Freedom Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 There are countless theories in the sciences that were formulated to address the contradictions among the various studies. Psychology conferences abound with heated debates as expert after expert present their findings that go counter to what the next fellow has to report. Physicists search seemingly in vain for the holy grail of solving the horizon problem. Attempt after attempt is made to understand how nerve cells can be repaired but the answer yet remains elusive. The supernatural simply cannot be explained yet because there is no data. Supernatural has become a pejorative term given by anyone who disagrees with a hypothesis. Once there is data, it will no longer be considered supernatural and the detractors are forgotten. We know what usually happens in the brain when someone feels joy (although the data is still seemingly contradictory) but we do not understand why happiness occurs. Emotions are in a manner of speaking supernatural.Evolution is a fact, however the theory of evolution is a theory that has thus far not been proven but has not been proven false either: most contradictions have been resolved although many still remain. The origin of life, on the other hand, is just a hypothesis. There are no working theories because none of the hypothesis can be tested. The origin of life, therefore, is in the same place as God. There are many hypothesis of what it is but no way to test it, as a result there are many contradictory thoughts that attempt to explain it. Despite this conundrum, I do not know of any biologists that feel that there is no origin to life. Rather, they accept that there is currently no data to study the concept.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Freedom:I'll largely agree. Science is an adversarial process. Hopefully the better ideas win. However the Supernatural need not be a pegorative. When correctly understood and used it helps explain God.
Freedom Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Freedom:I'll largely agree. Science is an adversarial process. Hopefully the better ideas win. However the Supernatural need not be a pegorative. When correctly understood and used it helps explain God.I would admit, however, that some theologists attempt to explain away the science through their perception of God rather than explaining God through the understanding of science. Scientist are bogged down enough with dogma; it may not be christian or muslim dogma, but it is research hindering dogma nonetheless. 1
Mariner Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) If I am not mistaken, the great bastion of reason known as science gave us such illustrious "theories" as spontaneous generation. Today we can look back on those days and laugh at how silly those scientiets were. Today, scientists have postulated so many different things but still know so very little; yet you would have me believe that "science" knows the facts? Exactly where do you gain any confidence that science really knows what it is talking about? What do we "know" today that in 100 years we look back on with humor at how stupid our scientists were?This statement again demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of science and how it works. As a scientist, I can probably list more dead end theories and failed hypotheses than you can. And a lot of them are a lot more recent than spontaneous generation. These might include BYU/UU cold fusion, Russian polywater, and prions just to name a few. Oh, wait - prions turned out to be real after all.Can you see the difference here?Science eventually corrects itself through the process of critical peer review and confirming experimentation. It may take a while, but the best and most applicable and useful ideas and theories are eventually confirmed and adopted.Religion on the other hand (especially Mormonism) does not encourage, or even allow, critical review of its doctrines, principles and policies, let alone criticism of its leaders. The idea in the LDS Church that "Once the Brethren speak, the thinking has been done" is more than just an unfortunate pronouncement by a Church official.I am sorry to tell you this, but the confidence that you so blithely put in science is every bit as demanding of faith as faith in God demands. As for me, I will taking that burning presence of the Holy Spirit every day over some twit telling me they actually understand the human genome, dark matter, black holes, the common cold, is wine good for you, or any of the other things scientists try to discuss today. You figure out the common cold and help me to never suffer from allergies and then we will talk; until then, please have the decency and honesty to admit, science does not ???? from shineola any better than a religious man does.Well let's see here. Assuming that the proof is in resulting performance and outcomes, I might point out that science has given humankind electrical power, safe and efficient cars, computers, aircraft, pharmaceuticals, and space travel (to name just a few things that are better than shineola).Without science you and I would not be having this discussion. If you were lucky, would probably be out in your field working with your horses to bring in the last of your meager crops so your family would have a chance of surviving the winter.Now, perhaps you could list for me the advances that humankind has made over the last 200 years that have been brought about by religion. Edited November 29, 2011 by Mariner
Rob Osborn Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) There are countless theories in the sciences that were formulated to address the contradictions among the various studies. Psychology conferences abound with heated debates as expert after expert present their findings that go counter to what the next fellow has to report. Physicists search seemingly in vain for the holy grail of solving the horizon problem. Attempt after attempt is made to understand how nerve cells can be repaired but the answer yet remains elusive. The supernatural simply cannot be explained yet because there is no data. Supernatural has become a pejorative term given by anyone who disagrees with a hypothesis. Once there is data, it will no longer be considered supernatural and the detractors are forgotten. We know what usually happens in the brain when someone feels joy (although the data is still seemingly contradictory) but we do not understand why happiness occurs. Emotions are in a manner of speaking supernatural.Evolution is a fact, however the theory of evolution is a theory that has thus far not been proven but has not been proven false either: most contradictions have been resolved although many still remain. The origin of life, on the other hand, is just a hypothesis. There are no working theories because none of the hypothesis can be tested. The origin of life, therefore, is in the same place as God. There are many hypothesis of what it is but no way to test it, as a result there are many contradictory thoughts that attempt to explain it. Despite this conundrum, I do not know of any biologists that feel that there is no origin to life. Rather, they accept that there is currently no data to study the concept.Depends upon what you define as "evolution being fact". If you mean that life evolves in small observable ways such as the length and variety of beaks on finches or the variety of beetles, then yes I agree that evolution is a fact. But if you are suggesting that we evolved from fish at some distant point in the past then i strongly disagree. It is only a theory and one that cannot really be tested to be proven true.As for the origin of life, there are many tests done and research happening to attempt to support the theory of abiogenesis. There are also many tests done that are supporting just the opposite. There can only be two theories here as for origins of life on this planet- the one is that of abiogenesis and the other is the law of biogenesis. Either one can be correct but only one can be correct. So far, all atttempts to recreate abiogensis have failed. In this case, the standing law of biogenesis has yet to be proven wrong. All observations and tests in biology to this point all support the theory of biogenesis- that life only comes from a life source and only comes from its own kind. Edited November 29, 2011 by Rob Osborn
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Rob Osborn:Only partially correct. We have made the necessary precursors to life, but not life itself.
Rob Osborn Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 Rob Osborn:Only partially correct. We have made the necessary precursors to life, but not life itself.Hum....If I am not mistaken, until even the simplest form of life can be formed in a lab in a naturalistic environment free from an intelligent agent or process intervening, then abiogenesis is wholly incorrect. As far as I know, nothing resembling actual life has ever been formed from a non-life substance through an observed naturistic process.
Rob Osborn Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 We do know that even the simplest forms of life has a complex DNA chain.
Rob Osborn Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 In fact, no living thing has been shown to contain anything but a complx DNA chain. For all we know, it has always been complex from its inception.
Freedom Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Depends upon what you define as "evolution being fact". If you mean that life evolves in small observable ways such as the length and variety of beaks on finches or the variety of beetles, then yes I agree that evolution is a fact. But if you are suggesting that we evolved from fish at some distant point in the past then i strongly disagree. It is only a theory and one that cannot really be tested to be proven true.If you read my post carefully you would see that I distinguish between evolution and evolutionary theory. The theory has not been proven true or false yet but I am ambivalent. Whether or not it is true has no bearing on my religion or my social life.
thesometimesaint Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 Rob Osborn:If we mere mortals can create life. Then it doesn't take a God to do it.
Rob Osborn Posted November 29, 2011 Author Posted November 29, 2011 Rob Osborn:If we mere mortals can create life. Then it doesn't take a God to do it.We are the sons of God though- we are in His image and thus have His capacity.
Mariner Posted November 29, 2011 Posted November 29, 2011 (edited) Rob Osborn,I cannot leave this thread without pointing out to you, yet again, why ID is, in fact, a bankrupt and altogether useless concept. ID is religion and not science, and here are several reasons why: - ID cannot be used to generate falsifiable hypotheses - period and this is a requirement for any valid scientific theory. (No matter what you might think, irreducible complexity and all of the other nonsense that ID'ers have dreamed up to try to cast their religion in a scientific light have failed miserably as hypotheses). - ID can claim no credible, reproducible, physical supporting evidence that cannot be better and more parsimoniously explained by evolution. - ID has no explanatory power. It cannot be used to develop new insights or to understand available data from any branch of biology or life sciences, including molecular genetics, for example (where evolution stands out as highly successful). - ID has no predictive power (none whatsoever), and for this reason is also useless as a scientific hypothesis. - ID is tantamount to magic. It is a version of the God of the Gaps argument. It is religion plain and simple and therefore, yet again, useless.Please note that evolution has none of these drawbacks or disadvantages. That is why we call it science. Edited November 29, 2011 by Mariner 1
Rob Osborn Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Rob Osborn,I cannot leave this thread without pointing out to you, yet again, why ID is, in fact, a bankrupt and altogether useless concept. ID is religion and not science, and here are several reasons why: - ID cannot be used to generate falsifiable hypotheses - period and this is a requirement for any valid scientific theory. (No matter what you might think, irreducible complexity and all of the other nonsense that ID'ers have dreamed up to try to cast their religion in a scientific light have failed miserably as hypotheses).Sure, it can be used to generate a falsifiable hypothesis. For instance- if we prove that we did evolve from fish by purely unguided naturalistic means then of course ID theory has been falsified. Irreducible complexity (such as DNA itself) is actually an active and workable and even testable hypothesis. Biologists and scientists with degrees have done studies and written books about it.- ID can claim no credible, reproducible, physical supporting evidence that cannot be better and more parsimoniously explained by evolution.Sure we can. The analysis, structure and encoding of DNA is actually a lot of supporting evidence that intelligent information not only exists in nature but also that it doesn't arise without an intelligent process preceding it. Evolution fails miserably to explain the complexity and workings of DNA.- ID has no explanatory power. It cannot be used to develop new insights or to understand available data from any branch of biology or life sciences, including molecular genetics, for example (where evolution stands out as highly successful).Actually ID works more than we tend to think. For instance- we are learning how to work with the intelligent design of the DNA and work within that intelligent design to intelligently modify, manipulate and engineer genetics in both animal and human life and in plant life also.- ID has no predictive power (none whatsoever), and for this reason is also useless as a scientific hypothesis.ID has tons of predictive power. Like I posted above, we know that reverse engineering DNA can be used to understand and predict cellular behavior better. The greatest advances in medical science has been by finding out the human genome- the intelligent design of the DNA. We can now make absolute predictions based off the DNA intelligent language.- ID is tantamount to magic. It is a version of the God of the Gaps argument. It is religion plain and simple and therefore, yet again, useless.Perhaps you have a gross misunderstanding of "religion" then because i do not look at ID theory as being any type of religion. ID theory makes no hypothesis on who God is, where He may live, or what commandments he may have given. Only evolutionsts use the language that you just demonstrated and in so doing, it shows the utter lack of knowledge one has on the subject of ID theory. Please go and read what ID theory is really about because it isn't religion and it for sure isn't some deep south protestant creation ex nihlo mumbo jumbo.Please note that evolution has none of these drawbacks or disadvantages. That is why we call it science.I call it "bad science" at best. Science, especially that of biology, should just research and test the observable and testable and not get into all the philosophy of origins of the which it has no evidence to test or work with. Edited November 30, 2011 by Rob Osborn
Cobalt-70 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 As an aside, with all of the theorized improvements (or at least the interpreted improvements) in the species, why is it that all of evolution has not not been able to make man, or any living creature, immortal? The way evolution is worshipped, you would think that it would have progressed to the point where physical death was no longer the end result of whatever great advances or strides have been observed. Or is man excitedly standing by waiting for the day they can claim that evolution has the power to create and sustain life eternally? Ultimately, isn't this the real dream of the evolutionist? As such, isn't that a dangerous quest for anyone who believes in God? I mean, it seems to take over and usurp God's ability to create physical life and death. What then is the purpose of the Atonement?? What of the purpose of life and why we are here to begin with?Immortality is an evolutionary disadvantage. An old person, even if she is immortal, has wear and tear that makes her less fit than a younger person. Thus, if you are immortal, you are probably not reproducing as much as a younger person. Plus, if you are immortal, your body has to make long-term investments while you are young to ensure your immortality, which are investments that a young mortal person would not have to make. All this makes you less fit, from an evolutionary perspective. Mortals will out-compete you. And you will eventually die anyway, due to some accident.
Mariner Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Rob Osborn,Please let me know when the NIH or the DOE, or the NSF awards its first grant for a research project in the area of Intelligent Design. I am not holding my breath and neither should you. Because in case you did not understand (and apparently you did not), ID cannot be used to generate falsifiable hypotheses, and therefore does not qualify as science, by definition. Edited November 30, 2011 by Mariner 1
jo1952 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Hi Calmoriah,Inasmuch as I answered the questions you asked of me in your post #124 by responding to them in my post #135, I was hoping you would take some time to answer the questions I asked you. I am very interested to hear your pov.Thank you,jo
Rob Osborn Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 Rob Osborn,Please let me know when the NIH or the DOE, or the NSF awards its first grant for a research project in the area of Intelligent Design. I am not holding my breath and neither should you. Because in case you did not understand (and apparently you did not), ID cannot be used to generate falsifiable hypotheses, and therefore does not qualify as science, by definition.Well you are certainly entitled to your opinions...By definition, I mean if we are really getting technical, the theories and study of ID theory is actually being carried out by real scientists in real labs by real people who actually call it science. So, I guess it doesn't really matter what you call it, its science and those who know ID theory know it is science.BTW, here is a list of articles, books, papers that have been peer reviewedhttp://www.discovery.org/a/2640
jo1952 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Well you are certainly entitled to your opinions...By definition, I mean if we are really getting technical, the theories and study of ID theory is actually being carried out by real scientists in real labs by real people who actually call it science. So, I guess it doesn't really matter what you call it, its science and those who know ID theory know it is science.BTW, here is a list of articles, books, papers that have been peer reviewedhttp://www.discovery.org/a/2640I found your link to be an eye-opening and enjoyful read, and have bookmarked it for future use. Particularly, I enjoyed the following:and Darwin's Origin of Species (the latter of which was published in a prominent British trade press and was not peer-reviewed in the modern sense of the term)as well as the remarks provided in the following resource. Priceless information in this section!William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, Vol. 39 (5):1051-1061 (September, 2009). (PDF, 359KB)How do darwinists justify and hang their hats on the results of such studies and keep a straight face about using a strict scientific method base since they have stacked the deck with front end information which will spit out pre-determined and preconceived data? With this stype of activity going on and being "peer" accepted as being legitimate practice of the scientic method, it is becoming more and more difficult to give credibility and any sense of genuine seeking going on within the "peer review" process. I guess I will have to study ALL theories and interpretations of theories even that much more in order to try to determine what is dross and needs to be thrown out. Fortunately, I already know that from studying scripture it is not usually a good idea to hold to a particular interpretation based on a "show of hands" process since it is quite clear that strait is the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it. This lesson is a pattern which is applicable to all walks of like, including science. This makes me instantly suspicious and all the more cautious when it is those scientists themselves who choose the wide gate theories. Once I have studied them, I continue on to seek out the scientists who, rather, are the less popular theorists, who cannot get their work peer reviewed, and try to determine what their offense was. Then I get down to business and study their theories and interpretations more closely; generally discovering that I tend to agree more often with them than with those whose works earned them recognition among their own peers.Thank you for the great link.Regards,jo
thesometimesaint Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 jo1952:You'll never want for moonshine with the Discovery Institue close at hand.See Wedge Strategy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategyHere what real scientists have to say about evolution:http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/
jo1952 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) jo1952:You'll never want for moonshine with the Discovery Institue close at hand.See Wedge Strategy: http://en.wikipedia..../Wedge_strategyHere what real scientists have to say about evolution:http://www.nationala....org/evolution/Thank you for (perhaps unintentionally) helping to support my points.Regards,jo Edited November 30, 2011 by jo1952
thesometimesaint Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Jo1952:Then please stay away from the sciences. I'm sure you'll be much happier.Ps; It is one thing to believe in God, and claim he did the creation. It is quite another to claim that ID/Creationism is how he did it. Edited November 30, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 Ps; It is one thing to believe in God, and claim he did the creation. It is quite another to claim that ID/Creationism is how he did it.This doesn't make any sense. If God did the creation then obviously the creation was intelligently designed. They are the same thing. This is the exact problem that LDS evolutionists have because they admit on one hand that God created life, but yet on the other hand fail to place God into that creation. How then could God create life if He was not part of it? Go back and read my opening statement about what this thread is all about. If God did plan the creation, as LDS do believe, then the creation was an intelligently designed event for the purpose of bringing about God's will. That makes God the intelligent designer.
Mariner Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Jo1952:Then please stay away from the sciences. I'm sure you'll be much happier.Ps; It is one thing to believe in God, and claim he did the creation. It is quite another to claim that ID/Creationism is how he did it.thesometimesaint,This is actually great advice for dyed in the wool ID'ers. To their benefit, it avoids cog dis, allows them to be comfortable in their unfounded and wholly irrelevant belief, and (hopefully) keeps them talking among themselves.To the benefit of science, it saves real scientists the bother of trying to deal with their patently silly (and often downright annoying) assertions. Edited November 30, 2011 by Mariner
thesometimesaint Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Rob Osborn:Circular logic at its finest.
Recommended Posts