I think it is sad that BYU and NFL stars Taysom Hill, Jamal Williams, Kyle Van Noy, Fred Warner never beat Utah in the Holy War.
I believe as an out -of stater that I could care less about the so-called “holy war.” Utah is in the big time in the PAC-12, where BYU ought to be too. But schools like Cal, Stanford and Washington don’t want BYU in the PAC-12 because they hate us for what we stand for. So does the Big 12 (little ten).
The “holy war” is a thing of the past. Utah is neither “holy” nor in the same league as BYU. Utah has long passed BYU in football proficiency after nine years in the PAC-12. BYU is an after thought for Utah. The only fans who believe that the so-called “holy war” exists are the in-state Utah fans, be they Cougar or Ute fans. BYU is 0 and 9 presently against the PAC-12 Utes. If BYU were in the PAC-12 then it would be even chances for both teams. But until BYU gets into a P-5 conference to me the so-called “holy war” is dead.
And I really have my doubts that BYU will ever become a P-5 conference team. Just tell me what P-5 conference wants us. It is possible for BYU to get into a P-5, but HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.Our best chances for a conference affiliation is either the American Athletic or I hate hate to say it is the MWC, or maybe some new G-5 conference. We shall see how the rock roles in the future, maybe in 2023-2035.
The academic institutions in the Pac12 might say a faith based school like BYU will have conflicts with scientific ethics. The term university implies openness to all truth from all sources.
That would be wonderful if it was true. Most Universities are engaged in indoctrination rather than openness to truth from all sources. I hope you were being ironic making that statement.
Openness? You are joking. Try being a conservative giving a talk on the campus of Berkley. Or most others too. And, what about the lack of religious tolerance at most state universities? Nonexistent in most. I don’t see any other university running away from Notre Dame.
That’s right! And how many LDS are open to creationism versus old universe?
What do you mean by creationism? Do you mean the universe came into existence just over 6000 years ago and was created in 6 literal 24 hour days or was created by God out of matter already existing in an orderly manner over 6 creative periods called days that were of a length of time unknown to us at the present? I subscribe to the latter. The age of the universe is probably billions of years old but that doesn’t contradict the creation story if it is properly understood. Also remember that the scriptures teach us that time is only measured unto man and I would speculate that time as we measure it commenced with the fall of Adam and will end when we receive our eternal reward. Remember where God dwells all things past, present, and future are before him and time has no relevance to him, only in the sense that he has given it to us to see how we will use it.
I guess I am a creationist from the standpoint that there is no doubt God created all things in an ordered manner in 6 steps and the universe did not arise as a result of random chance. Atheists like to propose that things came into being a a result of random chance for no purpose and then accuse Theists of believing in fairy tales. I I would say I am a proponent of “Intelligent Design.” I wonder who really believes in fairy tales. I guess I have taken this thread way off topic.
I agree it is unfortunate that Jamaal Williams, Taysom Hill, Fred Warner, Kyle Van Noy, Ziggy Ansah, and some others never beat Utah. I hope the world doesn’t end shortly or I may never see BYU beat Utah again.
I took a religion class in 1978 where the teacher at BYU believed the universe was 13,000 years old. That the Genesis is accurate within the first 4,000 years including the worldwide flood.
Today, colleges like Liberty teach this Genesis belief. There are PhD’s that have taken scientific information and have Genesis models that work better than Old Universe scientists models work. Using the same data. Being open minded allows for both studies.
My opinion is that the Universe could be billions of years old while the Earth 6,000 years old from the time Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden.
Adam and Eve may have been placed here 6k years ago, however the earth is most likely much much older
Rivalry between BYU & UTAH is over since 2011. I never understand why this “Holy War” phrase between Y & U. UoU is not a religion school. It would be nice if BYU & ND to become the next Rivalry group and no “Holy War.”
I think Adam and Eve may have fallen 6k years ago but may have been here much longer than that. Just my opinion. Who knows how long they were in the garden prior to the fall. Everything changed. The entire creation fell with them to a Telestial state and I believe that is when the recorded history of man began, at the time of the fall.
At least 13,000 years ago. The science and geology of old earth isn’t fitting their models well anymore. It’s looking more like the science is fitting a young earth. It’s all very interesting.
welcome Blue…Yes, Berkley is the source of all openness and tolerance
I believe u r as correct as anyone-not something I spend many brain cells on because one day I’ll know for sure🤔
Yes all very interesting-but I’m not willing to join the “flat earth society “ or “humans have never set foot on the moon” until more evidence is uncovered which by then I’ll know anyway🤭
The Dawinists had a real problem with the Big Bang Theory that indicated there was a beginning to the universe. They used to argue that evolution could account for the origins of life given a universe of infinite age. Give things enough time and it is plausible that chemicals could interact in some way to account for the beginning of life. Check out a synthetic chemist on Youtube named James Tour who is a professor at Rice University He says that is not plausible because chemicals break down over time. In other words time is actually the enemy of Darwinism and not a friend as they use to argue. The Big Bang gave them a big problem when it posited an actual beginning to the universe several billion years ago.that would limit the amount of time for a random origin of life to occur. Before there was no limit so the argument was life could originate through some random force and evolve into the highest life form given enough time. That’s simplistic and I am not a biologist, a physicist, chemist, or any other type of scientist but I like to read and learn about these things even at the age of 69.
Dr. Tour from Rice is a Christian who converted from Judaism so you would probably be interested in his story and what he has to say. He is not a member of our church but has a deep faith in our Savior and makes convincing arguments against Darwinism. He has many videos on Youtube.
Darwinism is the religion of the atheist because it is all they have to explain our origins and Darwinism has never found an answer to our origins.They will tell you that evolution is settled science and rules out the need for a creator to explain the origin of life. If you take Darwinism away from them they have nothing and so they will argue it is settled science and there is no other scientific explanation for why we are here. It is a sacred cow at the Universities and can’t be questioned if one wants tenure but there are many reasons to doubt a lot of it. Evolution is a reasonable explanation for adaptation and progression within a species but the rest of it seems to be speculation from my limited point of view. If there is a biologist in our group they may school me on this.
Even if Darwinism is correct on every point it doesn’t rule out God but without it the atheist has no explanation whatsoever as to how we got here.
Let’s say a BYU professor discovers using the scientific method that evolution created man over millions of years. Could he present the evidence and maintain his job? That’s the conflict of interest that concerns academia.
I doubt Norte Dame, SMU, Baylor or any Jesuit School would pass the academic freedom demanded by the Pac12.
From the things I am hearing the case for Darwinism is getting weaker based on evidence but it is entrenched in science departments like a religious dogma. I don’t think academia in general encourages academic freedom and I would guess the Pac 12 is no different. They are research institutions so they can turn up their nose at the BYUs of the world but I would question how much academic freedom exists. I doubt you can step out of the politically correct box demanded of academia no matter where the evidence leads. Probably business, math, and the tech sciences are some of the few academically free disciplines because they don’t engage in anything that would cause controversy or step on the toes of the PC types.
I don’t think today’s universities encourage thought as much as conformity to dogma which I am sure is what many think of BYU but it is no different elsewhere and probably worse.
There’s a lot of evidence. But, the interpretation of all the evidence depends on your hypothesis. You then attempt to steer theories towards your belief. The problem is the old earth believers are finding their theories not holding up with new information. It’s very interesting. Has nothing to do with flat earth as the creationists don’t believe in that. You are introducing a red hearing
Excellent post. I wish more members would do more reading on this subject.