gdemetz wrote:I never stated "magic." However, for any matter to develope into an extremely advanced and complicated structure such as man at random, in my opinion, is the equivalent of that explosion in a printing press which produces a dictionary. Apparently Sir Issac Newton felt the same way. When he had just completed building an elaborate scale model solar system, one of his fellow scientists, who was an agnostic or atheist, commented that it was remarkable, and then asked Newton who made it. Newton replied; no one, to which his friend replied nonsense, or something to that effect. Newton then asked the question why could he believe that his cheaper imitation had to be made by someone, but yet the original, much grander version could have just sprung up on it's own!
Just to let you know ... science has advanced a bit since the time of Newton.
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
keithb wrote:Just to let you know ... science has advanced a bit since the time of Newton.
* ouch *
I find it interesting that Mormons that claim to have the truth aren't willing to consider and belittle scientific theories and evidence that don't fit their own preconceptions. I would hope they would think about that, but no doubt they won't. However, when it comes to claims about the truth - if you aren't willing to honestly consider all the available information, just how does one claim to have the truth on their side?
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
bcspace wrote:Yes it's true. Even Nelson is learning that he can't get around the established doctrine. No matter how hard he tries, he can't debunk evolution. Those in the Church who use his arguments will learn the same lesson. It always works out.
The church is getting more hostile to evolution as time goes on, not the other way around. When is it going to "work out"?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
bcspace wrote:Which doesn't apply to evolution as evolution does not preclude God in any way.
Only in the same sense that the theory of combustion engines does not preclude the notion that fairies are responsible for the motion of an automobile.
With respect to natural selection, the intervention of a god or gods is a wholly gratuitious hypothesis and deprives the theory of its central explanitory achievment.
bcspace is under the impression that by contradicting both science and scripture, he can harmonize them.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
gdemetz wrote:I never stated "magic." However, for any matter to develope into an extremely advanced and complicated structure such as man at random, in my opinion, is the equivalent of that explosion in a printing press which produces a dictionary. Apparently Sir Issac Newton felt the same way. When he had just completed building an elaborate scale model solar system, one of his fellow scientists, who was an agnostic or atheist, commented that it was remarkable, and then asked Newton who made it. Newton replied; no one, to which his friend replied nonsense, or something to that effect. Newton then asked the question why could he believe that his cheaper imitation had to be made by someone, but yet the original, much grander version could have just sprung up on it's own!
Once again, nobody thinks that matter developed into man by random processes. You seem to be ignoring what I am writing, so I will give you a hint.
It's called evolution by natural selection for a reason. It is definitely NOT random.
Speaking of physics, current quantum field theory can model how a universe can spring out of "nothing" (lacking time and space).
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
gdemetz wrote:I never stated "magic." However, for any matter to develope into an extremely advanced and complicated structure such as man at random, in my opinion, is the equivalent of that explosion in a printing press which produces a dictionary. Apparently Sir Issac Newton felt the same way. When he had just completed building an elaborate scale model solar system, one of his fellow scientists, who was an agnostic or atheist, commented that it was remarkable, and then asked Newton who made it. Newton replied; no one, to which his friend replied nonsense, or something to that effect. Newton then asked the question why could he believe that his cheaper imitation had to be made by someone, but yet the original, much grander version could have just sprung up on it's own!
Newton did not have the advantage of having the knowledge that 300 years of subsequent scientific advances have brought to humanity. What's Nelson's excuse?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
bcspace is under the impression that by contradicting both science and scripture, he can harmonize them.
Nope. Didn't have to contradict either.
Removing natural selection contradicts everything we know about evolution. Removing special creation contradicts all Mormon doctrine on the creation and the fall.
Essentially you're saying, "a pox on both you're houses!"
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
gdemetz wrote:Apparently Sir Issac Newton felt the same way. When he had just completed building an elaborate scale model solar system, one of his fellow scientists, who was an agnostic or atheist, commented that it was remarkable, and then asked Newton who made it. Newton replied; no one, to which his friend replied nonsense, or something to that effect. Newton then asked the question why could he believe that his cheaper imitation had to be made by someone, but yet the original, much grander version could have just sprung up on it's own!
I'd like to have a source for that story. It seems to be all over the web, but I don't see any source contemporary with Newton cited - or indeed any source: we just ghet "it is reported", "it is said that" etc.
Newton was certainly a theist, and a Bible addict to say the least. I'd just like to know whether this particular incident actually happened.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Removing natural selection contradicts everything we know about evolution. Removing special creation contradicts all Mormon doctrine on the creation and the fall.
Essentially you're saying, "a pox on both you're houses!"
Thankfully, my hypothesis does neither of those things; natural selection is part of special creation. As I have demonstrated on multiple occasions, there does exist a model(s) that does not contradict either the LDS doctrine of the Creation or the scientific theory of Evolution.
I would agree that Nelson probably strongly desires to oppose evolution, but notice that he can't, being restricted by the doctrine. Instead, he can only (and correctly so) speak out against the conclusion some draw about evolution; that God is not responsible for the Creation. Evolution itself neither precludes the existence of God or His hand in evolution.
