Young Earth Creationism

[drjme]

We know for a fact that we are seeing stars that are hundreds of thousands + of light years away, meaning we are only now seeing them in the state they were hundreds of thousand of years ago, obviously showing that they were in existence for more than a hundred thousand years.

Do we actually know that by direct experience, or is that claim to knowledge in reality merely a logical inference based on data interpreted by means of philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be proven?

Do you mean have I have I come to that conclusion because I physically measured it myself?
No
Do you mean have I come to that conclusion based on science and mathematics?
Yes.

Are you saying that the distance light travels in a year has not been proven? And so all science in relation to this is philosophical?

[log]

We know for a fact that we are seeing stars that are hundreds of thousands + of light years away, meaning we are only now seeing them in the state they were hundreds of thousand of years ago, obviously showing that they were in existence for more than a hundred thousand years.

Do we actually know that by direct experience, or is that claim to knowledge in reality merely a logical inference based on data interpreted by means of philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be proven?

Do you mean have I have I come to that conclusion because I physically measured it myself?
No
Do you mean have I come to that conclusion based on science and mathematics?
Yes.

Uh, wait. So you didn't do the science, having not physically measured it yourself; did you actually do the math? And, if you did neither, exactly how is your conclusion based on science and mathematics?

Are you saying that the distance light travels in a year has not been proven? And so all science in relation to this is philosophical?

So, wait. Are you agreeing that these are not actually knowledge, but logical inferences based upon data interpreted through philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be proven?

[drjme]

Uh, wait. So you didn't do the science, having not physically measured it yourself; did you actually do the math? And, if you did neither, exactly how is your conclusion based on science and mathematics?

Are you saying that the distance light travels in a year has not been proven? And so all science in relation to this is philosophical?

So, wait. Are you agreeing that these are not actually knowledge, but logical inferences based upon data interpreted through philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be proven?

Yet another of logs radonculous pointless circular arguments.
Are you referring to the mathematics used as being the philosophical assumption? Or my interpretation of logic in relation to reconciling my POV with both the bible and science?

Tell me this log, were you present during the creation and can you verify that the literal description we have in genesis, is exactly how it happened? Wait, you weren't? So you believe this even though you have no proof and didn't witness any of it yourself?

But besides the point of you trying to discredit science by your preposterous assertion that I haven't physically measured the universe, share the light o log, enlighten me so I may bask in your wisdom. Keep the thread subject going instead of derailing into stupid arguments. what's your view on young earth creationism?

[log]

I will wait for the answers to the questions I have asked.

Since, apparently, you did neither the science, nor the math, how is your conclusion in any way, shape, or form, based upon science and math?

Do you deny that what you currently believe about the universe is nothing more than logical inferences based on data and philosophical assumptions you are unable to prove?

[drjme]

Btw to clarify, I don't believe in Darwinian evolution, it is my opinion that the world went though several stages of creation over a much longer time, created and evolved by The Father.

[log]

Oh, I'll clarify more than that.

D&C 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

temporal

TEM'PORAL, a. [L. temporalis, from tempus, time.]

1. Pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular; as temporal concerns; temporal affairs. In this sense, it is opposed to spiritual. Let not temporal affairs or employments divert the mind from spiritual concerns, which are far more important.
In this sense also it is opposed to ecclesiastical; as temporal power, that is, secular, civil or political power; temporal courts, those which take cognizance of civil suits. Temporal jurisdiction is that which regards civil and political affairs.
2. Measured or limited by time, or by this life or this state of things; having limited existence; opposed to eternal.
The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor.4.
3. In grammar, relating to a tense; as a temporal augment.
4. Pertaining to the temple or temples of the head; as the temporal bone; a temporal artery or vein; temporal muscle.

continuance

CONTINUANCE, n. [See Continue.]

1. A holding on or remaining in a particular state, or in a course or series. Applied to time, duration; a state of lasting; as the continuance of rain or fair weather for a day or week. Sensual pleasure is of short continuance.
2. Perseverance; as, no excuse will justify a continuance in sin.
By patient continuance in well doing. Romans 2.
3. Abode; residence; as, during our continuance in Paris.
4. Succession uninterrupted; continuation; a prolonging of existence; as, the brute regards the continuance of his species.
5. Progression of time.
In thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned. Psalm 139.
6. In law, the deferring of a suit, or the giving of a day for the parties to a suit to appear. After issue or demurrer joined, as well as in some of the previous stages of proceeding, a day is continually given, and entered upon record, for the parties to appear on from time to time. The giving of this day is called a continuance.
7. In the United States, the deferring of a trial or suit from one stated term of the court to another.
8. Continuity; resistance to a separation of parts; a holding together. [Not used.]

The inverse of "temporal" is "eternal," or "spiritual." The earth will have, in total, a temporal existence of 7000 years, according to Joseph, accepted as binding by the Church through common consent. The rest of its existence is therefore either spiritual or eternal - either one is a deathless state.

[drjme]

Oh, I'll clarify more than that.

D&C 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

temporal

TEM'PORAL, a. [L. temporalis, from tempus, time.]

1. Pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular; as temporal concerns; temporal affairs. In this sense, it is opposed to spiritual. Let not temporal affairs or employments divert the mind from spiritual concerns, which are far more important.
In this sense also it is opposed to ecclesiastical; as temporal power, that is, secular, civil or political power; temporal courts, those which take cognizance of civil suits. Temporal jurisdiction is that which regards civil and political affairs.
2. Measured or limited by time, or by this life or this state of things; having limited existence; opposed to eternal.
The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor.4.
3. In grammar, relating to a tense; as a temporal augment.
4. Pertaining to the temple or temples of the head; as the temporal bone; a temporal artery or vein; temporal muscle.

continuance

CONTINUANCE, n. [See Continue.]

1. A holding on or remaining in a particular state, or in a course or series. Applied to time, duration; a state of lasting; as the continuance of rain or fair weather for a day or week. Sensual pleasure is of short continuance.
2. Perseverance; as, no excuse will justify a continuance in sin.
By patient continuance in well doing. Romans 2.
3. Abode; residence; as, during our continuance in Paris.
4. Succession uninterrupted; continuation; a prolonging of existence; as, the brute regards the continuance of his species.
5. Progression of time.
In thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned. Psalm 139.
6. In law, the deferring of a suit, or the giving of a day for the parties to a suit to appear. After issue or demurrer joined, as well as in some of the previous stages of proceeding, a day is continually given, and entered upon record, for the parties to appear on from time to time. The giving of this day is called a continuance.
7. In the United States, the deferring of a trial or suit from one stated term of the court to another.
8. Continuity; resistance to a separation of parts; a holding together. [Not used.]

The inverse of "temporal" is "eternal," or "spiritual." The earth will have, in total, a temporal existence of 7000 years, according to Joseph, accepted as binding by the Church through common consent. The rest of its existence is therefore either spiritual or eternal.

I don't value your interpretation of scripture as you have misinterpreted even the simplest of verses well out of context repeatedly.

I am aware that the church has taught young earth, I don't have to agree with it, and it is not an Idea exclusive to JS.

[log]

Oh, I'll clarify more than that.

D&C 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

temporal

TEM'PORAL, a. [L. temporalis, from tempus, time.]

1. Pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular; as temporal concerns; temporal affairs. In this sense, it is opposed to spiritual. Let not temporal affairs or employments divert the mind from spiritual concerns, which are far more important.
In this sense also it is opposed to ecclesiastical; as temporal power, that is, secular, civil or political power; temporal courts, those which take cognizance of civil suits. Temporal jurisdiction is that which regards civil and political affairs.
2. Measured or limited by time, or by this life or this state of things; having limited existence; opposed to eternal.
The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor.4.
3. In grammar, relating to a tense; as a temporal augment.
4. Pertaining to the temple or temples of the head; as the temporal bone; a temporal artery or vein; temporal muscle.

continuance

CONTINUANCE, n. [See Continue.]

1. A holding on or remaining in a particular state, or in a course or series. Applied to time, duration; a state of lasting; as the continuance of rain or fair weather for a day or week. Sensual pleasure is of short continuance.
2. Perseverance; as, no excuse will justify a continuance in sin.
By patient continuance in well doing. Romans 2.
3. Abode; residence; as, during our continuance in Paris.
4. Succession uninterrupted; continuation; a prolonging of existence; as, the brute regards the continuance of his species.
5. Progression of time.
In thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned. Psalm 139.
6. In law, the deferring of a suit, or the giving of a day for the parties to a suit to appear. After issue or demurrer joined, as well as in some of the previous stages of proceeding, a day is continually given, and entered upon record, for the parties to appear on from time to time. The giving of this day is called a continuance.
7. In the United States, the deferring of a trial or suit from one stated term of the court to another.
8. Continuity; resistance to a separation of parts; a holding together. [Not used.]

The inverse of "temporal" is "eternal," or "spiritual." The earth will have, in total, a temporal existence of 7000 years, according to Joseph, accepted as binding by the Church through common consent. The rest of its existence is therefore either spiritual or eternal.

I don't value your interpretation of scripture as you have misinterpreted even the simplest of verses well out of context repeatedly.

I am aware that the church has taught young earth, I don't have to agree with it, and it is not an Idea exclusive to JS.

This is the current doctrine of the Church, and it has been since this was canonized. You certainly don't have to agree with it.

I await your answer to the questions I have asked.

[lemuel]

Oh, I'll clarify more than that.

D&C 77:6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

temporal

TEM'PORAL, a. [L. temporalis, from tempus, time.]

1. Pertaining to this life or this world or the body only; secular; as temporal concerns; temporal affairs. In this sense, it is opposed to spiritual. Let not temporal affairs or employments divert the mind from spiritual concerns, which are far more important.
In this sense also it is opposed to ecclesiastical; as temporal power, that is, secular, civil or political power; temporal courts, those which take cognizance of civil suits. Temporal jurisdiction is that which regards civil and political affairs.
2. Measured or limited by time, or by this life or this state of things; having limited existence; opposed to eternal.
The things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Cor.4.
3. In grammar, relating to a tense; as a temporal augment.
4. Pertaining to the temple or temples of the head; as the temporal bone; a temporal artery or vein; temporal muscle.

continuance

CONTINUANCE, n. [See Continue.]

1. A holding on or remaining in a particular state, or in a course or series. Applied to time, duration; a state of lasting; as the continuance of rain or fair weather for a day or week. Sensual pleasure is of short continuance.
2. Perseverance; as, no excuse will justify a continuance in sin.
By patient continuance in well doing. Romans 2.
3. Abode; residence; as, during our continuance in Paris.
4. Succession uninterrupted; continuation; a prolonging of existence; as, the brute regards the continuance of his species.
5. Progression of time.
In thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned. Psalm 139.
6. In law, the deferring of a suit, or the giving of a day for the parties to a suit to appear. After issue or demurrer joined, as well as in some of the previous stages of proceeding, a day is continually given, and entered upon record, for the parties to appear on from time to time. The giving of this day is called a continuance.
7. In the United States, the deferring of a trial or suit from one stated term of the court to another.
8. Continuity; resistance to a separation of parts; a holding together. [Not used.]

The inverse of "temporal" is "eternal," or "spiritual." The earth will have, in total, a temporal existence of 7000 years, according to Joseph, accepted as binding by the Church through common consent. The rest of its existence is therefore either spiritual or eternal - either one is a deathless state.

But the creation happened before the 7000 year temporal existence. And the time frame for the creation period may not have been clearly specified, (7 days can mean a lot of things--7 days, 7000 years, or it might mean nothing at all, like when God says soon in the scriptures, even though He may not experience time like we do; in fact, He may not experience it at all)

[log]

But the creation happened before the 7000 year temporal existence. And the time frame for the creation period may not have been clearly specified, (7 days can mean a lot of things--7 days, 7000 years, or it might mean nothing at all, like when God says soon in the scriptures, even though He may not experience time like we do; in fact, He may not experience it at all)

It doesn't matter, because the state it was in whilst it was created was spiritual, or eternal. Neither one gives you death or decay.

Remember - "We believe all that God has a revealed." (AoF 9)

[lemuel]

We know for a fact that we are seeing stars that are hundreds of thousands + of light years away, meaning we are only now seeing them in the state they were hundreds of thousand of years ago, obviously showing that they were in existence for more than a hundred thousand years.

Do we actually know that by direct experience, or is that claim to knowledge in reality merely a logical inference based on data interpreted by means of philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be proven?

Do you mean have I have I come to that conclusion because I physically measured it myself?
No
Do you mean have I come to that conclusion based on science and mathematics?
Yes.

Are you saying that the distance light travels in a year has not been proven? And so all science in relation to this is philosophical?

Let me help you out. When you say, we know for a fact, what you really mean to say is that we have a very strong belief. That's the best science can ever give us. Some things we have stronger beliefs about than others. Some beliefs are so strong you'd bet any amount of $$ on them.

[lemuel]

But the creation happened before the 7000 year temporal existence. And the time frame for the creation period may not have been clearly specified, (7 days can mean a lot of things--7 days, 7000 years, or it might mean nothing at all, like when God says soon in the scriptures, even though He may not experience time like we do; in fact, He may not experience it at all)

It doesn't matter, because the state it was in whilst it was created was spiritual, or eternal. Neither one gives you death or decay.

Remember - "We believe all that God has a revealed." (AoF 9)

But it had a physical component, even before the fall, right?

[drjme]

I will wait for the answers to the questions I have asked.

A.Since, apparently, you did neither the science, nor the math, how is your conclusion in any way, shape, or form, based upon science and math?

B.Do you deny that what you currently believe about the universe is nothing more than logical inferences based on data and philosophical assumptions you are unable to prove?

A. My opinion as I stated in my comments, is based on the science and mathematics of others, since I am 1. Unable to physically traverse the universe to measure space and time, 2. Unable to construct complex mathematical equations based on how fast light travels between stars and planets.

B. As I said, it is my opinion. I believe the mathematics used by very, very intelligent people to determine distances across vast areas of space are a fact. In the same way they can actually measure the time it takes for light from the sun to reach the earth etc.
If you need me to peer review Their position, to verify it as fact, I'm sorry I can't do that.

My philosophical viewpoint takes the biblical account and attempts to look at it with a rational logic. Yours appears to do neither, but instead is "Joseph smith said so." Which is fine, becuase that is your opinion.

[log]

But the creation happened before the 7000 year temporal existence. And the time frame for the creation period may not have been clearly specified, (7 days can mean a lot of things--7 days, 7000 years, or it might mean nothing at all, like when God says soon in the scriptures, even though He may not experience time like we do; in fact, He may not experience it at all)

It doesn't matter, because the state it was in whilst it was created was spiritual, or eternal. Neither one gives you death or decay.

Remember - "We believe all that God has a revealed." (AoF 9)

But it had a physical component, even before the fall, right?

The physical is eternal as well.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:33
33 ...The elements are eternal...

[log]

I will wait for the answers to the questions I have asked.

A.Since, apparently, you did neither the science, nor the math, how is your conclusion in any way, shape, or form, based upon science and math?

B.Do you deny that what you currently believe about the universe is nothing more than logical inferences based on data and philosophical assumptions you are unable to prove?

A. My opinion as I stated in my comments, is based on the science and mathematics of others, since I am 1. Unable to physically traverse the universe to measure space and time, 2. Unable to construct complex mathematical equations based on how fast light travels between stars and planets.

So, you don't "know for a fact," but rather it's merely an opinion of yours, based on your trust in men. I accept that.

B. As I said, it is my opinion. I believe the mathematics used by very, very intelligent people to determine distances across vast areas of space are a fact. In the same way they can actually measure the time it takes for light from the sun to reach the earth etc.
If you need me to peer review Their position, to verify it as fact, I'm sorry I can't do that.

My philosophical viewpoint takes the biblical account and attempts to look at it with a rational logic. Yours appears to do neither, but instead is "Joseph smith said so." Which is fine, becuase that is your opinion.

I am glad that we now have an understanding of what "we know for a fact" means when you use the phrase.

[lemuel]

I will wait for the answers to the questions I have asked.

A.Since, apparently, you did neither the science, nor the math, how is your conclusion in any way, shape, or form, based upon science and math?

B.Do you deny that what you currently believe about the universe is nothing more than logical inferences based on data and philosophical assumptions you are unable to prove?

If you need me to peer review Their position, to verify it as fact, I'm sorry I can't do that.

What! You can't peer review all of science!?! Then I guess you're stuck trusting in the arm of flesh and are dammed. ;)

It sucks that we have to trust somewhat in the arm of flesh to form our beliefs. It sucks that we have to rely on empiricism and not pure logic with no observation to arrive at knowledge or belief.

drjme, I bet the cat in your picture could do all the proofs

[log]

Yep, but we err when we cast our beliefs as knowledge.

It ain't what a man knows what hurts him. It's what a man knows what ain't true.

1 Nephi 12:18
18 And the large and spacious building, which thy father saw, is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the word of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and forever.

33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.

34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.

[drjme]

Let me help you out. When you say, we know for a fact, what you really mean to say is that we have a very strong belief. That's the best science can ever give us. Some things we have stronger beliefs about than others. Some beliefs are so strong you'd bet any amount of $$ on them.

Thanks Lemuel I'm aware of what he is trying to say, but it seems a bit silly, it's like asking not just to measure something, but provide accurate calculations as to how you determined that unit of measurement, distracting the whole conversation to an irrelevant point.

[log]

If you do not understand that it is untestable philosophical presuppositions which drive conclusions, independent of evidence, then I can well see how you might imagine my point is irrelevant.

Or, in other words, the philosophies of men, mingled with fossils, is not a sound basis for knowledge.

[lemuel]

the philosophies of men, mingled with fossils

:)) :)) :))

[lemuel]

Let me help you out. When you say, we know for a fact, what you really mean to say is that we have a very strong belief. That's the best science can ever give us. Some things we have stronger beliefs about than others. Some beliefs are so strong you'd bet any amount of $$ on them.

Thanks Lemuel I'm aware of what he is trying to say, but it seems a bit silly, it's like asking not just to measure something, but provide accurate calculations as to how you determined that unit of measurement, distracting the whole conversation to an irrelevant point.

Words are imprecise. For example, log's words seem condescending, but we don't know that for a fact. My experience chatting with him leads me to a belief that he's just having fun and trying to teach us to be more precise in our words.

[drjme]

I will wait for the answers to the questions I have asked.

A.Since, apparently, you did neither the science, nor the math, how is your conclusion in any way, shape, or form, based upon science and math?

B.Do you deny that what you currently believe about the universe is nothing more than logical inferences based on data and philosophical assumptions you are unable to prove?

A. My opinion as I stated in my comments, is based on the science and mathematics of others, since I am 1. Unable to physically traverse the universe to measure space and time, 2. Unable to construct complex mathematical equations based on how fast light travels between stars and planets.

So, you don't "know for a fact," but rather it's merely an opinion of yours, based on your trust in men. I accept that.

B. As I said, it is my opinion. I believe the mathematics used by very, very intelligent people to determine distances across vast areas of space are a fact. In the same way they can actually measure the time it takes for light from the sun to reach the earth etc.
If you need me to peer review Their position, to verify it as fact, I'm sorry I can't do that.

My philosophical viewpoint takes the biblical account and attempts to look at it with a rational logic. Yours appears to do neither, but instead is "Joseph smith said so." Which is fine, becuase that is your opinion.

I am glad that we now have an understanding of what "we know for a fact" means when you use the phrase.

I know it is as much a fact as the earth is round, and the sky coloured a thing called blue, we know these things as facts. Facts are not determined by my interpretation of them. It is not my belief in a fact that makes fact. If a star is 2 hundred thousand light years away, and it takes 2 hundred thousand years for that light to reach earth, that isn't a "strongly held belief", it's a actual measurement of distances between objects and how it is calculated.
What I do to reconcile that fact with my spiritual beliefs IS my opinion. And I think maybe you were mistaking the statement I was making about my opinion based on those facts with the facts themselves?

Do you not believe that light travels at 300,000km per second and that it takes 500 seconds for sunlight to reach the earth? Well I suppose you can choose to not believe it, that doesn't make it any less of a fact, which appears to be the whole argument you are making?

[drjme]

If you do not understand that it is untestable philosophical presuppositions which drive conclusions, independent of evidence, then I can well see how you might imagine my point is irrelevant.

Or, in other words, the philosophies of men, mingled with fossils, is not a sound basis for knowledge.

Please elaborate on "untestable philosophical presuppositions which drive conclusions, independent of evidence, then I can well see how you might imagine my point is irrelevant."

Like I said, my philosophical viewpoint and my conclusions I arrive at are untestable, they are my opinion. Though is the evidence (or facts, even though you don't like that word) I based them on in this instance an untestable philosophical presupposition?

Share log.

I can understand if you want to challenge my opinion. That is fine I like to talk about my opinions a lot, they are malleable. Though some of the things I have based them on in this instance, not so much.

[log]

If a star is 2 hundred thousand light years away, and it takes 2 hundred thousand years for that light to reach earth, that isn't a "strongly held belief", it's a actual measurement of distances between objects and how it is calculated.

What I do to reconcile that fact with my spiritual beliefs IS my opinion. And I think maybe you were mistaking the statement I was making about my opinion based on those facts with the facts themselves?

I was, as an astute observer would undoubtedly note, pointing out that you do not know them to be facts, but merely believe them to be facts.

Do you not believe that light travels at 300,000km per second and that it takes 500 seconds for sunlight to reach the earth? Well I suppose you can choose to not believe it, that doesn't make it any less of a fact, which appears to be the whole argument you are making?

You do not know it to be a fact, by your own admission.

Do you see the point? "We know for a fact", when you use the phrase, means "I really really believe."

[log]

Though is the evidence (or facts, even though you don't like that word) I based them on in this instance an untestable philosophical presupposition?

Evidence doesn't interpret itself. For example, uniformitarianism and naturalism are philosophical presuppositions, neither of which are testable, but both of which are deployed along with data you haven't examined to give you what it pleases you to call "facts", neither of which presuppositions are compatible with the scriptures nor the gospel.

That is fine I like to talk about my opinions a lot, they are malleable. Though some of the things I have based them on in this instance, not so much.

As I quoted earlier, it ain't what a man knows that hurts him, but what he knows that just ain't so.