Is common descent a fact?

[Hick Preacher]

44Foxtrot in quotes

<<<There is a difference between using terms loosely and using them incorrectly. When on does the latter, as you have done, it leads to the sneaking suspicion that the user knows not whereof he speaks. Given your responses overall, which show clearly that you do not understand the terminology or science related to ERV's, I have more than a suspicion.>>>

ERVs (plural) or ERV

[Alan]

And yet you have no objective evidence whatsoever to support your claims of supernatural creation. Without evidence, the creationist view becomes the fairy tale.

Who says evidence has to be objective? Faith is not objective, and I make no apology for that. As a scientist I can assure you that science is not objective either. Scientists invest a lot of energy in their theories and don't let them go without a fight. It usually takes at least a generation. There is evidence of creation.....absolutely tons of it! It is often the same evidence evolutionists use to "prove" their version of events. You see, it is all down to interpretation.

You also need to understand that the neat polarised debate you seem to see between scientists on the one hand and faith on the other, is an illusion. There are a great many scientists who are also believers.

[Tarski]

Who says evidence has to be objective? Faith is not objective, and I make no apology for that. As a scientist I can assure you that science is not objective either. Scientists invest a lot of energy in their theories and don't let them go without a fight.

Well, I don't know what your scientific ethics are but while individual scientists do not embody perfect objectivity -some more or less than others- the process as a whole succeeds with a sufficient objectivity to hone in on the truth.

Your commments about there being a "fight" actually highlight this very point.

Also, it is true that faith is not objective. But so much the worse for faith. Faith is not evidence.

[ERayR]

Who says evidence has to be objective? Faith is not objective, and I make no apology for that. As a scientist I can assure you that science is not objective either. Scientists invest a lot of energy in their theories and don't let them go without a fight. It usually takes at least a generation. There is evidence of creation.....absolutely tons of it! It is often the same evidence evolutionists use to "prove" their version of events. You see, it is all down to interpretation.

You also need to understand that the neat polarised debate you seem to see between scientists on the one hand and faith on the other, is an illusion. There are a great many scientists who are also believers.

"Scientists invest a lot of energy in their theories and don't let them go without a fight." Many times a non-scientist can look and see inconsistencies which are overlooked by those who are invested. However, under the current system those inconsistenies remain, dismissed and unaddressed, because they are not voiced by peers in the field.

[Tarski]

"Scientists invest a lot of energy in their theories and don't let them go without a fight." Many times a non-scientist can look and see inconsistencies which are overlooked by those who are invested. However, under the current system those inconsistenies remain, dismissed and unaddressed, because they are not voiced by peers in the field.

Nonsense!

[44Foxtrot]

So you believe in miracles and the supernatural as the abrogation of natural laws? Well, LDS doctrine does not include that concept. Why you believe that this is a basic LDS tenet, I don't know, but if you managed to be born and raised a Mormon, was married in the temple, and still didn't have the doctrine straight, then no wonder you left the faith. You didn't understand it to begin with. One major reason why Bertrand Russell rejected normative christianity was precisely because of its maintenance of a belief in miracles as the abrogation of natural law, a direct contradiction.

Mormonism rejected the creatio ex nihilo nonsense from the beginning, and one of the reasons why scientists and intellectuals within the LDS Church feel so comfortable is that there is this strong doctrinal commitment to natural law. After all why would God need the supernatural unless he is outside of the universe as an Uncaused Cause, the Primemover? The existence of such an all powerful God, who created everything that exists and is therefore outside existence, is a self-contradiction, because he would therefore be responsible for evil. Poof!! Absolute good cannot create evil and must necessarily vanish in the presence of his own opposite, which was created by him, just as surely as matter and anti-matter cannot coexist.

Since we are coeternal with God (along with all the other intelligences), we have free agency and are responsible for our own evil. I can't believe that you were a Mormon and do not understand that.

Sitting here reading your amazing response, I don't know where to start. So much religious mumbo jumbo packed into so few sentences. First of all, there is no credible evidence for anything you have said. You have not provided any physical evidence or examples to support your assertions, nor can you do so.

On the contrary, I can think of half a dozen cherished Mormon beliefs that are clearly in violation of natural law. I could start with the idea that the information in prayers travels to God's abode on or near Kolob and that those prayers are the answered by God, sometimes within hours or days. If this did occur, it would be in clear violation of special relativity, a well known natural law. The angel Moroni shuttling back and forth between the presence of God (on or near Kolob) and Earth to visit Joseph Smith and manage the gold plates is another example.

When I point out the vanishingly low probability that the Jaredites could have transited to the New World as described in the Book of Ether, the invariable Mormon response, after consideration of the facts, is that the journey was accomplished by supernatural means, in other words in violation of natural law. There are many more examples. Mormon prophets are fond of making this stuff up without ever checking to see if it makes any sense in the real world.

Your concept that there is a supernatural being abroad in the universe who performs all manner of miracles using natural law is your own construct. It has no basis in fact. There is no physical evidence for it whatsoever. The theory cannot be used to generate any testable hypotheses. It is a quaint and altogether scientifically useless idea.

I would venture to say that if you made your case that God works in accordance to natural law to any credible neutral physical scientist, they would not agree with you upon review of the examples you could present. If you disagree and believe that you do have a strong case, I encourage you to prepare a paper on the subject and submit it for publication in a mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal. Until such a paper appears in print, I hope you will not be too offended if I simply state that you are so far from making any sense on this issue that I am embarrassed for you.

[cdowis]

Based on you supposed discovery of imperfection in the peer review process (your Fox News version of the climate change email controversy which is in reality no big deal and does not invalidate climate science at all), you feel it better to rely on non-peer-reviewed fringe science and religiously motivated anti-science?

Of course not.

But when politics enter into the realm of science, then science suffers. You do not see where politics is involved in the debate over evolution?

Well a recent example is where the National Science Academy found it necessary to publically proclaim that ID was off-limits to scientific investigation. The message is clear == you want to gain tenure, you want to get research funds, you want to preserve your reputation...... Peer review is a process to place an imprimatur on research, as well as to validate.

That was made very clear in those infamous emails. While it may not have influenced published research, perhaps you can describe what research was never published because of those attitudes and restrictions. Research that was never conducted, blocked by scientific terrorism.

Weather science shows what happens when politics influences science. Evolution is full of politics, compared to physics, math, chemistry etc. We see it in the newspapers, on TV, in magazines. It is probably the field where more fraud and fakery has been produced that any other field of science.

We continually hear warnings about mixing religion and politics, but only silence in mixing science with politics. Peer review is a double edged sword.

[Alan]

"Violation of natural laws". Quite a statement given that I know of no scientist anywhere who claims that all natural laws have been discovered, let alone understand. This statement betrays a fanaticism borne of a morsel of knowledge and a large helping of ignorance.

[ERayR]

Nonsense!

so let it be spoken so let it be done. YES SIR Lord Tarski.

An example of the blind arrogance which prevades the invested.

[thesometimesaint]

It is common descent or special creation.

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

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

Science speaks to common descent. Religion to special creation.

[44Foxtrot]

"Violation of natural laws". Quite a statement given that I know of no scientist anywhere who claims that all natural laws have been discovered, let alone understand. This statement betrays a fanaticism borne of a morsel of knowledge and a large helping of ignorance.

You are making noise without making sense. You have no data to back up your claims. Perhaps you should think through the logical implications of what you write before you post it.

If you claim that no natural laws are not being violated by God, as Mormons describe God, then you are implying that scientists understand no natural laws.

For example, If you claim that special relativity is not violated by Moroni's Kolob to Earth shuttle program, you must claim that scientists do not understand special relativity.

Same for gravity. If I claim that God the Father and Jesus Christ violated the laws of gravity by having their bodies of flesh and bone remain suspended in the air when they appeared to Joseph Smith, then to claim that there was no violation, you must assert that scientists do not understand gravity.

Same for thermodynamics. Same for kinetics and the laws of motion.

But you probably don't see these implications of your statements, because you clearly don't think things through before you make your assertions. Or are you now claiming that science really understands no laws of nature whatsoever?

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

Actually the LDS believe that God follows all the natural laws. It is just that we mere mortals do not know all the natural laws.

[44Foxtrot]

so let it be spoken so let it be done. YES SIR Lord Tarski.

An example of the blind arrogance which prevades the invested.

Perhaps you could use some guidance as to the correct definition of term "arrogance". When one makes a simple declarative statement with a clear understanding of the context, and has the physical evidence in hand to back the declarative statement, such a statement is not arrogant. It is simply a statement of fact.

Arrogance is when one makes presumptuous (unfounded) statements as if they were backed by evidence, and especially if that individual expects his statement to be accepted by others. There is plenty of arrogance on display here, but it is not coming from those who have the evidence to back their claims.

If you doubt what I am saying, look up the definition of arrogance.

[44Foxtrot]

44Foxtrot:

Actually the LDS believe that God follows all the natural laws. It is just that we mere mortals do not know all the natural laws.

Got it.

Please see Post # 61 on this thread.

Thanks.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot:

I read it. It is still your misunderstanding of, I don't know if it is deliberate, or that you simply forgot, the LDS position.

[ERayR]

Perhaps you could use some guidance as to the correct definition of term "arrogance". When one makes a simple declarative statement with a clear understanding of the context, and has the physical evidence in hand to back the declarative statement, such a statement is not arrogant. It is simply a statement of fact.

I am quite aware of the definition of the term and it comes through quite clearly in the post.

Arrogance is when one makes presumptuous (unfounded) statements as if they were backed by evidence, and especially if that individual expects his statement to be accepted by others. There is plenty of arrogance on display here, but it is not coming from those who have the evidence to back their claims.

I looked it up for you. Something you should have done before you posted.

arrogance - haughtiness, hauteur, high-handedness, lordliness

superbia, pride - unreasonable and inordinate self-esteem (personified as one of the deadly sins)

condescension, disdainfulness, superciliousness - the trait of displaying arrogance by patronizing those considered inferior

contemptuousness - the manifestation of scorn and contempt; "every subordinate sensed his contemptuousness and hated him in return"

hubris - overbearing pride or presumption

domineeringness, imperiousness, overbearingness - the trait of being imperious and overbearing

superiority - displaying a sense of being better than others; "he hated the white man's superiority and condescension"

snobbery, snobbishness, snobbism - the trait of condescending to those of lower social status

If you doubt what I am saying, look up the definition of arrogance.

Perhaps if you kept a dictionary handy.

Here is another from a different dictionary:

having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited; overbearingly proud an arrogant teacher an arrogant assumption

[semlogo]

"And yet we have a great deal of literature which shows that injected viral"

There isn't a facepalm big enough

[Tarski]

Of course not.

But when politics enter into the realm of science, then science suffers.

Is it politics that keeps astrology out of astronomy departments?

When there is a justifiable consensus that some fringe set of ideas are just bunk, then thank goodness they are kept out of the best universities and thank goodness they don't get funding. Otherwise, someone wouldn't be doing their job. That the most promising avenues are funded over the less promising is just good policy and creationist science (aka ID) is judged in that way. Who should do the judging if not the scientists themselves? Or is every implausible unsupported idea to be given equal weight and equal money?

[Tarski]

so let it be spoken so let it be done. YES SIR Lord Tarski.

An example of the blind arrogance which prevades the invested.

Shouldn't you be off fighting the New World Order or something?

(Look! Every now and then someone has to just say the truth. I am sure someone somewhere would think me arrogant if I said that there are no lizard people under the Salt Lake Temple but I will surely say it if the topic arises.)

[Vex]

Sitting here reading your amazing response, I don't know where to start. So much religious mumbo jumbo packed into so few sentences. First of all, there is no credible evidence for anything you have said. You have not provided any physical evidence or examples to support your assertions, nor can you do so.

On the contrary, I can think of half a dozen cherished Mormon beliefs that are clearly in violation of natural law. I could start with the idea that the information in prayers travels to God's abode on or near Kolob and that those prayers are the answered by God, sometimes within hours or days. If this did occur, it would be in clear violation of special relativity, a well known natural law. The angel Moroni shuttling back and forth between the presence of God (on or near Kolob) and Earth to visit Joseph Smith and manage the gold plates is another example.

When I point out the vanishingly low probability that the Jaredites could have transited to the New World as described in the Book of Ether, the invariable Mormon response, after consideration of the facts, is that the journey was accomplished by supernatural means, in other words in violation of natural law. There are many more examples. Mormon prophets are fond of making this stuff up without ever checking to see if it makes any sense in the real world.

Is this your professional opinion as a marine engineer and/or statistician?

[TAO]

Perhaps you could use some guidance as to the correct definition of term "arrogance". When one makes a simple declarative statement with a clear understanding of the context, and has the physical evidence in hand to back the declarative statement, such a statement is not arrogant. It is simply a statement of fact.

Perhaps, but be aware, pride shows in that statement, and pride is destructive. I can here your tone of voice in your posts, and it is no better than his. (it's the same way you here tone of voice in stories)

Arrogance is when one makes presumptuous (unfounded) statements as if they were backed by evidence, and especially if that individual expects his statement to be accepted by others.

On the contrary, I find arrogance to be when one expects to be accepted, and then one is refuted, and one just brushes the other person off.

There is plenty of arrogance on display here, but it is not coming from those who have the evidence to back their claims.

On the contrary, it is possible to have arrogance when one's claims are correct.

For example, Hitler was very arrogant when he talked of the military might of Germany. But Germany DID have alot of military might.

If you doubt what I am saying, look up the definition of arrogance.

Arrogance isn't best define by looking it up in a dictionary, but is best defined by feeling it exerted by someone else.

It would be best for one perhaps to be more calm, cool, and collected when responding to other people's jibes. Otherwise, one might come off as arrogant.

[TAO]

You are making noise without making sense. You have no data to back up your claims. Perhaps you should think through the logical implications of what you write before you post it.

On the contrary - I can give you an example. Aren't scientists looking for a unified theory right now? They certainly don't know everything, and they base their thoughts on their limited knowledge that they know at the current point.

If you claim that no natural laws are not being violated by God, as Mormons describe God, then you are implying that scientists understand no natural laws.

Quite on the contrary, we are implying that scientists don't understand some natural laws. I think pretty much every scientist will agree with this statement - they don't know everything.

For example, If you claim that special relativity is not violated by Moroni's Kolob to Earth shuttle program, you must claim that scientists do not understand special relativity.

On the contrary, I wonder, do you know much about teleporting? You know, teleporting is possible - it's even been done in a lab. If you don't know how Moroni got here (oh and btw, it wasn't from Kolob, I think), then don't make assumptions that it wouldn't work. Because we know hardly anything about many things in science. Strings, particles that give matter mass, internal workings of black holes, etc. Don't assume we know everything. And remember, since we don't know everything, there are many things which remain in the area of possibility.

Same for gravity. If I claim that God the Father and Jesus Christ violated the laws of gravity by having their bodies of flesh and bone remain suspended in the air when they appeared to Joseph Smith, then to claim that there was no violation, you must assert that scientists do not understand gravity.

This is like saying jetpacks shouldn't work because they disobey the law of gravity. It's also like saying that atoms should be internally crushed because there is no intermolecular force inside of them, and gravity is all that matters. It's also saying that humans should be puddles on the ground, because their internal body frames are crushed by gravity, which has no opposition.

Don't assume something can't happen just because you don't know how it would happen.

Same for thermodynamics. Same for kinetics and the laws of motion.

Neither thermodynamics, nor kinetics, nor the laws of motion are violated by teleportation apparently. So I don't think we understand all the laws yet.

But you probably don't see these implications of your statements, because you clearly don't think things through before you make your assertions. Or are you now claiming that science really understands no laws of nature whatsoever?

On the contrary, he sees them very well. He's implying that scientists don't know everything about the laws of science. And I'm sure they would agree, if you asked them.

[TAO]

Sitting here reading your amazing response, I don't know where to start. So much religious mumbo jumbo packed into so few sentences.

I'm afraid I'm going to CFR, because we can't tell which part of the post you are talking of.

First of all, there is no credible evidence for anything you have said. You have not provided any physical evidence or examples to support your assertions, nor can you do so.

If I just gave some in my previous post... I think he can do so.

On the contrary, I can think of half a dozen cherished Mormon beliefs that are clearly in violation of natural law.

Ok, let's explore these 'violations' and see what they are.

I could start with the idea that the information in prayers travels to God's abode on or near Kolob and that those prayers are the answered by God, sometimes within hours or days.

Hmmm... so this is like saying 'a photon internet cannot exist'. Photon internet transmission is an especially secure form of internet, because, if it is hacked into with the wrong code, the information is permanently ruined. However, if the photon transmitted by the beam on the one end, is clearly read by the receptor on the other, the information is passed through perfectly. Now considering God works on something called 'spirit particles' which intercept physical matter differently than say, an atom might, how do we know this wouldn't work?

If this did occur, it would be in clear violation of special relativity, a well known natural law.

Actually, you do know that the laws of special relativity do not work in all situations. Example: Inside a black hole. There are also other situations I believe, but I don't know what they are personally.

The angel Moroni shuttling back and forth between the presence of God (on or near Kolob) and Earth to visit Joseph Smith and manage the gold plates is another example.

I explained this in my previous post - teleportation has been shown to exist.

When I point out the vanishingly low probability that the Jaredites could have transited to the New World as described in the Book of Ether, the invariable Mormon response, after consideration of the facts, is that the journey was accomplished by supernatural means, in other words in violation of natural law.

You'll find that God doesn't violate natural laws. For example, what if God was using a special spirit particle directed in a stream that reacted with water only and propelled the boat across the ocean? I'm not saying this is how he did it, but considering we don't know much about spirit particles, I wouldn't suggest assuming it isn't possible.

There are many more examples. Mormon prophets are fond of making this stuff up without ever checking to see if it makes any sense in the real world.

Ummm... your examples have... kinda fell apart.

Your concept that there is a supernatural being abroad in the universe who performs all manner of miracles using natural law is your own construct. It has no basis in fact. There is no physical evidence for it whatsoever. The theory cannot be used to generate any testable hypotheses. It is a quaint and altogether scientifically useless idea.

I'm sure Galileo would have said the same thing about the string theory. Yet it's quite well accepted now. And look at all those people who used to believe that the Sun rotated around the Earth... and ya' know... logic supported it at the time too.

Scientists don't know everything yet, sorry to say.

I would venture to say that if you made your case that God works in accordance to natural law to any credible neutral physical scientist, they would not agree with you upon review of the examples you could present.

A) Why would we want to review it with a neutral physical scientist.

B) Look at Mormon Scholars Testify. Some started off as these 'neutral scientists' you speak of.

If you disagree and believe that you do have a strong case, I encourage you to prepare a paper on the subject and submit it for publication in a mainstream peer reviewed scientific journal.

One of the things I have noticed about scientists is that they like spending time on stuff that is being discovered at the time. Since spirit particles are not a very interesting particle to talk about (it is almost impossible to identify what they are), I doubt many scientists would be interested.

Until such a paper appears in print, I hope you will not be too offended if I simply state that you are so far from making any sense on this issue that I am embarrassed for you.

You know that mainstream research journals are politically controlled. Also, notice that neither Theory of Inheritance nor Theory of Continental Drift would have appeared in such journals if there had been some at the time of their publication. They were not accepted until quite a few years after they were formulated.

[44Foxtrot]

I explained this in my previous post - teleportation has been shown to exist.

You'll find that God doesn't violate natural laws. For example, what if God was using a special spirit particle directed in a stream that reacted with water only and propelled the boat across the ocean? I'm not saying this is how he did it, but considering we don't know much about spirit particles, I wouldn't suggest assuming it isn't possible.

TAO,

You seem to be a sincere individual. However, if you think that quantum teleportation involving photons solves the "Moroni Shuttle" problem, you need to read a lot more about quantum teleportation. Even the most cursory look at the first paragraph of the readily available Wikipedia article on this subject should quickly reveal the (fatal) problem with your assertion. Photon " quantum teleportation" does not allow for superluminary transfer of useful information (only quantum state information). If we are to believe Joseph Smith, Moroni could not have used it to transport himself here (because JS claimed that Moroni had physical body).

Your mistaken assertion regarding quantum teleportation is not nearly as egregious as bringing up the concept of "spirit particles" without a shred of supporting physical evidence.

Are we now to start a discussion of your imaginary spirit particles? Or should I continue on to explain why you are wide of the mark in several of the other claims in your responses?

Actually, I have a better idea. Since I live in Florida, it is after midnight and so I'm going to get some sleep.

[cdowis]

When there is a justifiable consensus that some fringe set of ideas are just bunk, then thank goodness they are kept out of the best universities and thank goodness they don't get funding. Otherwise, someone wouldn't be doing their job. That the most promising avenues are funded over the less promising is just good policy and creationist science (aka ID) is judged in that way. Who should do the judging if not the scientists themselves? Or is every implausible unsupported idea to be given equal weight and equal money?

Noting that you didn't answer my question, methinks thou protesteth too much.

Hey, dude, it's ok to admit politics are involved. We all know it, so it's not a secret that you have to take to the grave. Just admit the obvious and move on.

Politics influence the field of evolution to the point that it has become a lush field for forgery and fakery. Climate science is similar, but not as much.

Pushing your face into a hole in the ground will not make it go away. It's not anti-science, it's reality.

So your comment that your views are backed up by peer reviewed articles has to be taken in that context. Today's science can become tomorrow's embarrassment.

Is it politics that keeps astrology out of astronomy departments?

Then why not a statement from the National Science Foundation regarding astrology. If ID is such a discredited field of scientific investigation, why was it necessary for them to issue such a statement, and not astrology.

Why issue a cease and desist order to the scientific community to pforbid further research in this area? If it is in the same league as astrology....

What night terrors are in the heart of the foundation for Intelligent Design that this was necessary. Unless they were afraid that someone was taking it seriously, and they needed to jackboot the scientifiec community to stop it.

Tell us what you think about that, Tarski. Can you give us an explanation without flying off the handle.