Jump to content

SeekingUnderstanding

Members
  • Content Count

    2,093
  • Joined

Community Reputation

1,458 Excellent

About SeekingUnderstanding

  • Rank
    And with all thy getting get understanding

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Kaysville, UT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,115 profile views
  1. Apologies for the response, but for the record, I said Aristotelian motion. You said Aristotelian science. Hope you have a good night. Thx, John
  2. This will be my last post in response to you. Feel free to have the last word. Again you are just showing ignorance here. Per wiki: Evolution is change in the heritablecharacteristics of biological populations over successive generations. How chemistry turned into biology is simply not there. It’s definitional. Arguing against the definition of a word seems counterproductive to me, ymmv. I don’t believe in God actually, so you are mistaken there. Scientists are the first to admit to the limits of their knowledge. How did life begin? We don’t know. We may never know. What if anything caused the Big Bang? Ditto. Are there other universes? Ditto. What’s dark energy, dark matter? Ditto. Positing a God adds nothing to our understanding of how stuff works any more than just saying it was magic. What caused God? Aren’t you just kicking the can down the road by saying God did it? From my perspective tactics of the left and right are the same. It’s rare to find people irl though that actually fit the cookie cutter mold that you are painting. Again you misunderstand. Newtonian physics breaks down as you approach the speed of light, but for all almost all practical purposes is still used. Evolution is similar. Our knowledge will continue to grow and expand, but short of a purposefully deceptive God, common decent, natural selection, etc is settled. This is a misnomer. There was no Aristotelian “science”. Again, in this analogy, Aristotelian motion is garbage and completely false. For all almost practical purposes Newtonian motion is still used. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and other recent discoveries have enriched our understanding, but have not negated Newton or more basic chemistry. So special creationism is like Aristotelian motion (completely false and worthless scientifically). Evolution is like Newtonian motion. Is there more to the story? Probably. Will evolution be overturned. No. No what is absurd is for people with an ideological ax to grind and no grasp of the science or evidence to expect to be respected in their fields. Again I’d never send my kid to a school that taught the earth was flat or that Aristotelian motion was how things worked or even that their was some question on these subjects.
  3. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It's agnostic on the issue. God creating the first simple organism is compatible with evolutionary theory. Life hitching a ride on a asteroid is compatible. The Star Trek NG theory of an advanced race of aliens visiting and kicking off life is compatible. Evolution doesn't know how it began. It doesn't care. No one wants to be racist and no one wants to be against free speech or against fairness. Let's try this again using concrete examples. On racism. Racism exists, but there is an element on the left that might label anyone who is for any type of border between countries as a racist. The people doing this are attempting to get their way by using charged language. On the flip side, we have academic inquiry and freedom of speech. The curtailing of freedom of speech and academic inquiry exists, but there is an element on the right that uses the guise of academic inquiry and freedom of speech to get their way by using charged language. You are a case in point. Evolution vs traditional creationism is settled science. The same way as round vs flat earth. The same as Aristotelian vs Newtonian view of motion. Does a college campus or high school need to teach Aristotelian motion to promote academic inquiry and freedom of speech? That would be absurd. Just as absurd would be hiring a biology teacher that doesn't teach evolution. You would have us turn a blind eye to truth and science by arguing that some ideal of freedom of expression is being curtailed here. This idea is just as absurd as labeling someone racist solely based on their preference for strong borders. That said, a campus refusing to hire Dr. Tour to teach nanotechnology based on his religious views on creation would be a mistake and a loss in my opinion.
  4. I hate to break it to you but science couldn’t care less what your conviction is. The two are non-overlapping. How can concerns about racial and sexual discrimination be weaponized? Why should it? Don’t you think EVERYONE should desire racial equality? Do you see how that works?
  5. Here is what you said: You used the words "the narrative" and "the politically correct narrative" one after the other. Are you saying the first refers to the study of abiogenesis, but the second use refers to evolution (a completely different field of study - that you conflate them shows your ignorance), global warming, and gender studies? That is one HUGE non-sequitur. In the same way that the left has weaponized words like racist, sexist, and homophobe, the right has weaponized problems around academic freedom. Are both problems in America? Yes, but not nearly to the extent that each side claims. As an aside, I listened to the entire video on my morning walk. The entire video is simply a farce. The first ten minutes were Dr Tour saying, "I'm really smart and a legit scientist." This seems to be the case. The next 50 minutes are him shouting some variation of, "We don't know how life began on this planet," while pretending that scientists claim otherwise. I defy you to show me a scientist who claims to "know" how life began on this planet. We don't know! Guess what science is 100% okay with that. Science is the religion of saying, we don't know how that works, but we are going to try and find out. In fact the more we figure out, the more we realize that there is to know. That's science. There are things that science has figured out though, and common descent is one of those (since you keep touching on evolution). The evidence in favor of common descent is so large at this point in time, a God-level conspiracy is the only legitimate counter theory (that is God faked the evidence to make it look like common descent is true when it is not). As Dr. Tour points out, science updates its beliefs all the time, and this is true, but you and he fundamentally misunderstand how this works. When the theory of general relativity replaced Newtonian physics, the physics and truth of Newtonian physics didn't disappear. All the equations are still used and in fact are still taught to this day. Instead relativity enhanced our understanding at the edges. Evolutionary theory is constantly tweaked, updated and our understanding is continually enhanced, but nothing will overturn the fact of common descent. To believe otherwise with the state of evidence that exists today is the same as claiming your hand doesn't exist when you are staring at it in front of your face (i.e. a son of perdition level event to use Mormon level terms). So "scientists" that deny evolution are ostracized and rightly so.
  6. So just to be clear, Dr.Tour uses the complexity of the cell to show how lame the current PC narrative is around gender pronouns!? Truly, his intellect reigns supreme. I’m a bit confused though because I thought the OP was on origin of life questions. Can I recommend some light reading so you can stop embarrassing yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis ”There is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life.”
  7. That’s so sad. I always loved reading his thoughts.
  8. CFR. And how does that even work. By the way I have it on good authority that you are a Scientologist, a JW or a blend of both... Activist is a loaded term here, but how in the world is that relevant.
  9. No. Just easier! Let’s say it’s press time and you don’t have new text yet for the complicated renaming. Do you remove the obvious error or simply let everything go as is? Asked another way, if the church has changed any part of handbook one, but left the Nov policy, does that mean they are silently walking it back?
  10. Honest question for you. Does failure to remove the Nov policy from handbook 1 mean the church is silently walking back the reversal or does it mean they just haven’t gotten around to it yet?
  11. The church runs like a big corporation (not meant in a disparaging way). The MoTab reference was removed and the rest was left the same. I look at it from a Bayesian perspective with two competing hypotheses. One: The church over time is updating all its intellectual property to comply with the prophets wishes. Two: The church leadership aside from president Nelson are slowly walking back his directive. Now let’s look at the evidence. Church Handbook 2 was released. An outdated MoTab reference was removed. All the text around the word Mormon is left verbatim the same. Why? Which is more likely? That they just haven’t gotten to it yet so they took out the glaring error and ran with it? Or there is a secret plot to undermine President Nelson. As evidence for the former, I would ask you to look at the apostasy section in handbook one and note it has not been updated to remove gay marriage. How long before Mormon newsroom became just the newsroom? How long for the website update? Now if text had been added to support the use of the word Mormon you’d have a point, but it seems to me that this is just wishful thinking. I say this as someone who finds the name change silly.
  12. Scott is spot on here. On a whim, I pulled up the 2006 Handbook of instructions Book 1 on Wikileaks. The text in the OP is the same as it was in 2006. There is no story here and this particular passage is probably just waiting for an update.
  13. My apologies, truly. It seemed an odd and out of place comment especially with the ellipsis at the end. If you have spent any amount of time on here, you’d know that believers of all types (including those who reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon) post on here all the time. In addition, former believers participate as well. Your negativity value judgment aside, from a human nature standpoint this is hardly surprising. It is difficult to separate ones life from Mormonism. Even if one leaves, it is rare not to have family, and friends inside the church. Coming here is a way of discussing issues that can’t be discussed with loved ones for many. I guess I am simply surprised that you are surprised by this. 👍 Only a reading suggestion for you and Elder Callister since you asked. Try: The Improbability Principle (why coincidences, miracles and rare events happen every day) by David Hand.
×
×
  • Create New...