kolipoki09 Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 You appear to be uninformed on this issue. May I suggest that you go through Mordecai's posts on this topic http://www.mormondia...ch&fromsearch=1For example, this evolutionary process for the whale would have taken longer than the age of the solar system. Do you see that as a problem?I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I think you're fundamentally misrepresenting the role of the molecular clock and constant rates compared to non-constant rates. Could you provide a peer-reviewed source indicating that the evolutionary timeclock of the whale would pre-date the formulation of the solar system? I've tried looking, but can't seem to find anything indicating what you've claimed.
kolipoki09 Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I see, once again, that hardly anyone actually understands what the debate is actually about, and even fewer have read the necessary books. This experience is too frustrating to go through for no good end, so I won't. I agree. Karl Popper's work in Dialectica is absolutely crucial, particularly in light of your sig line.The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. [32:344]I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. [32:345]The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [32:346]And in response to your second link:http://ncse.com/cej/6/2/what-did-karl-popper-really-say-evolution Edited November 24, 2011 by kolipoki09
cdowis Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I think you're fundamentally misrepresenting the role of the molecular clock and constant rates compared to non-constant rates.Could you provide a peer-reviewed source indicating that the evolutionary timeclock of the whale would pre-date the formulation of the solar system? I've tried looking, but can't seem to find anything indicating what you've claimed.Did you read mordecai? I personally am not in a position to discuss this subject, so there is no "you". I am only following his conclusions based on the references he provided in his posts.
cdowis Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Thanks, that is a great video. Yep, very entertaining, especially when the preacher turned red and hysterical. A great piece of propaganda, clearly showing the hero and villain.
kolipoki09 Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Yep, very entertaining, especially when the preacher turned red and hysterical. A great piece of propaganda, clearly showing the hero and villain.Had you researched Kent Hovinds' work and his own propaganda, you'll find the caricature (while in jest) isn't that far off.The video isn't about science vs. religion but rather evolution vs. creationism. And hands down, the evidence favors evolution.**Lest I be misunderstood, evolution per se does not exclude the notion of having an actual Creator, but it is entirely out of harmony with cdesign proponentsistsism. 1
kolipoki09 Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Did you read mordecai? I personally am not in a position to discuss this subject, so there is no "you". I am only following his conclusions based on the references he provided in his posts.Well, the link isn't leading me anywhere. It's just sending me to a search page. Forgive me for referring to yourself and Mordecai in the second person plural.
Log Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 I agree. Karl Popper's work in Dialectica is absolutely crucial, particularly in light of your sig line.And in response to your second link:http://ncse.com/cej/...y-say-evolutionYou do realize that you have confirmed my first post in this thread in detail, don't you? Brethren, adieu.
Stargazer Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Natural selection has nothing to do with "sheer dumb luck." Natural selection works because millions of years of random mutations cause species to accumulate advantages that allow them to fill new ecological niches. The mutations are random, but the evolution itself is quite predictable when seen from a perspective of millions of years. If you put a bunch of strictly ground-dwelling animals on an island that has trees, you can bet that within a million years, at least some of their descendants are going to have mutations that are tree-adaptive.I'd bet on it, myself, but I don't think that this proves that a Creator who guides evolution exists or the opposite. I happen to believe that the visible universe was created by God in order to fulfill His goals; I doubt random chance has a thing to do with it, despite any appearances to the contrary. And I don't exptect to be able to prove that, either. Neither does it need to be. It just is.
thesometimesaint Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 cdowis:ID is a priori. It is no more testable using the Scientific Method than any other Supernatural idea.
TAO Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Coblat, rather than use the word random, use the word arbitrary =).It'll help you explain your ideas to those who support ID. It isn't that the mutations are random - that is, caused by nothing. It is that they are arbitrary; that the variables that relate to them are insignificant and obscure in the big picture.Hopefully that will help =D.-TAO
Rob Osborn Posted November 24, 2011 Author Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) To Ron Osborn,What do you mean when you state Darwinian Evolution is Godless?Well, Darwinian evolution proposes a tree of life so to speak with animals evolving from simple to complex. This tree must be traced, theoretically, to a point in time where life first emerged. That emergence also is part of this paradigm. It has to do with chemical evolution- abiogenesis. What one must realize is that this whole process, under theory, must be explained how intelligence emerged naturally without outside guidance or help. Therefore, Darwinian evolution is godless. Don't just take my word for it- ask any professor of Darwinian evolution and none of them will place God into the mix of their pet theory. They are literally afraid of being labeled a heretic by their fellow collegues for even contemplating such a thing. Now imagine- we have reputable professors at a LDS owned school who teach and adhere to such a godless point of view. Edited November 24, 2011 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted November 24, 2011 Author Posted November 24, 2011 Rob Osborn:You were pulled for your Ad Hominen attacks.Evolution doesn't address the issue of God. A person can be a very scientist and use Evolution whether they personally believe in God(s) or not.I found out they can dish it out but can't take it. They are anything but "FAIR".You may be right that a person can believe in evolution and believe in God. The problem however is that you can't believe in LDS doctrine to be true but yet reject the Creator from the equation at the same time as to how and why we came into existance. You may think that science and God are separate issues but the truth is, LDS beliefs go hand in hand with not only a planned creation, but with an intelligently planned creation with an intelligent process and an Intelligent agent at the helm. Taken at every angle- that is by definition "intelligent design". No part of Darwinian evolutionary theory can truly explain why we are in the image of God. Why, Because Darwinian evolutionary theory rejects any notion that we are the product of something guided and intelligent.
Rob Osborn Posted November 24, 2011 Author Posted November 24, 2011 I would like to add what I believe to be the LDS evolutionary scientists POV as I see it-LDS scientists who believe in evolution believe in a God, even a Creator. They believe though that God is not scientifically discernable through any testing or found evidence. All they see, through their scientific lenses, are the footprints of nature. If pressed on the subject about the role of God in the creation, they can't or don't want to place God- the Creator, at any scientifically discernable location or point. He (God) must remain indiscernable, at least from a scientific standpoint. Because of this fact, they then must try to reconcile how the Creator even fits into this theory they hold which has no place for Him. I often think, they must believe He actually did something to stir the pot ages and eons ago just as long as it was far enough back, that scientists can't trace it to be scintifically discernable. They are trutly afraid that at some point God does become discernable scientifically and in so doing, they may lose their theory and so to combat this they wage war against anyone who would attempt to unravel the mystery and seek to find the scientifically discernable link. Their number one opponent and arch enemy is thus- anyone who would propose such a thing as nature actually having a signature of a Higher intelligence. Imagine that?They must also fight this ongoing battle to defeat the philosophy that all roads eventually lead back to God. I see it as a war they must battle therefore with themselves- a terrible battle for identity versus ones faith. On the one hand they want to believe that God is manifest in all things, but on the other work to wage war on all those who seek to establish that road of truth back to God. Why is it that they are so afraid that We might actually find out that there actually is a discernable God? What would there be to lose? LDS evolution believing scientists have found themselves cornered with the obvious paradox- place an actual intelligent Creator into a theory that has no room for God.
cdowis Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Well, the link isn't leading me anywhere. It's just sending me to a search page. Forgive me for referring to yourself and Mordecai in the second person plural.This is a listing of his posts on the subject. I think you can figure it out which posts are germane to our discussion. Or perhaps not.
cdowis Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) cdowis:ID is a priori. It is no more testable using the Scientific Method than any other Supernatural idea.Ignorance is a warm blanket, held tightly. You might want to ignore Mordecai's posts on the subject. He gives specific arguments which you may find disturbing to your firmly held paradigm.I have had several interesting discussions here on the forum on evolution as a belief system. There are multiple aspects of evolution that is based on faith and belief, and its adherents are devout, that all answers will be found.It's like a motorcycle. It can indeed take you from Point A to Point B, but it cannot carry a heavy load requiring a sixteen wheel vehicle. It simply cannot deal with the load. I remember a PBS special where the narrator used the phrase "the magic of evolution" in trying to explain something. When you get into the details, rather than the point A to point B, you have to resort to waving the magic wand of evolution and depend on faith and belief.I have several examples but have no interest in repeating some of my discussions. But, as a thought experiment, think about the example of the first man, and the first woman.. Or are you going to make the silly claim that there is no such thing. Edited November 24, 2011 by cdowis
cdowis Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Well, Darwinian evolution proposes a tree of life so to speak with animals evolving from simple to complex.I think the paradigm has recently changed from a tree to a bush.
elguanteloko Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Read John A. Widtsoe's highly-influential Joseph Smith as Scientist: http://books.google....l%20law&f=falseI'll check it out, thanks.but, still, could you respond to what I wrote? Edited November 24, 2011 by elguanteloko
elguanteloko Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Perhaps Adam was the first man with whom God made covenants. I believe there is compelling evidence to suggest that there was death before the fall, and that there were examples of the genus Homo living long before the period described in Genesis 1. Of course, to reject evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis, one must do so on the assumption that Genesis has been accurately passed down and represents actual events for which there is no empirical data for verification.I don't see how this helps anything. Would you mind explaining?BTW, "There is compelling evidence to suggest there was death before the fall"? OK, when did 'the fall' happen according to you and what did it do? I just don't see where you are coming from or what you're getting at, honestly.
elguanteloko Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 For example, this evolutionary process for the whale would have taken longer than the age of the solar system. CFR.The link isn't directing me anywhere but to a search function.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 You appear to be uninformed on this issue. May I suggest that you go through Mordecai's posts on this topic http://www.mormondia...ch&fromsearch=1For example, this evolutionary process for the whale would have taken longer than the age of the solar system. Do you see that as a problem?The link is broken. But obviously, the evolutionary process did not take longer than the age of the solar system. The intermediary developmental forms from the root artiodactyl to both the whale and the cow can be traced back to show that the common ancestors of the whale and the cow were about 50-60 million years old, which is far shorter than the age of the solar system. If you are talking about molecular clock estimates, they say 60 milliion years, which agrees with the fossil record. See http://www.jstor.org/pss/4094836.
Cobalt-70 Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I'd bet on it, myself, but I don't think that this proves that a Creator who guides evolution exists or the opposite. I happen to believe that the visible universe was created by God in order to fulfill His goals; I doubt random chance has a thing to do with it, despite any appearances to the contrary. And I don't exptect to be able to prove that, either. Neither does it need to be. It just is.The only place where random chance comes into play is in individual mutations. Do you think that God intentionally causes and controls mutations, almost all of which kill fetuses in the womb? Is God an abortionist? Does God intentionally cause cancer? Or is it more reasonable to believe that mutations are caused by random things like background radiation, ultraviolet light, and environmental chemicals? Edited November 24, 2011 by Cobalt-70
Cobalt-70 Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 I'll check it out, thanks.but, still, could you respond to what I wrote?...which was:If you try to excuse Christ's resurrection by saying He just knows those laws better or has the power to control them according to the same laws... then you have just stated a meaningless position since "God following laws" would be indistinguishable from "God not following laws" because we don't know those laws (and if you take the laws of Heaven as part of 'natural laws' then you get the same problem). I'll let Widtsoe speak for himself, but I'm not saying anything about Christ's resurrection. I just think that there are natural laws of the universe, and to the extent we know those laws, we see how God works. I'll tell you what I'd do if I were a God in this universe: I'd just let life naturally take hold on any planet where it can, and let evolution proceed until intelligent creatures are formed. That is the most efficient way to create life, and is pretty consistent with God's modus operandi in the modern universe. If you are immortal, you have the benefit of being able to wait a very long time for things to happen, so what's the rush?
thesometimesaint Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Rob Osborn:Incorrect. Even BYU teaches Evolution. I know I took biology classes there.Further; http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution
thesometimesaint Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Cobalt-70:Incorrect; mutations are NOT almost always fatal to the fetus. It is between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion. Most of which the causes for are unknown. Further while we do discourage voluntary abortion, in all but rare cases, we have no theology as to when the Spirit enters the body.
Rob Osborn Posted November 24, 2011 Author Posted November 24, 2011 Rob Osborn:Incorrect. Even BYU teaches Evolution. I know I took biology classes there.Further; http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/EvolutionEveryone knows they teach evolution at BYU but that doesn't mean that they represent LDS doctrine on the subject. They teach it to be an accredited school.
Recommended Posts