Jump to content

Rob Osborn

Contributor
  • Content Count

    5,283
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rob Osborn

  1. Look, you have built up this fairytale land of I what believe, despite, and contrary to everything I have said.

     

    For the umpteenth time I'm not denying a Creator. I am stipulating that science has yet to prove or disprove him. I fully to expect that someday it will, but that day isn't likely to be today.

     

    It is obvious that you don't care. Though I do find it endlessly fascinating, and frustrating, that you use the products of science. Yet deny the power thereof.

     

    I believe in the Creator. What I can't do is posit him onto science.

     

    You continue to make unsupportable/unsupported assertions about what science say's. I don't know where we can go from here when you won't accept that I believe what I say I believe.

    We are at odds then. You claim a creator but deny his works. One day, God will show you he is the very professor of science.

  2. No it does not. All it shows is what did happened. IE; No intelligent designer is needed for energy to cool. Entropy works.

    Look, you can deny the Creator all the day long, I dont really care, but at least acknowledge the truth that your being, housing tens of trillions of individual cells is not the product of nature void of the Creator.

  3. Looks like a non sequitur to me. Your parents did not design you. That being the case, how is life coming from life evidence in any way, shape, or form for ID theory. That is the hypothesis of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution

    My being, which is an intelligent design, came from an intelligent design (my parents) preceding it. Their bodies, created from a design in the DNA a copy of themselves. The whole process is a long series of intelligent designs. If you want to argue tht the process of creating life doesnt involve intelligence and designs at the molecular level then be my guest but the whole scientific world knows that the processes involved in creating new life require a high degree of intelligence working with designed plans (DNA).

    Abiogenesis is within the field of study of evolution. Here, this from Berkeley-

    "Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

    To claim abiogenesis is not a part of evolution is a typical myth promoted by evolutionists so they do not have to deal with the elephant in the living room.

    • Upvote 1
  4. I will look at your link,

     

    For the second point you then agree you position is it is nothing more than an expression of personal faith?

     

    And no I do not believe ALL things denote a God though I think some things might.

    I see it more as basic logic to see the hand of God in all things.

    • Upvote 1
  5. But which experiments are you referring to? and what evidence confirms ID? And how do you justify calling all of evolution a fairy tale because abiogenesis has not been proven? How do you explain how intelligence first arose? If you believe that intelligence has always existed can you explain how that is possible and what evidence you have for it always existing?

    What evidence confirms ID? You must be joking. Every scientific experiment proves intelligence is used and is acknowleged because of the intelligent cause preceding it.

    Take the classic case for artificial intelligence for example. ID theory makes the prediction from inference that no new intelligent information could possibly arise from a program that was deemed to write a new program for new intelligence. So far this prediction has proven itself exactly correct. Artificial intelligence is the mere product of the exact input of the intelligent source that put the information in. It has been proven time and time again that intelligence itself is not the product of chance and that any "new" intelligent process or action is only the result and product of the input intelligence preceding it.

  6. "The legislation as it was unveiled today is based on a fundamental misconception..."

     

    a viewpoint that is incorrect or faulty.

    The FRC doesnt agree with siding with the LGBT movement because of the record the LGBT has. It is my opinion that the FRC doesnt really know the whole issue as intimate as LDS in the Rocky mountains know the issue. I can guarantee you that the FRC has almost everything in common as the church on all moral issues. This isnt one side against the other, its a disagreement of how to solve a problem. The Catholics also do not agree with all the decisions we make, yet they too are a close ally in the war against immorality.

  7. I see. i have a few questions. This definition you've posted asserts that ID uses empirical evidence and inferences to determine whether the apparent design in nature is the work of an intelligent designer. Also you have repeatedly referred to evolution as a fairytale based on imaginations its proponents. Can you explain how the inferences made by ID are valid and those of evolutionary biologists are fairy tales? Can you provide examples of evidence that is being interpreted incorrectly by evolutionists but is correctly interpreted by IDers? Can you explain the standard you use to distinguish a valid inference from an invalid one? do you know the counter arguments to such things as irreducible complexity and can you explain why these arguments are not valid?

    The number one case of inference of ID theory, in my opinion, is that life only comes from life preceding it. Or, in simpler terms- intelligence itself can only arise from an intelligent action/process preceding it thus giving the inference that intelligence is "always" the product of intelligence itself. Some of evolutions many fairytale claims is that life arose by chance on this planet due to non intelligent processes that jump started life through random chance actions. The reason this is a fairytale is because scientific experiments have proven over and over again with extreme accuracy that life doesnt come from non intelligent processes in nature.

  8. So, creationist scientists begin by examining the

    world, and eventually come to the conclusion that

    it just happens to be the truth that such objective

    research agrees with Genesis.

    Intelligent design scientists, on the other hand,

    examine and analyze what can be discovered in

    the cosmos, and come to the conclusion that it

    was all designed by some supernaturally intelligent

    First Cause, which may or may not correspond

    perfectly with what we read in Genesis.

    What is the conversation like in a room half full

    of LDS creation/transmission scientists and half

    full of LDS intelligent design advocates?

    UD

    (perhaps they can find common ground in reading the PGP)

    Some 20 years ago when I first became interested in the whole evolution debate I sided with many creationists. It wasnt long before I found that I didnt really have much in common with them and decided to move away from their objectives. Thats when I found out about Intelligent Design. The more I read the more interested I became because for the first time we had a theory that truly doesnt require a type of god nor does it refute one either. It was truly neutral and honest. I debate a lot with creationists and let me say- they are worse than evolutionists to debate with. The problem with creationists is that they believe only in a strict literal reading of the bible and will not allow science to do its work side by side with its theory. ID theory is completely opposite where even under ID theory, evolution itself is not questioned at all. What is questioned, and this is important, is the "mechanism" for why intelligence exists and how it could have arose. ID rejects Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms where intelligence rose by "chance". Thats what ID refutes- the mechanism. Creationism refutes Darwinian chance because "God said so". Theres a big difference.

  9. Uh-huh. They secretly spent $25,000 and did their best to hide it because they wanted to quibble over language in the resolution? Why hide it? Now we have only their word after the fact that that was their objective. They got caught and were pulling PR damage control.

     

    Even if you believe them (and I don't) they could be classified as worthless spendthrifts for spending so much money on unimportant legalese in something that is not a law. I certainly would not give them money if this is what they are spending it on. Yeah, still not buying it. There would be no need to hide such a lobbying effort if that is what they were doing.

     

    They also had fun trying to spin-doctor the whole thing by arguing that the Ugandan law was only intended for those intentionally spreading HIV which is untrue based on a reading of the Ugandan law. If you want to kill all gays then at least be honest about it.

    You obviously get all your spin from the far left. Thats fine, its a free world. You just wont get the truth. Thats all.

  10. When Congress was preparing a resolution to denounce Uganda's law legalizing the execution of homosexuals the FRC lobbied against that denouncement. They tried to do it secretly. I think working for the execution of homosexuals does make you a hate group. They have since denounced the Ugandan law.....after they were caught.

     

    And lest someone bring up the difference between having the temptation and succumbing to it the Ugandan law makes no such distinction.

    Get your facts straight-

    FRC Statement on H. Res. 1064

    by JP Duffy June 4, 2010

    Inaccurate internet reports have been circulating indicating that the Family Research Council lobbied "against" a congressional resolution condemning a bill proposed in Uganda. The Uganda

    bill would have provided for the death penalty for something called "aggravated homosexuality." Unfortunately, those spreading these false rumors deliberately failed to obtain the facts first.

    FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC's efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.

    FRC does not support the Uganda bill, and does not support the death penalty for homosexuality - nor any other penalty which would have the effect of inhibiting compassionate pastoral, psychological, and medical care and treatment for those who experience same-sex attractions or who engage in homosexual conduct." http://www.frcblog.com/2010/06/frc-statement-on-h-res-1064/

    • Upvote 1
  11. Hi Rob,

    Would you mind explaining how ID and young earth creationism differ? My understanding is that ID asserts that all life forms were created in essentially their present form (most IDers seem to be okay with micro evolution), birds with wings, fish with fins, etc. I think this is what YE creationists believe. Is age of the earth the only difference? From a geological perspective the difference views of the age of the earth would be significant, yet from a biological perspective the difference seems insignificant: ID = designer(s) created life over long or short time span, YE creation = designer created life in 6 days. Either way life forms have been essentially static. However, it is nice that IDers don't have to embarrass themselves by claiming that Adam lived with dinosaurs :)

    They are completely different things. This is fromm on eof the leading Intelligent design organizations-

    "Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

    No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

  12. Because you refuse to accept the evidence that is right in front of your face.

     

    They are part and parcel of the same thing.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

    A Discovery Institute report says that Charles B. Thaxton, editor of Pandas, had picked the phrase up from a NASA scientist, and thought "That's just what I need, it's a good engineering term."%5B32%5D In drafts of the book, over one hundred uses of the root word "creation," such as "creationism" and "Creation Science," were changed, almost without exception, to "intelligent design,"%5B15%5D while "creationists" was changed to "design proponents" or, in one instance, "cdesign proponentsists" [sic].%5B14%5D In June 1988, Thaxton held a conference titled "Sources of Information Content in DNA" in Tacoma, Washington,%5B25%5D and in December decided to use the label "intelligent design" for his new creationist movement.%5B22%5D Stephen C. Meyer was at the conference, and later recalled that "The term intelligent design came up..."%5B33%5D

    You are purely ignorant of what i am saying. Intelligent design theory, as it stands today, is not creationism. Here- http://www.discovery.org/a/3191

    Here-

    "Is intelligent design the same as creationism?

    No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

    http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210:intelligent-design-is-definitely-not-creationism

    • Upvote 1
  13. Quit with the Ad Hominem. Theists as well as Atheists accept the Theory of Evolution. Is the Pope a Theist? YES! Was Darwin a Theist? YES! Is Kenneth Miller a Theist? YES! Is Robert T. Bakker a Theist? YES! Is BYU a Theistic institution? YES!

     

    All things don't denote there is a God. Life, unprotected, on the sun or any other planet but ours is problematic at best. Despite what Brigham Young believed about man being on the sun and moon.

     

    Glad to hear that. While Creationists come in many different "kinds". The vast majority fall into the Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institute "kinds". Just the "kinds" I have been talking about. If they and you spout the ideas of the Answers in Genesis and Discovery Institution "kinds".  Then YES they and you are the Creationist "kind ".

    Back to square one over and over and over again...

    Please acknowledge that ID and Young Earth Creationism are two separate theories/paradigms.

  14. Sometimes creating straw men are useful Rob. Labeling what you believe as creationism is not very useful or accurate hence, a straw man. Since when do some people care about accuracy though?

    Just so you know, I am not a creationist as TSS thinks I am. I believe in intelligent design which is very different than typical Young Earth Creationism as described and used by evolutionists in their attempt to group those guys with Intelligent design..

  15. Believe me when a scientist claims science disproves God I am equally hard on them.

    Never said God was. What I have consistently said is that we mortals can't use science to prove or disprove God. Science certainly can't repeat some of the alleged actions of some mortal claiming to act for God. IE; Throw as many axeheads into a river as you want they're not going to float.

    Its the atheists agenda to say that we cant prove nor disprove God with science. All things denote their is a God.

    BTW, I am not a creationist in the way that science has labeled them. I dont think any LDS believer believes in creationism as defined by scientists.

  16. I don't know as we debating is the best way to establish science or religion. IE; If science makes a claim about religion, and it doesn't, then it is going far beyond the role of science. If religion makes a claim about science, and it does, then it too is going far beyond the role of religion.

    SEE

    You are quite hung up about this whole "creationist" thing. Just so you know, "God" is not a religion.

  17. Huge waste if ya ask me. Soon enough the Church will realize the mistake on making such a big fuss about homosexuality and we'll all look back on this era as the mistakes of men as if they were/we were in a wholly different culture and world.I would suggest that the delay for California, caused by activism offered by the Church and others, is a tiny blip in the whole scheme of things. But some will hold onto it as a way to demonstrate the mistakes of the Church.

    It was never a mistake of the church. It was a mistake by judges to overrule what the majority in society agreed upon and voted on.

    • Upvote 1
×
×
  • Create New...