My Favorite (to date) take down of Creationism.

[_The CCC]

If that list of Mormon scholars testify is the complete list of LDS scholars within the church I would not be waving it around.

I am aware that evolution is taught at BYU and that the church officially has no position on it. Most of the members I encountered online were not so enlightened and were the ones who argued with me about evolution when I was still a member.

What physical evidence do I have that your mother had the emotion of love towards you? Assuming she did.

If you are stating that there isn't any evidence of a scientific nature for the emotion of love I would disagree. Just as they are now able to tell what picture a person is thinking about by examining the firing pattern of neurons in the brain I am fully convinced that the time will come when the existence of the emotion of love will be evidenced in the same manner. In other words it is all physical and at some point will be discernible and decipherable when we figure out how to do so.

The following is I think a stretch:

If I want to believe God wanted for dogs and cats to have a common ancestor many millions of years ago. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be wrong. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be right either.

I think that position ended with our ability to sequence DNA. We can date the geologic column so we know it represents the passage of a great amount of time. Where were cats and dogs in the geologic column 55 million years ago? Where is the Dormaalocyon latouri today? Special creation of a series of animals each a bit closer to a cat or a dog doesn't sound very reasonable. Transplantation from another realm doesn't sound any better. How did they all get the ERVs in the right places to look as if they are all related? Just 7 ERVs in the same location in the DNA between a human and a chimpanzee would be like the odds of selecting the same water molecule from the oceans of the world after random replacement. There are some 200,000 ERVs that are in the same locations between a human and a chimpanzee. That's picking that same water molecule from the oceans of the world after random replacement 2,857 times in a row! ERVs and other features within DNA prove common ancestry beyond any reasonable doubt.

My journey in Mormonism has been a Grand Adventure, with me learning more and more all the time.

About what exactly? Are you keeping up on your science or has that fallen by the wayside?

It has given me a wonderful wife whom I want to be with forever. Children and Grandchildren I love. A purpose beyond my selfish instincts. I feel as though it has made me a better man. not that I was terrible to begin with.

Certainly there are multiple avenues to accomplish those same things.

Then I took Psychology 101, found my true love was Psychiatric Social Work.

Please tell me you are not employed by the church telling people that masturbation is bad or some other such nonsense.

I'm a scientist and not on that list.

You'll never go far wrong in underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

It may someday, but so far such brain pattern recognition is beyond us. Large amounts of chocolate has a very similar effect.

DNA research is wonderful, but I do think that while DNA accounts for the differences between Species. It has a harder time within Species. IE; The genetic differences between you and me are vanishingly small. I accepted Evolution from Common Ancestry a long time ago. Whether God wanted it to occur that way is a faith position and not a scientific one.

I'm retired now, but regularly read the journals of my profession.

I was never the employee of any church, and it would have been very inappropriate for me to use my profession to further my religion.
SEE https://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

[_spotlight]

I'm a scientist and not on that list.

So was Melvin Cook. Trying to defend the position of president Smith didn't help his career or provide for any progress in his field.

You'll never go far wrong in underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

In America at least which is behind only Turkey as a country filled with religious fanaticism to the point of being anti-science.

It may someday, but so far such brain pattern recognition is beyond us. Large amounts of chocolate has a very similar effect.

It is in its infancy but I think it is further along than you realize. But if that god of the gaps position appeals to you by all means rest your fantasies there.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~otoole/HCS6330 ... NNR_06.pdf

Here's a fun one:
http://en.sjtu.edu.cn/news/sjtuers-real ... cockroach/

DNA research is wonderful, but I do think that while DNA accounts for the differences between Species. It has a harder time within Species. IE; The genetic differences between you and me are vanishingly small.

You are aware of chaos right? Small initial differences can result in huge diverging differences and the fact that even identical brains are going to diverge when placed in different surroundings and circumstances?
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131424595 ... sonalities
(My wife is an art professor precisely for the reason stated in the link. Her twin sister was better than her at athletics.)

And it is a bit more than vanishingly small.

"You and your siblings are closer to 99.95% biochemically identical. Of course, since we have 6 billion bases, a 0.05% difference still translates to 3 million differences!"
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask166

I accepted Evolution from Common Ancestry a long time ago.

There really isn't a sensible way not to accept it.

Whether God wanted it to occur that way is a faith position and not a scientific one.

the original quote...

If I want to believe God wanted for dogs and cats to have common ancestor many millions of years ago. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be wrong. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be right either.

...was about god's intentions? Why bring that up? Of necessity you have to assume that god wanted it to occur that way because that is the way it is. This was in reply to science being agnostic? I agreed that it is agnostic about areas where data is lacking. That would include what that god's "intentions" were in creation. Besides a being a deflection/distraction what's your point?

I'm retired now, but regularly read the journals of my profession.

I was wondering whether you studied or kept up with other areas of science besides your profession. I found that members really didn't keep up with scientific progress unless it was in the headlines and then only to find a way to attack or dismiss it.

I was never the employee of any church, and it would have been very inappropriate for me to use my profession to further my religion.

Well that's good to hear. Would you pass that along on up to the brethren? Thanks.

[_The CCC]

I'm a scientist and not on that list.

So was Melvin Cook. Trying to defend the position of president Smith didn't help his career or provide for any progress in his field.

You'll never go far wrong in underestimating the intelligence of the average person.

In America at least which is behind only Turkey as a country filled with religious fanaticism to the point of being anti-science.

It may someday, but so far such brain pattern recognition is beyond us. Large amounts of chocolate has a very similar effect.

It is in its infancy but I think it is further along than you realize. But if that god of the gaps position appeals to you by all means rest your fantasies there.
http://www.utdallas.edu/~otoole/HCS6330 ... NNR_06.pdf

Here's a fun one:
http://en.sjtu.edu.cn/news/sjtuers-real ... cockroach/

DNA research is wonderful, but I do think that while DNA accounts for the differences between Species. It has a harder time within Species. IE; The genetic differences between you and me are vanishingly small.

You are aware of chaos right? Small initial differences can result in huge diverging differences and the fact that even identical brains are going to diverge when placed in different surroundings and circumstances?
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131424595 ... sonalities
(My wife is an art professor precisely for the reason stated in the link. Her twin sister was better than her at athletics.)

And it is a bit more than vanishingly small.

"You and your siblings are closer to 99.95% biochemically identical. Of course, since we have 6 billion bases, a 0.05% difference still translates to 3 million differences!"
http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask166

I accepted Evolution from Common Ancestry a long time ago.

There really isn't a sensible way not to accept it.

Whether God wanted it to occur that way is a faith position and not a scientific one.

the original quote...

If I want to believe God wanted for dogs and cats to have common ancestor many millions of years ago. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be wrong. There is nothing in science that demands my beliefs be right either.

...was about god's intentions? Why bring that up? Of necessity you have to assume that god wanted it to occur that way because that is the way it is. This was in reply to science being agnostic? I agreed that it is agnostic about areas where data is lacking. That would include what that god's "intentions" were in creation. Besides a being a deflection/distraction what's your point?

I'm retired now, but regularly read the journals of my profession.

I was wondering whether you studied or kept up with other areas of science besides your profession. I found that members really didn't keep up with scientific progress unless it was in the headlines and then only to find a way to attack or dismiss it.

I was never the employee of any church, and it would have been very inappropriate for me to use my profession to further my religion.

Well that's good to hear. Would you pass that along on up to the brethren? Thanks.

I'm neutral on whether religion should or shouldn't help someone in the professional capacities. Lots depends on what those capacities are. I sit comfortably in my chair when doing Social Work, and in the front row pew of the Chapel.

Anti-science just leads back to the caves. I like the 21st Century science just fine. I'm an old fan of Star Trek. The 24th Century looks fantastic to me.

The number of genes in humans is about 6 billion base pairs. With about 80% just for proper cell function. Virtually all the rest are what separate us from other species. The tiniest amount is what separates me from you. But it is enough.

I agree.

Simply because science is agnostic on questions of God. Believe or don't believe whatever you want.
IE; If I use a hammer to build a house. Am I the hammer?

TTBOMK we're able to map bio-electrical impulses when certain stimuli is used. But we are unable, so far, to accurately determine what those impulses mean. As you said it is still in its infancy.

I have a whole variety of interests not directly related to Social Work and/or my religion. But there is only 24 hrs in a day. So I have to pick and choose which is of more interest on any given day. Space Weather is one of my favorites.

The Church has a extensive program for LDS Social Services, and is quite good. It is open to any that desire it. The Church doesn't get to tell LDS Social Services what to counsel, and LDS Social Services doesn't get to tell the Church what to believe.

[_spotlight]

Simply because science is agnostic on questions of God.

But it's not really, as I tried to illustrate with Sean Carroll's article and with reference to the split brain patients on other threads as well. These facts of science don't accord with LDS theology. What good is that theology if it interferes with accepting evidence that is in disagreement with it? And what good is theology if the goal posts are continually in need of being moved so as to render the facts of science agnostic on the new and improved concept of god?

[_The CCC]

Simply because science is agnostic on questions of God.

But it's not really, as I tried to illustrate with Sean Carroll's article and with reference to the split brain patients on other threads as well. These facts of science don't accord with LDS theology. What good is that theology if it interferes with accepting evidence that is in disagreement with it? And what good is theology if the goal posts are continually in need of being moved so as to render the facts of science agnostic on the new and improved concept of god?

Yes it really is agnostic. Never said science does accord with LDS Theology, or any other Theology or lack thereof.

I don't believe we know enough about science and/or theology to make such declarative statements. So science is Agnostic.

There is methodological materialism and philosophical materialism. I subscribe to the former and not the latter. To say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing.

[_spotlight]

There is methodological materialism and philosophical materialism. I subscribe to the former and not the latter.

So you disagree with D&C 131:7? You are a cafeteria Mormon as my institute director used to call them. But thanks for your testimony that science does not agree with LDS theology and reminding me why it is that prophets and apostles keep mute having no power to defend the church in any venue whatsoever.

[_The CCC]

There is methodological materialism and philosophical materialism. I subscribe to the former and not the latter.

So you disagree with D&C 131:7? You are a cafeteria Mormon as my institute director used to call them. But thanks for your testimony that science does not agree with LDS theology and reminding me why it is that prophets and apostles keep mute having no power to defend the church in any venue whatsoever.

For better or worse Joseph Smith isn't here to explain what he meant by immaterial matter. So any comment by me would be a Statement from Ignorance.

Science doesn't agree with any religion or non-religion. It is agnostic.

The purpose of prophets and apostles is not to debate science, though some have been scientists. It is not the purpose of prophets, and apostles to defend the Church against all comers. The purpose of prophets and apostles is too bear Special Witness to the Divinity of Christ.

[_spotlight]

For better or worse Joseph Smith isn't here to explain what he meant by immaterial matter.

Really? It's seems pretty straight forward to me and every other member I've ever met who has commented on it. He said it does not exist and that it is a self-contradiction.

Science doesn't agree with any religion or non-religion. It is agnostic.

"Science is agnostic" is not a part of science. It is a PR statement by Eugenie Scott. And what she means is that it doesn't have anything to say about anything that may exist that is not presently observable. If and when something like dark matter becomes observable, in this case via gravitation, then science does have something to say about it and it is no longer "agnostic" about that subject. Religion is not taboo. What do you suppose religious studies are??

The purpose of prophets and apostles is not to debate science,

Good of you to put Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson in their place then. Too bad that prophets don't know their proper role as well as you apparently do.

It is not the purpose of prophets, and apostles to defend the Church against all comers.

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

So do as I say and not as I do? Or maybe the purpose of apostles and prophets has changed since New Testament times?

Or are you simply fibbing to me:
https://www.LDS.org/youth/article/the-d ... s?lang=eng

The purpose of prophets and apostles is too bear Special Witness to the Divinity of Christ.

Oh that's right, as a church the LDS have their own definition of apostles and prophets. Silly me. And that special witness is not a witness that is in any way special, it is by definition a witness from someone who is named a special witness of Christ. Hilarious.

[_The CCC]

For better or worse Joseph Smith isn't here to explain what he meant by immaterial matter.

Really? It's seems pretty straight forward to me and every other member I've ever met who has commented on it. He said it does not exist and that it is a self-contradiction.

Science doesn't agree with any religion or non-religion. It is agnostic.

"Science is agnostic" is not a part of science. It is a PR statement by Eugenie Scott. And what she means is that it doesn't have anything to say about anything that may exist that is not presently observable. If and when something like dark matter becomes observable, in this case via gravitation, then science does have something to say about it and it is no longer "agnostic" about that subject. Religion is not taboo. What do you suppose religious studies are??

The purpose of prophets and apostles is not to debate science,

Good of you to put Joseph Fielding Smith and Ezra Taft Benson in their place then. Too bad that prophets don't know their proper role as well as you apparently do.

It is not the purpose of prophets, and apostles to defend the Church against all comers.

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

So do as I say and not as I do? Or maybe the purpose of apostles and prophets has changed since New Testament times?

Or are you simply fibbing to me:
https://www.LDS.org/youth/article/the-d ... s?lang=eng

The purpose of prophets and apostles is too bear Special Witness to the Divinity of Christ.

Oh that's right, as a church the LDS have their own definition of apostles and prophets. Silly me. And that special witness is not a witness that is in any way special, it is by definition a witness from someone who is named a special witness of Christ. Hilarious.

The smallest particles we know of are electrons. They are matter. We don't know of any "finer" matter.
Yet they make up the known universe. You'll have the ask Joseph Smith what he meant by the term.

Science is the exploration of our natural world/universe. The Supernatural is outside the realm of science. I never said religion or non-religion is taboo. However if we're discussing the growing of Watermelons injecting a discussion about playing Baseball into the discussion isn't helpful.

Religionists and scientists have a long and ugly history of telling each other what to believe. I take the center path. Each is true within its own sphere. Ask a question about faith, and I'm pretty sure Peter would give a faithful answer. Ask him a question about tomorrows New York Stock Exchange numbers, probably not.

The purpose of the New Testament prophets and apostles was to be a Special Witness of the Divinity of Christ.
SEE https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

I don't fib when telling people what I believe. I avoid telling people what they believe.

[_spotlight]

The smallest particles we know of are electrons. They are matter. We don't know of any "finer" matter.
Yet they make up the known universe. You'll have the ask Joseph Smith what he meant by the term.

My point had nothing to do with what he meant by finer matter. It had to do with the fact that he stated plainly that there was no such thing as immaterial matter. And that was pertinent to the conversation as you stated you accepted methodological materialism but not philosophical materialism. Clearly LDS are stuck with both. But nice attempt at distraction and confusing the exchange to cover your nubbins.

Science is the exploration of our natural world/universe. The Supernatural is outside the realm of science.

It is also outside of LDS theology. I was a member for a number of years.

Here is the formal definition: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

LDS think that god operates by higher laws so there is nothing beyond law and hence nothing supernatural or beyond explanation. Those explanations might be considered part of the mysteries of god but they are not mysteries when explained and they are not in theory unexplainable.

Why do you suppose that some leaders referred to god as the supreme scientist?

I never said religion or non-religion is taboo. However if we're discussing the growing of Watermelons injecting a discussion about playing Baseball into the discussion isn't helpful.

Throwing blame. Typical LDS tactic. Your attempt to redefine the terms such that you can assert that "science is agnostic" means that it has nothing to say about LDS beliefs is at fault here. To repeat, split brain patients and the observations by Sean Carroll are factual scientific evidence against a spirit controlled body. (Not against a spirit if it does not control the body perhaps)

Your attempt to invalidate this by stating that science is agnostic is not a scientific argument. It is a rhetorical tactic. Your attempt to diffuse or confuse the issue with further blabber doesn't bail you out here.

Religionists and scientists have a long and ugly history of telling each other what to believe.

Oh please! Talk to Galileo about that. Seems to be true enough in one direction. However in the opposite direction it has nothing at all to do with belief unless factual evidence showing something to be real is now termed a belief.

I take the center path.

Are you Franktalk?

Each is true within its own sphere.

One is simply asserted to be true while the other is the result of analyzing the evidence, but nice try to paint them as being somehow equally valid points of view. You might want to read the following:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... democracy/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-st ... 91677.html

The purpose of the New Testament prophets and apostles was to be a Special Witness of the Divinity of Christ.

The New Testament prophets supposedly saw Christ and watched him in his ministry. The latter day apostles not so much. But they are called special witnesses of Christ in the LDS church. But they don't have a special witness of Christ. But they love to exude that innuendo don't they?

I don't fib when telling people what I believe.

Yes, I believe this was the same defense Monson used when the church was threatened with the claim of fraud in England.
It is fraud. But hey, you are free to believe in a fraud.

I avoid telling people what they believe.

I was a member of the church. You may use the defense that you believe something different than what the church teaches, like:

I don't believe we know enough about science and/or theology to make such declarative statements.

but my points were not about telling you what you believed. They were about facts of science that flatly contradict what the church has been teaching about premortal spirits entering mortality and doing the choosing and deciding in our physical bodies since its inception for almost 200 years now.