Des News - Believers Finding God in Science

[_nc47]

Let me respond to the DNA question first, since it's the only point that actually contains any scientific analysis.

This statement reflects a terrible misunderstanding of population genetics. I have posted references to the peer reviewed evidence to the contrary here so many times I will leave it to you to find it if you ware interested. Search terms such as mtDNA, Amerindian and Beringia entered with DrW as the author will get you to the cited papers fairly quickly. Another look at Simon Southertons' blog couldn't hurt, either.

No, it does not. This does not contradict anything I've asserted. I said that some near Eastern DNA has been on the Amercias to fit the Book of Mormon timeline. A recent study does bear this out.

I also said that some Near Eastern DNA among natives is post-Columbian but we can't tell. And Simon Southerton does acknowledge some Old World DNA is most likely post-Columbian. I've browsed his blog a couple of times before. http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/201 ... -lost.html

If you look closely at the data for the Mayan population, you will notice that their ancestry includes DNA likely to have originated in Asia (orange) and Europe (green). This is the DNA Crandall claims came from the Middle East. By far the most likely origin for this DNA is post-Columbus admixture, a common problem scientists encounter when studying the ancestry of Native Americans.

The scientific data on mtDNA from Cherokees shows that it contains the same (Beringia Hold-up) markers as those found in the other Amerindian tribes and lineages. Compared to the other tribes, Cherokees have no special claim to being Jewish. You are sounding sillier and more desperate with each response here, my friend.

If you have been reading much on this board, you will know that there are dozens of recent scientific papers that show that you are simply wrong here. If you have been paying attention to Simon Southerton's blog entries on the matter, you know that you are wrong here.

Do you have a specific article with regards to the Cherokee? From what I remember Southerton said that MESOAMERICANS have no special claim to be Jewish. I tried searching mtDNA and all I got was this thread and some evolution posts.

But if I was wrong, that the Cherokee have no "special claim" on being Jewish means that MORE THAN JUST CHEROKEE have some near-Eastern ties, whether post-Columbian or not. Some Near Eastern DNA in the Americas is too old to fit the Book of Mormon timeline; some is probably post-Columbian and too young, but we can't tell. My assertion still holds.

[_nc47]

Come on, nc47, you claim to be well versed in things scientific. If God has a body of flesh and bone, then his location in space can be specified. If this is the case, and if he hangs out outside the solar system, then he violates the laws of physics every time he answers a prayer or takes any immediate action here in Earth (such as giving guidance to Joseph Smith as he translated the golden plates, or helping absent minded Mormons to find their car keys).

You claim to be well versed in things scientific, why don't you design an experiment to test whether God is material and submit it to a grant committee. Exactly.

What? The sun gets its light from Jesus? Kolob might be an obvious metaphor to you. To Mormonism and to non-Mormons reading about Kolob Cosmology in LDS scripture, it is just silly - and an embarrassment.

3. As Andrew Sullivan said, anyone with half a brain knows this is metaphor. The allegorical nature is amplified for anyone who's been through the temple.
Yet another metaphor. Nice try. Someone should get in touch with the Correlation Committee about this idea because Adam and Eve as the parents of all living is still Gospel Doctrine according to the Gospel Doctrine Manual. http://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-6-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

I think I've already said that I've spoken with seminarians who don't believe Adam and Eve are literal but they don't tell their congregations. Just because we don't say it's not literal doesn't mean it isn't. Gospel Principles manual notwithstanding, mature members get a strong case from the endowment ceremony for its not being literal.

Linguists would be disappointed to know that you don't consider what they do to be scientific. The linguistics Society of America defines linguistics as "bringing a scientific perspective and scientific methods to the quintessentially human phenomenon of language". In other words, linguistics is a science. By the way, and for future reference, Egyptology is also a science, defined as "the scientific study of the history and culture of ancient Eqypt --".

Of course they consider themselves a science, a lot of disciplines that aren't sciences do. Political "science." Management "science." Go to your local physics department and ask them whether they believe Egyptology is a science. Likely to get laughed out.

Then you have not been paying attention when you read the Book of Mormon. And you have not been paying attention to the words of the prophets, even Jeffrey R. Holland.

OK, whatever.

The fact that societal pressure forced the LDS Church to disavow this racist doctrine, held for more than a century, certainly does not indicate that it had a divine origin, does it? Nonetheless, currently disavowed or not, this uniquely Mormon doctrine is in direct conflict with science.

The only Mormons who believe this have arthritis.

As one well versed in science, you should know that Richard Feynman died in 1988. So when you use the present tense to describe his beliefs, you are either being misleading or demonstrating your lack of relevant knowledge. He was a physicist, not an epidemiologist.

And the fact remains that any number of epidemiological studies, including many published since 1988, demonstrate the health benefits of natural products such as coffee, tea and red wine, all of which are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. No matter how you try to justify it, many of the dietary prohibitions set forth in the Word of Wisdom are in direct conflict with science.

You're right he was not an epidemiologist, and that is the point. What kind of science did you do? Basketweaving? Do you consider basketweaving science too?

Discussing all this with you has been interesting. If your responses are the best that LDS apologists have, then the Church is right to discourage apologetics.

Most of the response you provided in your last few posts were beside the points, silly, or both. Responses like this do more harm than good to your cause. Believe me.

Beside the point? Like when Richard Feynman died? What you throw at me are meatballs compared to what I usually do, which is mathematical modelling. Believe me, even ODEs are tougher than what you have.

[_ludwigm]

No, I am not DrW.
But...

Come on, nc47, you claim to be well versed in things scientific. If God has a body of flesh and bone, then his location in space can be specified. If this is the case, and if he hangs out outside the solar system, then he violates the laws of physics every time he answers a prayer or takes any immediate action here in Earth (such as giving guidance to Joseph Smith as he translated the golden plates, or helping absent minded Mormons to find their car keys).

You claim to be well versed in things scientific, why don't you design an experiment to test whether God is material and submit it to a grant committee. Exactly.

--- 1 ---
The Doctrine and Covenants Section 130
Items of instruction given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Ramus, Illinois, April 2, 1843.

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.

Is "a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s" material? (according to YOUR OWN sriptures) ***

--- 2 ---
As a nonbeliever (in Mormonism, in any religion, in gods), why should I - or anybody, even DrW - test anything I/we don't believe in?

--- 3 --- [maybe off]
As an expert in radar maintenance, I used to design a lot experiment to test whether the actual maintenance rules are to be changed, and and submitted them to grant committees of my superiors. All have been accepted.
Because I did know and did believe that my assertions are correct.

-----------------------------
***
Apparently you are not well versed in your own scriptures' words about your own god's attributes...

[_Chap]

many non-LDS theologians and philosophers are coming around to God being material in some way. The proof for divine embodiment was done by Sarot, and Stephen Webb has constructed an entire metaphysical scheme around it.

Come on, nc47, you claim to be well versed in things scientific. If God has a body of flesh and bone, then his location in space can be specified. If this is the case, and if he hangs out outside the solar system, then he violates the laws of physics every time he answers a prayer or takes any immediate action here in Earth (such as giving guidance to Joseph Smith as he translated the golden plates, or helping absent minded Mormons to find their car keys).

You claim to be well versed in things scientific, why don't you design an experiment to test whether God is material and submit it to a grant committee. Exactly.
...

Let's see, what has happened here?

1. nc47 refers to traditional Mormon views of God as having a material body.

2. DrW points to the problems that result from such a conception according to the known laws of physics.

3. nc47 responds by suggesting that DrW should seek funding for a research project to verify the claim he made in (1).

Debugger program report: Logical sequence failure step 2 to step 3. Execution paused.

[_nc47]

You keep questioning my scientific credentials, and I don't really care. I'm trained to understand (and solve, if applicable) scientific models across physics, geology, chemistry, ecology, neuroscience, endocrinology, and infectious diseases (I might have forgotten some model in a different field). I don't question the sincerity in your claim to be a scientist, but the way you define "science" I sometimes wonder if it amounts to something comparable to basketweaving.

I have reason to wonder. I have never seen a hard scientist defend linguistics as a science.

You, on the other hand, are 80% rhetoric and 20% substance (that's relatively impressive; the rest of this board is closer to 99-1).
"You're embarassing yourself."
"You don't understand population genetics."
"That is some crappy apologetics."

That shows you have no confidence in what you say. All the points that you brought up are either not scientific questions, obvious metaphors, or something the Church doesn't teach (as much as you wish it did). Except the Lamanite DNA problem.

[_nc47]

many non-LDS theologians and philosophers are coming around to God being material in some way. The proof for divine embodiment was done by Sarot, and Stephen Webb has constructed an entire metaphysical scheme around it.

You claim to be well versed in things scientific, why don't you design an experiment to test whether God is material and submit it to a grant committee. Exactly.
...

Let's see, what has happened here?

1. nc47 refers to traditional Mormon views of God as having a material body.

2. DrW points to the problems that result from such a conception according to the known laws of physics.

3. nc47 responds by suggesting that DrW should seek funding for a research project to verify the claim he made in (1).

Debugger program report: Logical sequence failure step 2 to step 3. Execution paused.

No, not to verify, to test. What I wanted to help him (and other interested parties) see was that it is not a science question, like he is claiming.

[_Chap]

Let's see, what has happened here?

1. nc47 refers to traditional Mormon views of God as having a material body.

2. DrW points to the problems that result from such a conception according to the known laws of physics.

3. nc47 responds by suggesting that DrW should seek funding for a research project to verify the claim he made in (1).

Debugger program report: Logical sequence failure step 2 to step 3. Execution paused.

No, not to verify, to test. What I wanted to help him (and other interested parties) see was that it is not a science question, like he is claiming.

Whether or not God is material would indeed be a hard question to solve a priori.

However, if God is material, and by 'material' you are not referring to something that is 'material, but not as we know it, Jim' (in other words, not material in any recognized sense), then that has physical consequences. DrW has pointed out clearly what those would be.

I can't see how you can take exception to that.

[_Maksutov]

You keep questioning my scientific credentials, and I don't really care. I'm trained to understand (and solve, if applicable) scientific models across physics, geology, chemistry, ecology, neuroscience, endocrinology, and infectious diseases (I might have forgotten some model in a different field). I don't question the sincerity in your claim to be a scientist, but the way you define "science" I sometimes wonder if it amounts to something comparable to basketweaving.

I have reason to wonder. I have never seen a hard scientist defend linguistics as a science.

You, on the other hand, are 80% rhetoric and 20% substance (that's relatively impressive; the rest of this board is closer to 99-1).
"You're embarassing yourself."
"You don't understand population genetics."
"That is some crappy apologetics."

That shows you have no confidence in what you say. All the points that you brought up are either not scientific questions, obvious metaphors, or something the Church doesn't teach (as much as you wish it did). Except the Lamanite DNA problem.

You really are embarassing yourself, nc47. You bluster and pout because you don't get respect here. You don't demand that, you earn it. You haven't. Cut the whining and put up some real arguments, not lists and evasions.

[_Milesius]

Right you are, Ludwig. The "necessary being", or "prime mover" or "first cause" argument that some theologians and lay religionists try to use as evidence for (or even proof of) the existence of a supernatural creator god is, nowadays, DOA (Dead on Arrival).

That is false.

[_Maksutov]

Right you are, Ludwig. The "necessary being", or "prime mover" or "first cause" argument that some theologians and lay religionists try to use as evidence for (or even proof of) the existence of a supernatural creator god is, nowadays, DOA (Dead on Arrival).

That is false.

I'd like to hear more. Do you think that the Big Bang could be considered God? Why or why not?