Young Earth Creationism

[Simon]

Moses was the man that saw and comprehended all of God's creation, and all he could say about it was that we are nothing more than dust, and the creations are as the sand on the sea. Even he had difficulties to describe in our words what he saw, and I think unless we comprehend as he did, we will lack the proper understanding.

Therefore do I find our logic about the earths creation quiet pointlsess, simply because the worlds were created in a state where the boundaries of time and space have no meaning. We are cofined by space and time, the etrnitys are not. Men is, God is not.

Joseph Smith must have been quiet inspired, when he translated the creation story in the pearl of great price, when we read "times" instead of "days".. The earth was created in seven "times".. Since time is no issue to God, "times" can go from 6 seconds to 6 billion years.

Even what we find in science is no more than theory.. Even they don't really know. And they who know, most probabl wont find the words to explain it in our language.

Most important to me is to know that God has created the world, and that he is on controle of the world.

[Simon]

You can reduce my assumption to being mere 'faith in men'' yet it seems you are content in attempting to destroy my assimilation of them into my paradigm rather than attempt to address the facts themselves.

It is more accurate to say I am demonstrating that what you erroneously call "facts" are not known by you as facts - you are pretending to knowledge you do not possess, lacking experience, and doing so because you have faith in men.

That is weak. You seem content to belittle anther POV rather than present a more convincing one, that is fine.

The only POV I am belittling, if I can be said to be belittling anything, is the POV that you can truthfully claim to know things you do not, in reality, know.

If you choose to call actual facts, "beliefs", then It is to you own detriment and closed mindedness.

I wonder if it is not obviously detrimental and transparently closeminded to choose to call opinions and beliefs "facts" based upon one's faith in men?

Those who know, should not talk about knowledge, but talk with knowledge, to the edifying of others.

Those who don't know, but like to talk about knowldge, should have the right to do so, to learn by reasoning

Science say" we know", and still their facts change every couple years. They would laugh at Alma teaching about perfect knowledge, and that it is just a feeling, or a swelling in your heart.

Who knows who knows

[log]

I'm going to repeat this here. I think it may have been missed, or the significance not fully grokked.

{I}t is a doctrine of the Gospel of Salvation to all the descendants of Adam and Eve, that if you know anything, you obtain that knowledge by experience.

How are you going to get your knowledge if not by your experience? That which you have experienced you know. - Collier, Fred C. The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, pp. 333-336

You know something if and only if you have experienced it.

Anything else is merely prejudice, opinion, belief, or faith.

This is a doctrinal definition.

Claiming knowledge without experience is lying.

Ah and here we begin the accusations.
When one has nothing left then Falsely accuse and presume. Good job log, you are a class act.

You admitted publicly you don't know, after claiming you did know. There's no presumption - anyone can go through this conversation and see where you admitted you don't know the "facts" "we [supposedly] know" are, in fact, facts. I would suggest dropping the argument from the reliability of your experts, whose reliability you in fact do not know and apparently cannot evaluate.

Share log, I've asked you several times now. Share the truth that I may be enlightened?

I shared, and you rejected out of hand. I guess I'll repeat myself.

You will not share so you must be lying also, because you do not possess the truth.

You have presented nothing. Yet you will start down the path of accusation.

@-) @-) @-)

The contradiction between those two sentences is readily and obviously apparent.

Let it out log. Let the light shine before men. I'm not mocking, let's talk about this instead of reducing it to ad hominem.
No more circular pointless argument. Let's just share :ymhug:

I guess we're to that point in the "discussion" where I start repeating myself.

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.

And

AoF 9
We believe all that God has revealed.

There's your truth and light. Will you believe it?

The science you haven't done, the math you haven't done, the "facts" you claim you do not know are facts, you simply accept men at their word - just not Joseph, nor the scriptures. If you press the science or the math, I will point out (futilely, I have no doubt, since it previously was pointed out futilely) that such are not facts but hypotheses whose truth is wholly dependent upon philosophical assumptions, which in and of themselves cannot be proven, and which philosophical assumptions themselves contradict the scriptures and the gospel.

Those are the only points I have addressed, and those are the only points I will address.

The men, and their supposed "facts," are as a building without a foundation of knowledge, but rather a foundation of assumptions.

1 Nephi 12
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.

1 Nephi 11
35 And the multitude of the earth was gathered together; and I beheld that they were in a large and spacious building, like unto the building which my father saw. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

1 Nephi 8
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.

Jeremiah 17:5
5 ¶Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

2 Nephi 4:34
34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

2 Nephi 28:31
31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[drjme]

Moses was the man that saw and comprehended all of God's creation, and all he could say about it was that we are nothing more than dust, and the creations are as the sand on the sea. Even he had difficulties to describe in our words what he saw, and I think unless we comprehend as he did, we will lack the proper understanding.

Therefore do I find our logic about the earths creation quiet pointlsess, simply because the worlds were created in a state where the boundaries of time and space have no meaning. We are cofined by space and time, the etrnitys are not. Men is, God is not.

Joseph Smith must have been quiet inspired, when he translated the creation story in the pearl of great price, when we read "times" instead of "days".. The earth was created in seven "times".. Since time is no issue to God, "times" can go from 6 seconds to 6 billion years.

Even what we find in science is no more than theory.. Even they don't really know. And they who know, most probabl wont find the words to explain it in our language.

Most important to me is to know that God has created the world, and that he is on controle of the world.

I agree somewhat. Many think that everything to do with creation is contained in the creation account and limit it to a literal interpretation.

[log]

I know - the scriptures have lots of stuff that is just simply ludicrous when read literally, don't they?

I mean, stuff like a 6 day creation, with a young earth.

A man being swallowed by a fish and living for 3 days in its belly.

A man who stopped the sun in its course for a full day.

Water into wine.

Raising the dead.

Lusting after a woman being adultery in the heart.

Mental disorders attributed to evil spirits.

Resurrection of one claiming to be the son of God.

Some uneducated farmer claiming to see God in the age of railways.

Polygamy commanded by God.

I mean, gee, the sky's the limit as to what we can get rid of once we claim the scriptures aren't, or shouldn't be, literal. The same rule (which rule boils down to "I don't believe that"), that lets you cut out this or that portion of the scriptures that you don't like, lets others cut out the rest.

After all, rejecting all of the scriptures versus only some of them is a difference of degree, not a difference in principle.

[drjme]

I know - the scriptures have lots of stuff that is just simply ludicrous when read literally, don't they?

I mean, stuff like a 6 day creation, with a young earth.

A man being swallowed by a fish and living for 3 days in its belly.

A man who stopped the sun in its course for a full day.

Water into wine.

Raising the dead.

Lusting after a woman being adultery in the heart.

Mental disorders attributed to evil spirits.

Resurrection of one claiming to be the son of God.

Some uneducated farmer claiming to see God in the age of railways.

Polygamy commanded by God.

I mean, gee, the sky's the limit as to what we can get rid of once we claim the scriptures aren't, or shouldn't be, literal. The same rule (which rule boils down to "I don't believe that"), that lets you cut out this or that portion of the scriptures that you don't like, lets others cut out the rest.

After all, rejecting all of the scriptures versus only some of them is a difference of degree, not a difference of principle.

log you are off on a tangent. I am not rejecting anything, rather meandering through it without the need to imply everything as literal, because we haven't been given ALL the information either way. There are so many facets of revelation and prophecy that we don't understand, especially when dealing with other peoples visions and revelations.
as Simon posted above, JS refers to times as an interpretation of days of creation. This goes against the literal description of the bible. You say the earth only has a temporal existence of 7000 years, yet in the literal creation account the sun and stars are created after the earth. If the universe as we experience it was all created simultaneously, then we wouldn't be seeing stars that are just 10,000 light years away for another 3,000 years. so again it doesn't fit.
now if the earth was in a spiritual state and then put in its current place in a temporal state, then again we have a variation on the creation account, it doesn't fit with the literal account. And that is OK.

it is when we make the text of the bible infallible that our faith becomes dependent on proving the literal content, instead of being in the God who revealed it.

[log]

I know - the scriptures have lots of stuff that is just simply ludicrous when read literally, don't they?

I mean, stuff like a 6 day creation, with a young earth.

A man being swallowed by a fish and living for 3 days in its belly.

A man who stopped the sun in its course for a full day.

Water into wine.

Raising the dead.

Lusting after a woman being adultery in the heart.

Mental disorders attributed to evil spirits.

Resurrection of one claiming to be the son of God.

Some uneducated farmer claiming to see God in the age of railways.

Polygamy commanded by God.

I mean, gee, the sky's the limit as to what we can get rid of once we claim the scriptures aren't, or shouldn't be, literal. The same rule (which rule boils down to "I don't believe that"), that lets you cut out this or that portion of the scriptures that you don't like, lets others cut out the rest.

After all, rejecting all of the scriptures versus only some of them is a difference of degree, not a difference of principle.

log you are off on a tangent. I am not rejecting anything, rather meandering through it without the need to imply everything as literal, because we haven't been given ALL the information either way.

You've been given enough information to say that Joseph plainly taught, and it has been canonized, that the earth shall have a temporal existence of 7000 years.

There are so many facets of revelation and prophecy that we don't understand, especially when dealing with other peoples visions and revelations.

Men are in the habit, when the truth is exhibited by the servants of God, of saying, All is mystery; they have spoken in parables, and, therefore, are not to be understood. It is true they have eyes to see, and see not, but none are so blind as those who will not see; and, although the Savior spoke this to such characters, yet unto His disciples he expounded it plainly; and we have reason to be truly humble before the God of our fathers, that He hath left these things on record for us, so plain, that notwithstanding the exertions and combined influence of the priests of Baal, they have not power to blind our eyes, and darken our understanding, if we will but open our eyes, and read with candor, for a moment.

Let him with ears to hear, hear.

as Simon posted above, JS refers to times as an interpretation of days of creation. This goes against the literal description of the bible.

Does it? I don't know that it does. In any event, I have primarily been referring to D&C 77:6.

You say the earth only has a temporal existence of 7000 years, yet in the literal creation account the sun and stars are created after the earth.

*I* say it? Joseph Smith said it, and it has been canonized, and is therefore binding upon all members of the Church by common consent. Please stop trying to portray this as if the information came from me instead of the Prophet.

If the universe as we experience it was all created simultaneously, then we wouldn't be seeing stars that are just 10,000 light years away for another 3,000 years. so again it doesn't fit.

Your philosophies and the men you trust in contradict the scriptures. I said it would be futile for me to point this out, and you have shown my prediction to be correct.

now if the earth was in a spiritual state and then put in its current place in a temporal state, then again we have a variation on the creation account, it doesn't fit with the literal account. And that is OK.

Read Genesis again.

it is when we make the text of the bible infallible that our faith becomes dependent on proving the literal content, instead of being in the God who revealed it.

LOL - I'm not trying to prove anything. =))

[larsenb]

log you are off on a tangent. I am not rejecting anything, rather meandering through it without the need to imply everything as literal, because we haven't been given ALL the information either way. There are so many facets of revelation and prophecy that we don't understand, especially when dealing with other peoples visions and revelations.
as Simon posted above, JS refers to times as an interpretation of days of creation. This goes against the literal description of the bible. You say the earth only has a temporal existence of 7000 years, yet in the literal creation account the sun and stars are created after the earth. If the universe as we experience it was all created simultaneously, then we wouldn't be seeing stars that are just 10,000 light years away for another 3,000 years. so again it doesn't fit.
now if the earth was in a spiritual state and then put in its current place in a temporal state, then again we have a variation on the creation account, it doesn't fit with the literal account. And that is OK.

it is when we make the text of the bible infallible that our faith becomes dependent on proving the literal content, instead of being in the God who revealed it.

Just a comment. When I was studying geology at BYU a number of years ago, there was a big furor over the allegations and writings of Melvin Cook who made the argument that the earth was 10,000 or so years old; i.e., supporting the young earth creation.


The BYU Geo Department wasn't buying it, and one of the things that was passed around the Department to counter the idea, was a quote by Joseph Smith (I've got it somewhere, to include the citation) to the effect that we needn't be surprised if the earth were to be something like 63 million years old. My guess is that his comment was referring to some of the age-of-the earth estimates going around at the time.

Can anyone attribute that quote? It would take enormous digging to find in my pile of stuff.

[log]

Joseph never, to my knowledge, said any such thing. Brigham, on the other hand, did say such things.

It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth. We can now take a hymn book and read its contents; but if we had never learned our letters and knew nothing about type or paper or their uses, and should take up a book and look at it, it would be a great mystery; and still more so would it be to see a person read line after line, and give expression therefrom to the sentiments of himself or others. But this is no mystery to us now, because we have learned our letters, and then learned to place those letters into syllables, the syllables into words, and the words into sentences. - JoD 14

Incidentally, should someone claim this as authoritative over D&C 77, I will ask them to publicly declare for Adam-God, the priesthood ban, and the exaltational necessity of polygamy.

[larsenb]

Joseph never, to my knowledge, said any such thing. Brigham, on the other hand, did say such things.

It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, "I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me." This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, "If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity."

In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth. We can now take a hymn book and read its contents; but if we had never learned our letters and knew nothing about type or paper or their uses, and should take up a book and look at it, it would be a great mystery; and still more so would it be to see a person read line after line, and give expression therefrom to the sentiments of himself or others. But this is no mystery to us now, because we have learned our letters, and then learned to place those letters into syllables, the syllables into words, and the words into sentences. - JoD 14

Incidentally, should someone claim this as authoritative over D&C 77, I will ask them to publicly declare for Adam-God, the priesthood ban, and the exaltational necessity of polygamy.

However, Joseph did say it, or an approximation of it, to my knowledge. Of course, it would have to be attributed and vetted as to source. This was certainly the cited quote going around the BYU Geol. Dept. at the time. I do recall a citation for it. Bob, where are you?


Regarding the rest of your posts, good quotes. I have no argument with them (some of pertinent, highlighted). Of course, much of the actual hypothesizing about the age of the earth by geologist/geochronologist goes quite a bit beyond just speculation. There is actually good science behind it. Though as far as the alleged uniformatarian rates of radioactive decay go, there may be more that enters into what governs these 'steady' rates than we presently know, as has been suggest in other threads of this forum.

One concept that is important to geochronologists is that various methods are concordant: give approximately the same dates for dating a given 'pluton'. And this is normally what you find; and the derived date normally fits into the generally agreed upon dates (even dates using other methods) for the enclosing sedimentary rock formations. Very coherent, thus very compelling.

[log]

Of course, much of the actual hypothesizing about the age of the earth by geologist/geochronologist goes quite a bit beyond just speculation.

Actually, it is precisely speculation, and can be nothing but. Uniformitarianism is not a provable, testable claim, but a philosophical assumption, as is naturalism, and neither are compatible with the Gospel nor the scriptures.

[larsenb]

Of course, much of the actual hypothesizing about the age of the earth by geologist/geochronologist goes quite a bit beyond just speculation.

Actually, it is precisely speculation, and can be nothing but. Uniformitarianism is not a provable, testable claim, but a philosophical assumption, as is naturalism, and neither are compatible with the Gospel nor the scriptures.

You can't really have science if you don't have the assumption that what are agreed to be established theories, even laws, if you will, are uniform across space and time.


For instance, you can do measurements of the basic macro laws of physics (e.g., Newtonian mechanics), and they simply do not vary. It is an essential assumption of science that these don't vary over time and place under similar conditions. The operation of quantum mechanics reveals the same 'uniformity'. No one has been able to find any variation in their operation. This is according to the more fundamental concept of uniformitarianism (sp?).

This isn't speculation. Neither are measurements of radioactive decay and decay products. Now you can call it all 'speculation', but your bucking the common definitions of that term and exactly what science is.

Of course, if that's your thing. Go for it.

[log]

Of course, much of the actual hypothesizing about the age of the earth by geologist/geochronologist goes quite a bit beyond just speculation.

Actually, it is precisely speculation, and can be nothing but. Uniformitarianism is not a provable, testable claim, but a philosophical assumption, as is naturalism, and neither are compatible with the Gospel nor the scriptures.

You can't really have science if you don't have the assumption that what are agreed to be established theories, even laws, if you will, are not uniform across space and time.

I don't know that it is the case that science is not possible without asserting an unassertible philosophical claim. Personally, I have no problem with a science which proceeds upon the humbling admission that it is a game of syllogisms and hypotheticals.

That's honest. Once the unassertible is asserted, it becomes a lie.

For instance, you can do measurements of the basic macro laws of physics (e.g., Newtonian mechanics), and they simply do not vary. It is an essential assumption of science that these don't vary over time and place under similar conditions. The operation of quantum mechanics reveals the same 'uniformity'. No one has been able to find any variation in their operation. This is according to the more fundamental concept of uniformitarianism (sp?).

This isn't speculation.

What is the empirical basis for your claim that I (or anyone else, really) can do measurements of the basic macro laws of physics and that they will not vary? If you have no such empirical basis, then is this claim not an example of precisely what is meant by speculation (assumption, hypothesis, etc)?

Neither are measurements of radioactive decay and decay products. Now you can call it all 'speculation', but your bucking the common definitions of that term and exactly what science is.

I am pointing out that it is simply the philosophies of men, mingled with data, and can be nothing else.

[lemuel]

Actually, it is precisely speculation, and can be nothing but. Uniformitarianism is not a provable, testable claim, but a philosophical assumption, as is naturalism, and neither are compatible with the Gospel nor the scriptures.

You can't really have science if you don't have the assumption that what are agreed to be established theories, even laws, if you will, are not uniform across space and time.

I don't know that it is the case that science is not possible without asserting an unassertible philosophical claim. Personally, I have no problem with a science which proceeds upon the humbling admission that it is a game of syllogisms and hypotheticals.

That's honest. Once the unassertible is asserted, it becomes a lie.

For instance, you can do measurements of the basic macro laws of physics (e.g., Newtonian mechanics), and they simply do not vary. It is an essential assumption of science that these don't vary over time and place under similar conditions. The operation of quantum mechanics reveals the same 'uniformity'. No one has been able to find any variation in their operation. This is according to the more fundamental concept of uniformitarianism (sp?).

This isn't speculation.

What is the empirical basis for your claim that I (or anyone else, really) can do measurements of the basic macro laws of physics and that they will not vary? If you have no such empirical basis, then is this claim not an example of precisely what is meant by speculation (assumption, hypothesis, etc)?

Neither are measurements of radioactive decay and decay products. Now you can call it all 'speculation', but your bucking the common definitions of that term and exactly what science is.

I am pointing out that it is simply the philosophies of men, mingled with data, and can be nothing else.

[log]

Consider this parable.

Professor X says "all prime numbers are odd," and shows work establishing that 13, 17, 19, 23, and so on, are all odd, and are all primes. A host of followers engage in Professor X's endeavors, and show that 101, 103, 107, and so on are also prime, and are also odd. This belief gets entrenched among academics and the popular culture. It becomes, by repetition and indoctrination, "what everyone knows." Professor X becomes legend, and his acolytes occupy the high thrones of think-tanks and editor's positions at journals. To disagree with the establishment position is to be labelled a crank, and to fail to assent to the authority of the academics leads to ostracization, mockery, and scorn. Fortunes are made, and the truth of the claim does not vary each time it is tested. 4799... 4801... 4813... 4817... 4831...

Then, a contrarian learns that men, being men, are prone to lying about the state of their knowledge for power, popularity, pride, acceptance among those to whose peership they aspire, and to salve their consciences in pursuit of the lusts and pleasures of the flesh. He begins examining "what everyone knows". Eventually, he chances upon a startling fact: 2 is a prime, being divisible only by 1 and itself. And 2 is not odd, being divisible by 2.

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.

1 Nephi 11:36
36 And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great.

[larsenb]

You left one out: theoretical physicists also identified with the 'pures'; then you have to jump another large gap to the mathematicians, which don't necessarily get too close to 'physical' reality.


There was a really funny article in Harpers years ago that delved into the differences between the Applieds and the Pures.

[brlenox]

log you are off on a tangent. I am not rejecting anything, rather meandering through it without the need to imply everything as literal, because we haven't been given ALL the information either way. There are so many facets of revelation and prophecy that we don't understand, especially when dealing with other peoples visions and revelations.
as Simon posted above, JS refers to times as an interpretation of days of creation. This goes against the literal description of the bible. You say the earth only has a temporal existence of 7000 years, yet in the literal creation account the sun and stars are created after the earth. If the universe as we experience it was all created simultaneously, then we wouldn't be seeing stars that are just 10,000 light years away for another 3,000 years. so again it doesn't fit.
now if the earth was in a spiritual state and then put in its current place in a temporal state, then again we have a variation on the creation account, it doesn't fit with the literal account. And that is OK.

it is when we make the text of the bible infallible that our faith becomes dependent on proving the literal content, instead of being in the God who revealed it.

Just a comment. When I was studying geology at BYU a number of years ago, there was a big furor over the allegations and writings of Melvin Cook who made the argument that the earth was 10,000 or so years old; i.e., supporting the young earth creation.


The BYU Geo Department wasn't buying it, and one of the things that was passed around the Department to counter the idea, was a quote by Joseph Smith (I've got it somewhere, to include the citation) to the effect that we needn't be surprised if the earth were to be something like 63 million years old. My guess is that his comment was referring to some of the age-of-the earth estimates going around at the time.

Can anyone attribute that quote? It would take enormous digging to find in my pile of stuff.

The common quote attributed to Joseph is actually a statement of William Wines Phelps paraphrasing material that Joseph provided.

Christ . . . was anointed [in the pre-mortal world] with holy oil in heaven, and crowned in the midst of brothers and sisters, while his mother stood with approving virtue, and smiled upon a Son that
kept the faith as the heir of all things! . . . Well, now, Brother William [Smith], when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been of old, from eternity [Micah 5:2]; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, (not this world) almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years;--it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known! --Times and Seasons 5: 758, 1 January 1845

[Simon]

It may be an interesting question to ponder how it was possible for Moses, the brother of Jared, and other propehts to see the entire history of earth, from before its creation to its sanctification, and all that within a few minutes or houres according to our time.

In order to comprehed even all of Gods creation, the observer needs to experience these things in another dimension. And this is were our lack of understanding comes in. A two dimensional being wont comprehend a threedimensinal world unless experienced, but will still be unable to explain this experience properly to a fellow two dimensional being.

With the things of God its just the same way, certain things wont be understood unless experienced by ourselves. This is then knowledge.

[Simon]

Could there possibly be a difference between creating "our earth", and between creating "our world"?

When Christ overcame the world, did he also overcome the earth?

Would the "sanctification of the earth" make even more sense when we also consider it as a sanctification of the "world"

Could the creation of the earth, and the creation of the world be two seperate things?

Could the creation of the world be what started with Adam? Could the creation of earth be even much older?

The world has had a fair trial for six thousand years; the Lord will try the seventh thousand Himself

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five 1842-43 p.252