashion. For instance, in tge field of geology the mainstream belief is "uniformatarianism" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism in that the "key to the past is in the present". This means they believe the same process and rates that are forming the geologic features we see happening at present are the same rates and processes that happened in the past. This is what "mainstream" geology teaches. It is scientifically unprovable however. Its not "empirical". As such, others, like myself, believe in catastrophism http://www.dictionary.com/browse/catastrophism where relatively short but catastrophic events caused the geologic features we see today on the earth. Actual scientists study this and believe this and have their evidences. Just as in my analogy with LDS and Christianity, does catastrophism not account as "science" because mainstream rejects it? No, its still science. Now, I use "mainstream" in a limited sense in the context of certain fields in discussions like this to define where the line of my beliefs lay. Does this mean I reject the mainstream scientific views on robotics, auromobiles, etc. No. 

Now, to address this "empirical" issue. Just because the majority of a body believe a certain way, void of actual scientific testing, doesnt make something "empirical". Thats like saying there is empirical evidence the Mormons arent Christian. Understand where Im coming from? Are you getting my drift?

 

I think part of the problem is that I am using terms that you do not understand.  Empirical means something observable, that can be measured and repeated.  For example, the charge of an electron falls into the universe of that which is empirical.  Love is something that is not empirical.  So also, are beliefs, impressions and faith.  Someone can claim to possess such things but there are no measurements to validate such a claim or to quantify the depth or amounts of such things.   It does not matter how popular a belief or idea is – it is not empirical unless it is repeatable, measurable, and observable.     

Science deals with that which is empirical.  Thus, the results of uniformitarianism and catastrophism when applied scientifically are not conflicting but in essence demand that the evidence of both catastrophism and uniformitarianism are empirical and can be observed repeated and measured.  Uniformitarianism simply requires that things in time and space are isotropic – which says that if the parameters are the same the results will be the same.  I personally believe that even spiritual things of G-d are isotropic and empirical – the problems for us mortals are that we lack the ability to measure spiritual things but during our mortal experience we must have faith that G-d is consistent (isotropic) and will apply things as the atonement with complete consistency both in regard to justice as well as mercy.

The scientific method is the claim and belief that when someone understands the cause and effect relationships – that a certain cause will always produce the same effect and likewise if one understands the effect they know the cause.  Thus, for me, I believe G-d is the most brilliant scientist in the universe.  I believe that order a sign and condition of intelligence – that the empirical order of the universe is both the result of and proof of intelligence.  That the more we understand the empirical order of things the more we understand G-d and how he has brought about such order.

I do not have a lot of faith in what I call “The G-d of the gaps”.  That is to say; that G-d is unexplainable as is all his works.  This would imply if someone other than G-d understands something and can explain it – then it cannot be that G-d caused it.  I also believe that G-d wants us to know and understand truth.  Thus, if a person learns to build and play a musical instrument that the knowledge of such initially came from G-d and that by mastering such a person develops attributes similar to G-d.  And so, the process of discovery, learning and efforts to understand anything that is true (consistent, isotropic and repeatable) bring us to better understand G-d and the truth of things as they were, as they are and as they shall become.

I have attempted to understand where you are coming from but I do not see anything consistent enough to conclude that you have moved from speculation to application.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I think part of the problem is that I am using terms that you do not understand.  Empirical means something observable, that can be measured and repeated.  For example, the charge of an electron falls into the universe of that which is empirical.  Love is something that is not empirical.  So also, are beliefs, impressions and faith.  Someone can claim to possess such things but there are no measurements to validate such a claim or to quantify the depth or amounts of such things.   It does not matter how popular a belief or idea is – it is not empirical unless it is repeatable, measurable, and observable.     

Science deals with that which is empirical.  Thus, the results of uniformitarianism and catastrophism when applied scientifically are not conflicting but in essence demand that the evidence of both catastrophism and uniformitarianism are empirical and can be observed repeated and measured.  Uniformitarianism simply requires that things in time and space are isotropic – which says that if the parameters are the same the results will be the same.  I personally believe that even spiritual things of G-d are isotropic and empirical – the problems for us mortals are that we lack the ability to measure spiritual things but during our mortal experience we must have faith that G-d is consistent (isotropic) and will apply things as the atonement with complete consistency both in regard to justice as well as mercy.

The scientific method is the claim and belief that when someone understands the cause and effect relationships – that a certain cause will always produce the same effect and likewise if one understands the effect they know the cause.  Thus, for me, I believe G-d is the most brilliant scientist in the universe.  I believe that order a sign and condition of intelligence – that the empirical order of the universe is both the result of and proof of intelligence.  That the more we understand the empirical order of things the more we understand G-d and how he has brought about such order.

I do not have a lot of faith in what I call “The G-d of the gaps”.  That is to say; that G-d is unexplainable as is all his works.  This would imply if someone other than G-d understands something and can explain it – then it cannot be that G-d caused it.  I also believe that G-d wants us to know and understand truth.  Thus, if a person learns to build and play a musical instrument that the knowledge of such initially came from G-d and that by mastering such a person develops attributes similar to G-d.  And so, the process of discovery, learning and efforts to understand anything that is true (consistent, isotropic and repeatable) bring us to better understand G-d and the truth of things as they were, as they are and as they shall become.

I have attempted to understand where you are coming from but I do not see anything consistent enough to conclude that you have moved from speculation to application.

 

The Traveler

Hum...not much to go on here. I know what empirical means. Things like uniformatarianism and Darwinian evolution of species from a common ancestor are not empirical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...not much to go on here. I know what empirical means. Things like uniformatarianism and Darwinian evolution of species from a common ancestor are not empirical.

Are you saying there is not much to go on (empirical evidence) concerning G-d and his consistency in his methods?  (That we can view various “levels” or days of creation throughout our universe?  You say there is not much to go on???   What empirical evidence do you have that life was ever created differently (not with uniformitarianism) than the living things currently existing on this planet.  Do you think it is “fair” and reasonable for everyone else to use the same criticism of your view that you use of theirs?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2018 at 9:55 AM, Traveler said:

Just for fun – do you know of any time in history (an example) that there was a conflict between the popular interpretation of scripture and an abundance of empirical evidence that the popular interpretation of scripture ended up being the correct understanding of how thing really are?

 

The Traveler

Just for fun an answer: There are several but the ones that come to mind seem to mostly originate in the Pearl of Great Price:
 

Quote

Moses 1:

33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

1.) In my own research, I have found that while there have been over the past few hundreds of years errant individuals who postulated such in terms of celestial orbs, as near as I can tell it was not until 1987 that science began to shift towards these possibilities and that life existed on other planets was a bit later.  While my dates may be in error, they are subject to the earliest data that I can find. Still for a long time the LDS belief of life filled worlds and earths without number was consider to mainstream science as pure poppycock.

2.) While the Law of Conservation of Mass -matter is neither created nor destroyed- was postulated in 1785 and this basically envelops Joseph Smiths observations that matter is eternal, what is fascinating is that while this is well accepted by science and LDS theology, LDS theology cannot abide creation ex-nihilo which is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory.  However creation ex-nihilo is wonderful Catholic doctrine and should rouse some level of suspicion on the fact that Georges Lemaitre, it's originator was a Catholic Priest who was a scientist or was he a scientist who was a Catholic priest? Since his theory became mainstream I guess he can claim bothRegardless, Joseph Smith's theology does not brook creation ex-nihilo, where science will embrace something completely untenable scientifically. 

3.) The flood - this one remains somewhat at odds with science and religion - the primary argument being as a closed system where would all of the water go.  Sciences basic premise was there was simply not a resource of sufficient water to cover the whole earth.  This formerly obvious bit of empirical evidence though is perhaps in process of revision with the scientific discovery of a layer beneath the mantel of a mineral called ringwoodite.

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/)

The discovery first published in March of 2014 clearly hales the discovery of a 4th form of water that was previously unknown. Further the calculations place the quantities that could be stored in this form to be at least the equivalent of the worlds oceans.  So this discovery removes the "empirically obvious" reality that there was not adequate water represented in this closed system with a clear declaration that "we found the water". So what appeared a closed debate now seems to be opening a touch. Now the debate is how do you squeeze it out of a place 400 miles beneath the surface of the earth. Well while the debate may rage on it is of interest to me the small sentence in Genesis where it states:
 

Quote

 

Genesis 7:11

11, "On that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth

 

So if we are being fair, we cannot claim a scientific superiority that crushes theology.  In fact there are several more examples that can be elaborated on similar to these but this speaks somewhat to the issue. 

Also a question, have you a Jewish background and is that why you spell certain words referencing deity the way you do

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎1‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 7:36 PM, NightSG said:

Shallow water fossils and a smooth transition to deeper in one direction and land-based plants in the other doesn't match a large cataclysmic event; that would be like throwing a handful of playing cards out the car window on the freeway, and having them land in perfect new-deck order.

Ahh...but cards are for magic tricks and it seems one has played out geologically speaking in just the reverse of expectations on Mt Everest:

            In an article about Mt. Everest on earthobservatory.nasa.gov it says this:

"When this land mass came close to Asia, it started to push up the land ahead of it, forming a large shallow ocean with rich ocean life. The bones and shells of the plants and animals in this shallow ocean formed limestone and left fossils. As the land mass continued to plow north and collide with Asia, the ocean was slowly raised up and drained, eventually being lifted up to form the Himalayan Mountains."

This explanation is inadequate because taphonomy requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen. Everest was not uplifted slowly over millions of years but quickly. The question is not whether the Himalayas are still rising but what effect did the rain, sleet, hail, and strong winds at 29,000 feet, and lower levels, have on the limestone and fossils on Mt. Everest over millions of years. Even with reduced oxygen it still would inhibit fossilization. If Everest was raised slowly and its summit was at a few thousand feet for hundreds of thousands or millions of years the sea creatures wouldn't have been fossilized and there are ammonite fossils at 12,000 feet above sea level. See Visual Evidences of Himalayan Formation at library.thinkquest.org/

Fossils that have been found in limestone include brachiopods, ammonites, belemnites, foraminifera and radiolarians with the most common being brachiopods. Goniatite fossils, an extinct ammonite, have been found in limestone layers in Western Ireland indicating rapid burial and formation.

"The biases inherent in the fossil record stem from the fact that fossilization of organic material is the exception, not the rule, and very specific and relatively rare conditions must be met for an organism to become fossilized. Fossilization favors organisms with hard parts, for example, an exterior shell (exoskeleton) or internal skeleton (endoskeleton). Fossilization also favors organisms living in certain environments. Two particular environmental conditions favor fossilization: rapid burial and anoxia (lack of oxygen). Rapid burial protects organic remains from predators or scavengers and physical reworking by tides and waves. Oxygen supports bacteria and decomposition of organic material. Burial in an oxygen-free (reducing) environment insulates organic material from decay and thus favors fossilization."  (Geology Vol.1, p. 259; edited by James A. Woodhead, Salem Press, 1999, retrieved 10/04/2012 from http://www.historum.com/ancient-history/212-did-global-flood-ever-happen-2.html )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Are you saying there is not much to go on (empirical evidence) concerning G-d and his consistency in his methods?  (That we can view various “levels” or days of creation throughout our universe?  You say there is not much to go on???   What empirical evidence do you have that life was ever created differently (not with uniformitarianism) than the living things currently existing on this planet.  Do you think it is “fair” and reasonable for everyone else to use the same criticism of your view that you use of theirs?

 

The Traveler

I meant there wasnt much to go on with debating the meaning of "empirical".

I think science should observe the obvious and test what is testable. Instead they dream up theories like the evolution of all species from the primordial soup and try to imagine up a myriad of scenerios how this happened by chance. Im sorry but thats not really science. Its called science fiction. Actual scientific testing shows over and over again that life only comes from life and kinds only reproduce their same kind.

I mean it sounds cool to have lightning hit a chemically rich pond of mud and life slithering out at some point but at some point science needs to stop smoking the peace pipe and wake up to the reality of actual laws of biology and chemistry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

This explanation is inadequate because taphonomy requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen. Everest was not uplifted slowly over millions of years but quickly. The question is not whether the Himalayas are still rising but what effect did the rain, sleet, hail, and strong winds at 29,000 feet, and lower levels, have on the limestone and fossils on Mt. Everest over millions of years. Even with reduced oxygen it still would inhibit fossilization. If Everest was raised slowly and its summit was at a few thousand feet for hundreds of thousands or millions of years the sea creatures wouldn't have been fossilized and there are ammonite fossils at 12,000 feet above sea level. See Visual Evidences of Himalayan Formation at library.thinkquest.org/

There are assumptions in there that make my brain hurt.  Unless they have a lot of very specific information about those particular ammonites that they haven't bothered to share, it's like waking up with sand in your underwear and concluding you must have walked to the Sahara in your sleep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, brlenox said:

LDS theology cannot abide creation ex-nihilo which is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory

Montebank! Ex nihilo is not the big bang theory. If you had any knowledge on the subject and spent any time studying, as I have, you would recognize the truth of the matter as I have. You can't just freeze scientific progress and knowledge in the 19th century - you must come at it with fisticuffs of Reason, wrestling, grappling, and pummeling your way to a true understanding of what is being said with these sophisticated models. Such indolence manifest in these fora does not comprehend the poetic justice of lighting afire strawman effigies while they themselves are brainless!

Today you are all quite fortunate, as I come bringing gifts! I do not unwrap them for you, as much of the joy comes from personal unveiling. I instead ask a simple question for you to explore. What is the beginning state (t-subzero) of the big bang theory, and how is that derived?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Montebank! Ex nihilo is not the big bang theory. If you had any knowledge on the subject and spent any time studying, as I have, you would recognize the truth of the matter as I have. You can't just freeze scientific progress and knowledge in the 19th century - you must come at it with fisticuffs of Reason, wrestling, grappling, and pummeling your way to a true understanding of what is being said with these sophisticated models. Such indolence manifest in these fora does not comprehend the poetic justice of lighting afire strawman effigies while they themselves are brainless!

Today you are all quite fortunate, as I come bringing gifts! I do not unwrap them for you, as much of the joy comes from personal unveiling. I instead ask a simple question for you to explore. What is the beginning state (t-subzero) of the big bang theory, and how is that derived?

This is an area in which I profess no expertise.  Still as I have attempted to research yours clues I am not finding anything very conclusive. Perhaps you can provide more insight or another directional clue that I can follow up on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, brlenox said:

Just for fun an answer: There are several but the ones that come to mind seem to mostly originate in the Pearl of Great Price:
 

1.) In my own research, I have found that while there have been over the past few hundreds of years errant individuals who postulated such in terms of celestial orbs, as near as I can tell it was not until 1987 that science began to shift towards these possibilities and that life existed on other planets was a bit later.  While my dates may be in error, they are subject to the earliest data that I can find. Still for a long time the LDS belief of life filled worlds and earths without number was consider to mainstream science as pure poppycock.

2.) While the Law of Conservation of Mass -matter is neither created nor destroyed- was postulated in 1785 and this basically envelops Joseph Smiths observations that matter is eternal, what is fascinating is that while this is well accepted by science and LDS theology, LDS theology cannot abide creation ex-nihilo which is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory.  However creation ex-nihilo is wonderful Catholic doctrine and should rouse some level of suspicion on the fact that Georges Lemaitre, it's originator was a Catholic Priest who was a scientist or was he a scientist who was a Catholic priest? Since his theory became mainstream I guess he can claim bothRegardless, Joseph Smith's theology does not brook creation ex-nihilo, where science will embrace something completely untenable scientifically. 

3.) The flood - this one remains somewhat at odds with science and religion - the primary argument being as a closed system where would all of the water go.  Sciences basic premise was there was simply not a resource of sufficient water to cover the whole earth.  This formerly obvious bit of empirical evidence though is perhaps in process of revision with the scientific discovery of a layer beneath the mantel of a mineral called ringwoodite.

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rare-diamond-confirms-that-earths-mantle-holds-an-oceans-worth-of-water/)

The discovery first published in March of 2014 clearly hales the discovery of a 4th form of water that was previously unknown. Further the calculations place the quantities that could be stored in this form to be at least the equivalent of the worlds oceans.  So this discovery removes the "empirically obvious" reality that there was not adequate water represented in this closed system with a clear declaration that "we found the water". So what appeared a closed debate now seems to be opening a touch. Now the debate is how do you squeeze it out of a place 400 miles beneath the surface of the earth. Well while the debate may rage on it is of interest to me the small sentence in Genesis where it states:
 

So if we are being fair, we cannot claim a scientific superiority that crushes theology.  In fact there are several more examples that can be elaborated on similar to these but this speaks somewhat to the issue. 

Also a question, have you a Jewish background and is that why you spell certain words referencing deity the way you do

I very much appreciate your interest and response.  However, I want to point something out concerning science, scripture and empirical evidence.   Usually, when there is an abundance of empirical evidence – both science and interpretation of scripture will follow.  But when there is no empirical evidence – then much speculation will follow in both science and religion.  Please note that in my question that is specifically noted when empirical evidence contradicts the “popular interpretations” of scripture.  Also please note there is a fundamental difference between the general understanding of evidence and empirical evidence.

As of today – I am not aware of any empirical evidence that life exist on any other planet in the entire universe other than our own little isolated planet earth.  That is not to say that there has been no evidence just that the evidence that has been gathered so far does not meet the criteria of empirical evidence.  One of the efforts of SETI, searches for advanced civilization on the assumption that nuclear fission is the universal energy of an advancing civilization.  Controlled nuclear fission gives off distinct electrical magnetic radiation.  (BTW so does nuclear fusion).  So SETI has carefully and methodically searched the sky for electrical magnetic radiation (including radio waves) is search of a possible intelligent civilization.  Our milky way galaxy is about 100,000 light years across but much of the more dense and older areas of our galaxy are within 25,000 light years.  We have found nothing.   But then our civilization on earth has only been emitting discernible electrical magnetic radiation for just a little over 100 years.

As to conservation of mass – I would point out that the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians and the ancient Chinese all believed in the conservation of mass and that creation of the universe and all things initially came from a “watery abyss”.  Note that in the Pearl of Great Price that a watery deep is mentioned as something uncreated.  The most popular theory of our universe’s origins is “The Big Bang” theory.  But that is based on the idea of a singularity that went bang.   One problem with the theory is that there has never been any empirical evidence that a singularity can or ever has existed.  That is not to say that there is no evidence – but it is to say that there is no empirical evidence of a singularity. 

One problem with the science and religion conflict is addressed with empirical evidence of things.  There is much taught in science that lacks empirical evidence – likewise with religion.  In essence, it is the difference between faith (or belief) and knowledge.  It is possible to have misguided faith.  Many times, in my life I have had to “adjust” the understanding of things that I have believed and had faith in.  Alma deals with true faith as a means of eventual knowledge of truth.

As for the flood of Noah – I am convinced that the scriptural narrative is incomplete.  That is to say in scientific terms, that what we have in scripture is not the whole story of the flood.  I personally believe that we are given a scriptural narrative – not as a means to know the past but as metaphor or symbolic prophesy given to understand future things, that like the Liahona, can only be properly understood and utilized with virtue and a pure heart.

Someday we may have empirical evidence of all things taught spiritually.  There is a saying – the absents of empirical evidence is not empirical evidence of absents.  I also believe it is a great error to ignore empirical evidence – I have compared it to standing in the bright sun of noon day and declaring it night.

 

One last point.  I have traveled to many places in this world and met many people of many diverse cultures.  I have also conversed on the internet with may in diverse cultures.  It is mostly for them that I am careful with my references to G-d.  It is also a reminder to myself to be careful when posting on the internet.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Montebank! Ex nihilo is not the big bang theory. If you had any knowledge on the subject and spent any time studying, as I have, you would recognize the truth of the matter as I have. You can't just freeze scientific progress and knowledge in the 19th century - you must come at it with fisticuffs of Reason, wrestling, grappling, and pummeling your way to a true understanding of what is being said with these sophisticated models. Such indolence manifest in these fora does not comprehend the poetic justice of lighting afire strawman effigies while they themselves are brainless!

Today you are all quite fortunate, as I come bringing gifts! I do not unwrap them for you, as much of the joy comes from personal unveiling. I instead ask a simple question for you to explore. What is the beginning state (t-subzero) of the big bang theory, and how is that derived?

 

There is a problem with ex-nihilo and science – much of the current thinking of ex-nihilo comes from quantum mechanics and that quantum particles can spontaneously come from “nothing” – this is called a quantum anomality.  Some have suggested that the Big Bang was a quantum anomality and many of religious stripe have jumped on this saying it is ex-nihilo.  There are many problems with this thinking – first among such is that quantum animalities do not actually occur from nothing – at least we do not have empirical evidence that it is possible.  A quantum animality by definition can only occur in time and space.  But the theory of the Big Bang is dependent on a singularity that is void of time and space but still a singularity is not a void of nothing.  By definition, a singularity is something.  I do not know if this answers your t-subzero question because in theory if there is no time in a singularity therefore there is no t-subzero

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share