Bashing Atheists?

Remove all ads!

The published date is always the date put in a reference (at least in any reference section I've ever seen).

 

How then, ought the faithful procede? Asking them to abandon their faith is not an option they will readily consider, but neither is burning the scientist at the stake for heresy. Assuming that Darwin observed certain things on the Galapagos Islands is not a stretch, but we want some way to reconcile what Darwin and those since then have observed with the scriptures as they have been given to us. If you would deny that, then that really solves nothing.

All I ask is that minds not be closed to that. Rather than attack the assumptions that I pin my idea on, try to work with it, see if it could be possible. Maybe question the idea itself to develop it more. Just don't close your mind to the possibility that I could be right and accuse me of being closed minded...

I tried that arguement when Religion has been attacked in a similar fashion. I can accept that, but I don't think that's universally acceptable...

All either side can do is make their case. Unfortunately, these nutjobs start to attack the things we hold sacred. This is where the greatest misunderstanding is created.

So you ask that I not blame the scientist for some idiot that abuses his thoery, just as you can't blame the gunsmith for people that get shot with the guns he makes...

But it is whether or not they take into account God's presence that affects their interpretation of the data.

What I lack is the time to find them on the internet. I have a very limited amount of time online due to certain constraints beyond my control. I do not have the time to research these things as I would like...

Basically, I take that to mean it is not Gospel Doctrine, and that the author is accountable to the readers and to God for what was written. No Surprise there.

If I read this right, then the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to be used as a tether to keep us from straying in our studies. I'd like to be able to try to reconcile the witness born by Darwin of his observations with the account given in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but there are those that insist on cutting that tether first.

As for the comment about millions of years to prepare the physical world, I have heard the term "Creative Periods" used in place of the word "day". This may reconcile Geology, but I doubt that anyone would grant that here...

But as long as attempts are made to block such reconciliation between the observations of Science and the teachings of faith, then such knowledge will not be gained through this forum.

Though this was originally spoken about Geology, I believe that it holds for all science. Here we have a prophet of God telling us that it's mostly true, but the theories are not perfect and flawless. The leading principles would be true.

If I remember correctly, the earth was formed from Matter unorganized. Again, I cannot find scriptural reference specifically on that one...

Does this mean that some of the more contentious points really aren't important? Maybe that's what the old saying means by "the devil in the details"...

This, I believe, entails areas of Geology, Archaeology and the Theory of Evolution. Science is trying solve these mysteries which God has not yet fully revealed. This is only a mystery to those who ignore the account of Creation as given to Moses. If I understand that statement from Brigham Young correctly, he's telling us that we have bigger fish to fry...

Truth, yes, but what if certain parts of the theory are not right? The true parts will fit (even if we, the faithful, don't see how), but that which is inaccurate, will not. Also, I have recently acquired a copy of Talmage's book, and have looked up something in it in response to one of the points you made earlier in this thread...

 

Just as an aside, this thread has the dubious honour of being the longest one I ever started. Yay me.

I believe that God created the Universe. I believe that in a poetic manner (one that still has some facts in it, mind you) the Scriptures tell of that creation. I don't assert, however, that the Bible (or any scripture, for that matter) tells us precisely HOW that creation took place or what mechanisms God employed. I'm of the opinion that since He is billions of orders of magnitude superior to us, we cannot understand fully how or what he did, but anyone observing the world around them and trying to come to a better understanding of that world has my moral support.

In other words, I'm pro-Religion and far from being anti-Science, I'm pro-Science! As has been mentioned by others, that is not impossible . . .

 

Well, if you are allowing that Darwin did in fact make accurate observations on the islands, then it is up to you not us, as to where you should proceed from here. Most people have resolved this issue by saying that the book of Genesis is not a literal account of creation. Most religious people I know who are willing to accept evolution say that the process of evolution was started by God. Furthermore, they assert, that since God is all-knowing he would know that humans would eventually be produced by this process. Therefore God still did create everything we see on earth - He simply did so through a process that was also created by Him. I'm not saying that there is any reason you should accept this explanation, but I'm using it as an example because you asked what you can do. I can only relate what I have heard from others, as I am not personally conflicted on this subject.

But that's the wall we keep banging our heads against. By saying not to bother with the assumptions goes against the very fabric of science. Science works by taking an assumption (usually referred to as a hypothesis) and testing it. If the assumption is correct, you should be able to predict outcomes of certain situations. So to us, it is not a matter of considering whether or not it could be possible, but rather because there is no way to test it, there is no way to prove one way or another if that possibility is actually true. Possiblities aren't worth squat in science. There is no such thing as a theory based on possibilities that cannot be tested.

A scientist's interpretation of the data can only be as good as the manner in which the data was collected. In an uncontrolled experiment, there will be so many variables at work that making comparisons between trials is almost impossible, because many variables will produce a wide range of results. To mitigate this, a scientist makes an attempt to control as many variables as possible.

I think everyone can agree that God's presense is not something that is within the scientist's ability to control. Since it's not a variable that can be accounted for, they have no alternative but to proceed without taking this variable into account. I think that it is logical to assume that whatever influence (if any) God has on an experiment, that He will apply that influence equally in all similar situations (unless for some reason he really wanted to mess with our heads). Looking at it from this perspective, God's presense is no longer a variable, but a constant in all experiments.

If a scientist sets everything up properly, then the data interprets itself. There is no "magic" to data interpretation. That's because data isn't subjective. If you did an experiment and measured something to be 3 meters long, there's no way to interpret that data point as something other than 3 meters. Likewise, Darwin's observation of multiple species of remarkably similar yet species-distinct finches is also something that cannot be subjectively re-interpreted.

 

One of the reasons I stopped going to the Mormon church was the large percentage of people who, in spite of the quotes I listed, still believed evolution was evil and that I was either confused or evil myself. I can see you are in with the majority. You entirely missed the content of the quotes. The most basic one was:

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position.

The further comments simply back up the statement that since we really don't know how God works, it could be evolution is one of the tools God used to create life (and big bang the tool to create the heavens). But Gnarff, you choose to follow the precepts taught in "Man, His Origin and Destiny" even though a 'prophet of God' has stated the book is only opinion and not doctrine.

The IS NO conflict between the Mormon church and science (i.e., evolution, big bang, etc.) because the church takes no stand on it. The problem only exists for individuals who choose to have a problem.

 

Aldeth's post sparked something in me wee brain.

People who are religious or spiritual also start with an assumption/hypothesis... There is a god (or force) that created the world. Each individual tests this in his/her life. They have experiences that varify it for them. However each person travels their own path. They have only their own experience to go by and find it hard to explain to others. The other-worldly has to be explained in worldly terms and imo loses a lot.

God would have to explain things in terms that humans could understand. Therefore for me it is difficult to say one religion is right. It is what that group understands and if it leads to a better life then go for it.

 

So if I opt not to fully accept the theory of Evolution and try to reconcile these observations within the account of creation as given in the book of Genesis, I should have that right without certain people telling me that I should abandon my religious beliefs to embrace a theory hook line and sinker that I do not fully believe. I agree that Darwin did see something, but some of the points in the theory I do not agree with.

That is the perceived attack that religion comes under. The assumption that the things that we take as true don't count because it can't be proven scientifically. You have admitted that matters of faith cannot be proven. Science may not be fully accepted since it won't touch what it can't prove, and some of those that the theories are pitched to want them reconciled with things that science won't touch...

That I can accept. But the thought remains that some theories seem to be trying to open God's toolbox without acknowledging God. If I understand correctly, these things have not fully been revealed yet, and will not be until after Jesus Christ returns, and the Millenium begins. I've heard that it will be an unprecedented leap in scientific progress...

That I challenge. I have heard that Darwin was a staunch Aetheist, and as such his theory would have had to start further back, possibly opening the door to an interpretation that contradicts scripture.

How accurately is Evolution presented? Until I understand how that fits with Creation, it would tend to set that theory aside in favour of divinely revealed, spiritually confirmed doctrine.

People have the right to say what they will. The Church has not endorsed it but has not outright condemned it. It is likely that there is some that's right, and some that's wrong.

I go by the gospel principles as I have been taught. This doesn't include some primate giving birth to a human, but Adam and Eve created by God on the sixth day, and given the breath of life and made a living soul. I do not know the book of which you speak, but since a Prophet of the Lord stated that it was opinion, and not doctrine, then it may not be entirely accurate. Much of what this leaves us is sifting through the theories of men and learning of the world around us, relying on our faith in God to keep us from falling too far into error.

And I choose to have a problem with anyone that states that Scienctific theory means that my faith is . perhaps this problem is not with science itself, as AFI suggests, but with idiots that discredit science with their agendas. This would be the same problem I would have with a Chirstian leader trying to convince us that shedding innocent blood int he name of God, or like your average Muslim must feel about Bin Laden, using their core teachings to justify their attrocities...

That is basically what I went through. I spent several years in the paths of sin, despite being baptized as a teenager. When the time came, I had to abandon those sins, I felt the Godly sorrow for my misdeeds, confessed them and left them behind, and eventually began to feel the love that God has for me. From what I've heard, I'm not the only one that has experienced that phenomenon. I must ask that you consider this as validly as you would a scientific theory proposed based on the experiences of a number of people.

Eudimonia (sp?), Greek for the Good life. I honestly believe that by following the tenets of my religion, our lives will be better than if we don't...

 

But in that case, you are challanging the person, not the theory. In order to challenge the theory, you would have to read what his observations were, and come to an explanation. Saying that we can't take Darwin's word for it because he is an atheist is a cop-out (and an ad hominem). I could just as easily say we can't take your word for it because you are not an atheist. You have to debunk the theory, not the man.

Maybe you aren't even familiar with many of the observations - there were many, but I'll give just one example. Darwin observed that there was a finch on the South American mainland that was remarkably similar to two species of finches that would breed exclusively on the Galapagos Islands. The only differentiating characteristic was the shape of their beaks. The mainland finch had a medium sized beak, whereas the two on the Galapogos had one with a much longer pointed beak, and another with a stout, much wider beak.

OK, nothing ground breaking there. Different birds have different beaks. Tell us something we don't already know. If Darwin would have stopped there, he wouldn't even be a footnote in the history books. But Darwin also observed that the mainland bird ate a particular seed that it cracked open with its beak. That seed did not exist in the Galapogos, and the only seeds that did had much harder shells. Darwin postulated that the fiches on Galapogos may have diverged from this original finch in an effort to get food. The ones with the pointed beaks were much better adapted to picking insects out of trees, whereas the ones with stout beaks were capable of cracking open the harder seeds.

The point being here that the middle-sized beak wasn't particularly useful for either purpose. It wasn't as good as a thin, pointed beak for eating insects, and it wasn't as good as a stout, wide beak for cracking open very hard seeds.

Why do I go through all of the trouble of explaining this? Because you have said that you believe species will adapt and show subtle changes, for example, there are several breeds of dog. It seems like Darwin's observations and his initial theories are in line with things you are OK with. Doesn't it seem plausible that finches could slightly change (in this case beak shape) to exploit different food sources?

If I wanted to be sarcastic I would point out that humans are primates and therefore primates give birth to humans every day, because humans do in fact give birth to humans. In fact, AFAIK, every human throughout the history of time had a primate mother. However, I am assuming that the meaning you were aiming for when you said primate, was something more along the lines of a monkey or ape. If you are saying that at no point in history did a chimpanzee, gorilla, baboon, et al ever give birth to a human, then we agree. Evolution doesn't work that way. A mommy gorilla and a daddy gorilla cannot produce a human baby.

[ July 25, 2005, 20:39: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Gnarf, have you ever READ "The Origin of Species"? You keep arguing about what Darwin said, but it sounds like you're just repeating dogma against Darwinism.

 

The Claim is that his interpretations may have been coloured by his lack of belief in a Higher power, and subsequent rejection of Creation.

Yes, but I want to know why they couldn't have come from an original pair of finches created by God during the fifth creative period (not actually 24 hours as some claim)?

Again, I refer to some primitive, long extinct primate that suddenly gave birth to a human. It contradicts man specifically created in God's Image.

Dogma is what I know. If it contradicts dogma, then it must not be right. Since it's not right, then something is innaccurate....

 

Is this the first step? You appear to agree that these different species of Finch had a common ancester. Actually, you have gone one step further than that. These Finches are actually of different Genus to each other - Geospiza (Large Bill) and Certhidea (slender bill) being two of them. That takes us into the realms of Family, in this case Fringillidae which includes (Common names) Buntings, Finches, gros-becs, Grosbeaks, moineaux, Old World Finches, roselins and Sparrows.

Can you stretch as far as saying that God created an original pair of Fringillidae which have led to the different looking birds that we see today?

I heartily apolgise Gnarf, at some point in the past I have got it into my head that you believe it was actual 24 hour periods.

Please, please, please. Evolution will NEVER claim that anything non-human "suddenly" gave birth to a human.

I believe you've taken the word Dogma out of context. As T2 has pointed out, The LDS does not have a stance on evolution so I doubt it was meant as Religious Dogma, just the plain ordinary kind of an article of belief without any evidence to colaborate it.

Regardless of this entirely, there is another repost to your statement (which I recognise you won't accept). That the Dogma is wrong and something that contradicts it may actually be accurate and correct. But alas, this discussion would only lead to contradiction, not an argument. (Cue Monty Python)

[ July 26, 2005, 13:51: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

OK, but no primitive, long extinct primate suddenly gave birth to a human either. Because of how vaguely you are using the word, I really can't comment beyond that. By primate do you mean "ape-like" or are you just using an open term because you don't know?

Let's put it this way - whether you are talking about humans, gorillas, chimps, etc. - we are all primates. The defining characteristic of a primate is an opposable thumb - and humans, gorillas, chimps etc all have opposable thumbs. After that grouping, modern humans split with the other primates. They are in a separate family consisting of hominids. The defining characteristic of hominids is that they walk on two legs. (Yes, gorillas and chimps can walk on two legs, but they revert to four-legged travel when they have to go any distance or when they are trying to move quicly.) While modern humans are currently the only representative species in this family, there have been others throughout history (such as the Neandertals). (You do believe in the concept of a "caveman", right Gnarff? That these beings we call Neandertals did exist?)

The point I and Carcaroth were trying to make is that there is no way that something non-human could ever give birth to something that is human. I wish I could give you a modern example of this, but unfortunately there is no comparitive hominid that exists today besides modern humans.

So, just try to be correct in your terminology. The scientific statement you are trying to make (and one that won't get you ridiculed like your primate comment) is that you don't believe that, "some primitive, long extinct hominid suddenly gave birth to a human." You won't get many people to agree with you, but at least you are countering a claim that people who believe in evolution are making. The primate reference makes you sound extremely uninformed, because no one is saying that.

I'm getting this feeling of deja vu. It's almost like I've been here before - kinda like I'm walking around in a big circle. Maybe it's just me.

 

Oh, I'm SO going to regret this, but...

Before I ask my question, let me state that I AM IN NO WAY CASTING ANY SORT OF ASPERSIONS ON THE CONTENT OF THAT DOGMA, OR YOUR FAITH IN IT, OR THE COMFORT YOU GET FROM YOUR FAITH. This in not meant as an attack, OK Gnarff? Just a question...

You claimed in one of these threads to have a genius IQ, but you seem to be happy to set aside critical thinking in favor of accepting the decisions of your Church Elders on serious matters. That's fine - I'm sure you believe that those folks have some sort of Divine guidance that you're not privy to, and that obedience is a virtue and all that. Cool by me. But here's where I have a problem - isn't our intellect one of God's gifts? Weren't we given the power of analysis so that we could best apply God's will to the decisions that we're required to make every day, in matters large and small? If so, how do you justify setting aside these two abilities? Surely wasting any of God's gifts is a sin.

It's a sincere question, Gnarff, I don't mean to be picking on you. I really want to understand the LDS view on this.

 

So you're suggesting that Sparrows and Finches are actually the same species, only differing breeds? Why is it difficult to accept a degree of discontinuity between the various creatures?

No problem. Some of my posts get surprisingly long, and as such, many points get lost along the way. For a time I held to 1000 years as one day, but remember hearing somewhere in doctrine (again, I don't have the reference handy) that the words Creative period were used in place of Day...

Yes, Faith assumes that there is a lack of evidence. Even those that followed Jesus Christ during his mortal ministry had to have faith that Jesus was indeed the Christ spoken of by the prophets of old because they had no perfect knowledge. Part of what I was taught was the story of Creation, which includes Man being formed from the dust of the earth (I don't have the reference) and being specifically given life and linked with his soul directly by God. Elements of the theory of Evolution contradict this account. This is why I reject those parts. Further, the various animals were specifically created, not all divergent from a single form of life.

That seems to be a problem. It's too easy to simply contradict a point, harder to defend either point.

As you have later pointed out, I have been misusing the term based on what I had been led to believe throughout this thread.

So you simply give different names to what you see. Adam named the Animals in the book of Genesis. You seem to be giving them more techinical sounding names. Nomenclature doesn't change the facts. Manure by any other name still smells like (you know)...

Could posture not be a learned trait? Perhaps the demands of primitive society (almost no technology) caused the development of a more curved Spine (for example, carrying the carcasses of beasts killed for food), and may have altered the shape of the skull. As these conditions improved, spinal curvature and skull shape returned to normal in future generations.

I still doubt the existence of other homonids. Actually, if there were two humans created in the Garden of Eden, then all the differing skin colours must be divergences from the original progenetors of the species. Nothing against ANY of them, but this may clarify matters. If certain differences in physiology are noticed between African decended folk and Caucasians then that would support hem as a different breed. They still, are all God's Children, but their bodies would have been built to slightly differing specs.

Proverbs 3:5-6

"5 Trust in the Lord with all thine Heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
6 In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and he shall direct thy paths."

I've tried to go my own way, and all I got for my trouble is 12 years of regret. I've made more growth and progress by accepting God's teachings and His will than by sumbitting to my own pride and trusting my own Intellect.

Doctrine and Covenents 9:8-9

"8 But behold I say unto you, that you must search it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

As I read and try to understand what is being said, I get that stupor of thought, telling me that the theories spoken of are not right.

If I understand the quote from Brigham Young on such matters, we have more important things to concern ourselves with. While AFI has stated that he is a scientist, and as such is paid to attempt to uncover the mysteries of the universe and perhaps seek to understand how all things were created, this becomes how he ought to support himself and his family, which is one of those bigger things to concern himself with. The rest of us aen't Scientists, therefore really have other things to learn. We (all of us) need to learn the spiritual doctrine (which when you take into account the massive amount of teachings of Latter Day authorities grows to rival a wall of textbooks in a post secondary science program). We need to do those things that God expects of us. In another thread, T2Bruno pointed out that he knew Bishops that, in addition to their full time jobs and time they needed to spend with their families put in over 40 hours per week on their calling. Between Prayer, Scripture study, work, family time, service to others (be it church callings or other volunteer work you get into) Eating, Sleeping, maintaining your living space etc, there really isn't much time for much else. Sure there can and should be some time for wholesome recreation, but again, that's not a high priority. That is a practical reason for living by faith. It answers many of those questions that we would otherwise spend our lives wrestling with...

 

Please read my post again. I'm saying they are a different Species, AND a different Genus, but the same Family.

 

Thank you, Gnarff.

T2Bruno or LKD, can either of you shed any light on my question, without quoting scripture?

 

Indeed it does not. However, the different names are not just pulled out of thin air, but rather there is a reason for the different names. I attempted to clear up a misconception you had that some ape-like creature gave birth to a human. Quite honestly, most people who haven't read up on it think like you do - the classic "man descended from apes" idea. So you're certainly not alone here.

What evolutionary theory does state is that both man and apes had a common anscestor (i.e., a primate), but that human predecessors walked upright (i.e. while they were primates they were more specifically hominids) while ape ancestors did not. I guess the most simple explanation would be that while all hominids are primates, not all primates are hominids.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Unless, of course, you have in your head an image of the Hollywood Neandertal. Historical evidence shows that Neandertals walked perfectly upright - just like us. Of course, Neandertals aren't our direct ancestor either. That distinction most likely lies with Homo habilus (another hominid).

 

Great, which ones?

 

Gnarff, you've misunderstood your own scriptural reference. A key part of that reference is but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong -- that's important 'cause you to forget that which is wrong.' A stupor of thought can also come from misunderstanding or not caring about the issue -- but these do not cause you to 'forget.' Ignorance of an issue or inability to understand an issue does not mean it is wrong.

Rallymama, please keep in mind that I am not a member of the Mormon church anymore, but I'll try to explain their point of view as best I can (even though I may disagree with parts of it). A person's intellect can be used for great things. But that must be tempered with the ability to discern right from wrong (which does not come from intellect, but rather from faith). In essence, your questions imply something that is absolutely correct -- we must be the best person we can be. The Mormon church basically believes the direction we take to be the best person can be influenced by good or evil -- it is up to the individual to follow the good path.

This is where I had a big falling out from the Mormon church. The majority are like Gnarf, very content in their beliefs and, not being science oriented, tend to believe that if they don't understand something it must be wrong. I feel that is a simplistic way of looking at things (and I am just a little vocal about my beliefs). The short-sighted leaders I had called my questions a 'conflict of faith' and felt I should pray and ask forgiveness for harboring such doubts.

However, as I have also stated, not everyone in the Mormon church chooses to turn a blind eye to evolution and science in general. They question everything (which actually the Mormon church encourages) and work to resolve their beliefs with what they believe to be true (two different thing here -- resolving faith and knowledge). Had I been around leaders with this second attitude, I may not have 'abandoned my faith.' I hope this helped.

Carc: You're just being antagonistic (which I like, but...). The Bible simply states that Adam named the everything -- the Bible is boring enough with the doo-dah begat doo-hicky stuff without giving us a list of every animal, insect and plant on earth. Besides, which language would the names be in?

 

As soon as the science types explain your theory of Evolution without refering to your science books...

Hence the biggest roadblock in reconciling these theories. You say that man and ape evolved from a common ancestor. I say that God created them all.

Perhaps my biggest beef is more the public presentation of the theory of evolution, and how that is used to claim that the Bible is . There still seems to be a contradiction, and until what the contradictory theory is based on can be reconciled with scripture, there will always be something of a chasm between our positions...

Which may explain why I have to keep referring to what is said and copy and paste so that I can respond...

And when I read the things posted about Evolution, I get a feeling that something is not right, become more confused about what they talk about and end up forgetting what they say.

But when what they bring out doesn't mesh with the words of God, then something must not be right. There's something there, but as long as the the science side insists that they are right and have universally insisted at some point that scripture, and faith in God, be left behind to see their side, that will deter such understanding.

I suspect that science seeks answers that God has not revealed at this time, and may not reveal any time soon. Until God definitively answers these questions, these differences of opinion will persist. I think I know what grounds they had for their response, I don't see it myself, and will not specify it here as it would be too personal to broadcast.

You've mentioned Elder Henry B. Eyring. I don't have the time I'd like to research his teachings. Perhaps that could answer a lot of questions brought up in this thread. Either that or it would really infuriate my critics here...

Where's the incentive for most of us to do that? When we try that, we're asked to leave our faith at the door (Even AFI gave up when I mentioned Noah and his family). They criticize the Catholic Church for the Spanish inquisition for insisting that early scientists abandon their research in favour of the scriptures, then demand that we, the faithful abandon scripture to understand their science. Talk about Hypocrisy...