Creation of the earth

[Rifka]

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying the Bible Dictionary was official doctrine. I just wanted to throw out those thoughts about it.

[NerdGirl]

I love what you said, Wisteria.

[Hypatia]

Um, can't tell if serious....

But really, is this thread for real?

[Dragon Lady]

Um, can't tell if serious....

But really, is this thread for real?

Nope. It's a figment of your imagination. Perhaps you should get more sleep?

[Hypatia]

So, a couple things since this thread seems to be frighteningly for real.

First to CK: There are a couple ideas about Adam. You have the Brigham Young discourses where Adam is god from a different planet (but we don't really follow that anymore) and Eve is one of his wives. You have the idea that Portia brought up that Adam and Eve are more representative ideas of the first human population. You have the idea that Adam and Eve were the first homo sapiens to receive a spirit. Whichever you choose to believe, does it really matter? The scientific evidence is compelling enough to suggest that we are evolved from an ape-like creature and I like to think that the first Adam and Eve humans were those with enough intelligence to start questioning their world. I can't take the genesis story literally.

Secondly to Wisteria, I liked what you said about science but you failed to mention why we (ought to) value science over psudo-science. Psudo-science (the word is painful to even write) is one of the most harmful things to human social evolution and to the broadening of our understanding of the universe. Let me explain the critical difference between the two. Science starts with evidence. Physical evidence (for simplicity sake I'm not going to go into the soft sciences). The evidence is gathered and evaluated. Theories are formed based on the gathered evidence. The theories are tested and the evidence is evaluated again. After iterating on this process multiple times, conclusions are drawn. As Wisteria said, these conclusions are always in flux but I warn you that just because there is a possibility that a conclusion may change in the future there is not necessarily justification for discarding the entire theory. Case and point, creationism. Just because you don't like the scientific evidence, or just because it makes you mad or scared, doesn't mean you can discredit it on a whim.

This is where psudo-science comes into play. Psudo-science STARTS with a theory and then grasps at straws for evidence. Psudo-science refuses to change based on different or new evidence. Psudo-science is based in peoples wants, not in reality. Let's take creationism here. A person wants to believe that the genesis story (a 2600 year old book written by men who thought bird entrails told the future) is LITERALLY true. Therefore they start with the conclusion that the universe was created in 6 24-hour days (or something similar) and dinosaurs could not have existed since they aren't mentioned. Since they want to believe something, they throw out any theory which challenges this very narrow view of earth history. Then they have to find things to support their claim. Well, there is no evidence to support the claim so they start making wild conjectures like dinosaur bones came from other planets.

Now, the dinosaur-alien theory isn't necessarily a bad one, it's just an unsubstantiated one. Fortunately this theory can be tested. Do dinosaur bones contain materials not commonly found on earth? Do dinosaur bones appear in random places around the earth? Are dinosaur bones unlike modern earth creatures in every way? Well, guess what. The answer to all of these questions is no. After a scientific evaluation of the dinosaur-alien theory, we find that the theory is bunk. A true scientist would now drop said theory. A psudo-scientist is too emotionally involved to logically evaluate their postulates.

In short, and before I get even more frustrated (I have so little respect for the young earth "theorists"), leave religion where it belongs: out of science.

[Hypatia]

And a little comic for the more logically minded out there:

http://legionoflions.com/attachment.php ... 1182711377

[Marduk]

Well, Hypatia, as usual, there's some good solid ideas in what you've said, but it is mixed with a lot of bunk that ought to be cleared out before we continue.

First, the so-called Adam-God theory was never believed by the church. The claim within his discourses is not well sourced, and unsubstantiated outside of that particular source. Using the scientific method as you have so carefully illustrated, we can't put any stock into this as an idea. Thank you for at least recognizing that it is an idea that not only isn't taught, but isn't even KNOWN to most members of the LDS faith. The other idea that I have to debunk is that Adam and Eve were the first to receive spirits. As LDS doctrine is quite clear on, all living things have spirits, so this could be an idea in some other Christian churches, but the definitive doctrine throws this out the window.

Second, it is "pseudo-science," not "psudo-." This really isn't relevant to the discussion in any way, just that mispellings are a pet peeve of mine. So now that I've indulged myself here, we can continue with the serious part of the discussion.

It is important when we want to falsify a theory that we approach it in a way that actually dismantles the theory itself. If we fail to understand what it says, any analysis or attack of it necessarily falls flat. So in your attack of the termed dinosaur alien theory (which, for the record, I find shallow and untenable, but for other reasons) you've pointed out attacks which don't really attack the theory as is. IF, indeed, these bones are part of materials from other spacial debris that was reapportioned in some fashion for this planet, the materials therein would, in fact, become commonly found on earth. They would also be distributed into various parts of the earth. Lastly, your debunking of this theory presupposes evolution, which, if this other theory is true (and I admit it is extremely unlikely) means that evolution is not necessary for this sequence of events.

The problem isn't that certain theories are science and certain theories aren't, it is that any and all theories have within them certain suppositions which are fundamentally untestable; axioms, if you will (or, in the so-called "softer sciences," caveats.) We have to allow them if we are to put stock in any one theory. Hence the philosophical theory that we can't truly claim to have any knowledge, as at any point those axioms can be attacked, and they are by nature indefensible.

[Tao]

Aye, I'm with Marduk on this one. Though a physicist by trade, well do I know that many of the 'hard' sciences are run by nearly as much bunk and emotional attachment as any pseudo-science. Truth be told, string theory pretty much fits all of Hypatia's criteria for pseudo-science. Granted; they are willing to change some things when it becomes apparent that the higgs boson isn't going to be in the energy band they'd predicted (neener neener neener!) But many string theorists are as die-hard in their belief as your extremist spectrum of theists.

[Katya]

I was the Higgs boson once for Halloween.

That's all I have to contribute to the conversation.

Carry on.

[Marduk]

Katya, if I wasn't already dating someone, I believe I might marry you. Or if polygamy comes back into style.

[Tao]

I was the Higgs boson once for Halloween.

That's all I have to contribute to the conversation.

Carry on.

That is a frightening thought, luckily it 'tis merely a figment of fevered imaginations.

[Dragon Lady]

This is where psudo-science comes into play. Psudo-science STARTS with a theory and then grasps at straws for evidence. Psudo-science refuses to change based on different or new evidence. Psudo-science is based in peoples wants, not in reality. Let's take creationism here. A person wants to believe that the genesis story (a 2600 year old book written by men who thought bird entrails told the future) is LITERALLY true. Therefore they start with the conclusion that the universe was created in 6 24-hour days (or something similar) and dinosaurs could not have existed since they aren't mentioned. Since they want to believe something, they throw out any theory which challenges this very narrow view of earth history. Then they have to find things to support their claim. Well, there is no evidence to support the claim so they start making wild conjectures like dinosaur bones came from other planets.

I'm gonna take a little bit of umbrage here as an ANES major. Please tell me a) where in the Bible we find that Moses or any other author of the bible thought bird entrails told the future (False prophets don't count here) b) what Hebrew word says the earth was created in 6 24-hour days or anything similar and c) where in the bible we find the idea that if something isn't mentioned, it's not real.

I spent a lot of my years in my major seriously questioning my testimony of the bible and the literal vs. symbolic nature of it. And I did so using the actual Hebrew text. And guess what? I think creationism and many of the stories in the bible could actually possibly be literal. I'm not gonna have my socks knocked off if I find out they were all symbolic, but I can see ways that they could actually be literal, but in a Hebrew mindset, not an American one. Which, btw, is vastly different. And the bible is very, very biased towards a Hebrew mindset. And I think if you and I were having this conversation face to face, you wouldn't have applied any of those grossly-exaggerated stereotypes to me. I am perfectly content believing that science and religion (yes, even our old testament) can actually work together and you don't have to believe one or the other. So please forgive me if I feel you're being rather scientifically-snobbish right now. You know I still love you and think you're awesome. But leave room in your heart for us religious-snobs out there, too, k?

[Wisteria]

Heheh. Tao, it's all too true that many scientists fall prey to wanting to make the data fit the hypothesis. I've been guilty of the feeling myself, although I don't think I've succumbed to it yet. And Hypatia, I do agree about the general distinction between science and pseudo-science (or,a s Tao and Marduk pointed out, what *ought* to be the distinction). And really when all is said and done, I agree with Dragon Lady too that there's some symbolic stories in the OT and some literal ones and I'll be darned if I know exactly which ones are which ones, but that brings me back to my main point- I engage in religious activities to teach me where I came from and why I'm here, and I engage in science to determine the hows of the world. Very possibly God used human evolution to create physical bodies for His spirit children, but I don't know that for a fact, nor can I disprove it. So I am content to leave it unresolved for now.

[Defy V]

mispellings are a pet peeve of mine.

Mine too!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[Marduk]

Was wondering if someone was going to catch it.

Good job Deefy.

[Rifka]

mispellings are a pet peeve of mine.

Mine too!

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Mine as well. I was going to say something, but Marduk beat me to the punch.

[Katya]

Katya, if I wasn't already dating someone, I believe I might marry you. Or if polygamy comes back into style.

Enough with the Mormon fundamentalist flattery!

[Katya]

I was the Higgs boson once for Halloween.

That's all I have to contribute to the conversation.

Carry on.

That is a frightening thought, luckily it 'tis merely a figment of fevered imaginations.

Well, my rationale was that no one knows what it looks like, so maybe it looks like me! (That way I didn't have to have a costume.)

[Whistler]

DL, I've been reading Genesis, and I don't really understand it. What's going on with Lot's daughters, and was Abraham's calling his wife his sister some matriarchy thing? Why did Rachel steal the idols from her father's house and did they have an idolatry problem? I should probably make this a different topic, but so much of the OT really doesn't make sense to me.

[Dragon Lady]

DL, I've been reading Genesis, and I don't really understand it. What's going on with Lot's daughters, and was Abraham's calling his wife his sister some matriarchy thing? Why did Rachel steal the idols from her father's house and did they have an idolatry problem? I should probably make this a different topic, but so much of the OT really doesn't make sense to me.

Whoa. That's a lot of questions. And not on topic. Mods, can we make this a new topic? And I'll be honest, Whistler, a lot of the OT doesn't make sense to me, either. But I've done enough studying of risqué topics that I'm pretty convinced that most, if not all, of the risqué stories in the OT have a valid reason for being there. And, sadly, some of them are going to require a trip to BYU's library for me to research more. So I promise to answer, but it might take me awhile. Especially since I currently live about 40 mins or more from BYU. (Maybe if you agree to watch Dragon Baby while I spend time at the library? ) I once started a blog to talk about stories just like this, but then I never made it down to BYU, so it never got off the ground and I recently changed that blog into a different scriptural track. But I left my intro to stories just in case I ever got back to it. Perhaps I'll use that blog to answer your questions and post the links here? Because typically answers like that are a little too long for a forum post.