Dna Of Early Man Linked To Modern Humans

[changed]

Empirical evidence is not what you or I(as an independent observer) hear, see, touch. smell, taste, or otherwise measure. It is what you and I(as an independent observer) hear, see, touch, smell, taste, or otherwise measure.

There are more people in the church than one, "and" applies.... I have had many joint spiritual experiences with others, had one just yesterday in primary, someone subbing as as the music chorister asked them what song they wanted to sing, and the kids chose "A child's prayer" which was strange, as we had not gone over that song with them in a long time. She stood silently in front of them, and said "I want to tell you something I've never told anyone before... all the kids quieted down, then she said a long time ago, she was inactive - that she didn't come to church, that someone had talked her into being a primary music instructor even though she didn't have a testimony, and that she taught that song to them, and that she regained her testimony through that song... then we sang the song together, and we all felt the Spirit. I know we all experienced the same spirit, because the little girl who gave the closing prayer said "thank you for letting us feel the spirit today", and all the kids murmured their agreement. "Where two or three are gathered together" are perhaps the best places to feel the spirit together.

No single individual can establish science. It take two or more disinterested parties reaching the same exact conclusions, based on the exact same experiment that establish science.

Say for example. If I burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. I expect to get water. If miniature flying pink elephants pop out. That is a one off, and it is probably I whom is doing something terribly wrong. If you (along with many others) working separately from me, doing the exact same thing, and reach the exact same miniature flying pink elephants that is science.

That's the beautiful thing about the church, people from different cultures, different languages, from all over the world, all have the same spiritual experiences. If you do the experiment correctly, you will gain the same experience as millions of others who have also done the same experiment.

Science consists of verbal and mathematical descriptions- in other words, symbols, of people's experiences.

Perhaps the problem lies in our inability to assign a symbol to experiences that defy words.

"Science consists of symbols that explain our experiences. Religion consists of experiences that defy being symbolically represented." - JLT

Edited January 28, 2013 by changed

[cdowis]

When you can demonstrate that the reaction curve of Iron filings in Sulfuric acid is any different than the reaction curve of IQ distribution in the general population then you might have a point.

BTW. The only difference between the so called hard sciences and the so called soft sciences is the number of variables involved.

I guess if you keep repeating yourself, it will magically become true.

Just curious, have you done any research in any of the social studies? I have a master degree, and was a research assistant. While your example of IQ scores follow the bell curve, human behaviour in real time is not similar to movement of iron filings. Humans have free choice, whilst iron filings are influenced by known laws. You tell people the dangers of smoking, and some choose to stop while others choose to continue despite the effects on their bodies.

Archeology, as a study of human behaviour, is dissimilar to watching iron filings. It is not predictive in the same way as physics and chemistry. While we can apply general concepts in the social sciences, and human behaviour, we do not find the predictability that we find in the hard sciences. The political processes, for example, may have trends, but could we have predicted the course of politics even over a few years, I am aware that uncertainty is found in human behaviour, compared to the movement iron filings.

But let us agree to disagree, since I suspect that you will continue your chant.

Edited January 28, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps the problem lies in our inability to assign a symbol to experiences that defy words.

"Science consists of symbols that explain our experiences. Religion consists of experiences that defy being symbolically represented." - JLT

Interesting stuff- who is JLT?

I think that experience in general defy being symbolically represented- it's the old problem of describing the sound of a trumpet, the color red, or the taste of salt to someone who has never experienced it using words alone.

It cannot be done!

[Calm]

Interesting stuff- who is JLT?

Can't find the quote on google. Now I am very curious as to the identity of JLT. Edited January 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Can't find the quote on google. Now I am very curious as to the identity of JLT.

(It could be changed's real initials)

[thesometimesaint]

Changed:

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

The Scientific Method begins with scientists forming questions and then acquiring the knowledge to either support or disprove a specific theory. That is where the collection of empirical data comes into play.

Before any piece of empirical data is collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.

The scientific method often involves lab experiments that are repeated over and over, and these experiments result in quantitative data—in the form of numbers and statistics. However, that is not the only process used for gathering information to support or refute a theory. Qualitative research, often used in the social sciences, examines the reasons behind human behavior.

The objective of science is that all empirical data that has been gathered through observation, experience and experimentation is without bias. The strength of any scientific research depends on the ability to gather and analyze empirical data in the most unbiased and controlled fashion possible. However, in the 1960s, scientific historian and philosopher Thomas Kuhn promoted the idea that scientists can be influenced by prior beliefs and experiences.

Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.

The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.

No matter how personally valuable to you or me or anyone of any religion spiritual experiences are not empirical evidences. Science CAN NOT impose any God, and still be Science. It doesn't care if you're Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Zoroastrian, Mormon, whatever. Religions have a built in bias towards whatever God(s) are invoked. Even Moroni's challenge presupposes a Mormon God.

Edited January 29, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

Changed:

Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.

No matter how personally valuable to you or me or anyone of any religion spiritual experiences are not empirical evidences. Science CAN NOT impose any God, and still be Science. It doesn't care if you're Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Zoroastrian, Mormon, whatever. Religions have a built in bias towards whatever God(s) are invoked. Even Moroni's challenge presupposes a Mormon God.

I suspect that you are aware that peer review is not all that it is cracked up to be. The ten to fifty year test is more reliable, but nobody wants to wait that long.

Every scientific experiment is based on assumptions. While those assumptions may be basic and universally accepted, they are assumptions that they are valid for this particular experiment. Now it is possible to reject those assumptions, but where does that leave you? You make up your own test without those assumptions.

Now, making the assumption that if there is a God, he will answer my prayer, is a basic assumption. If one is unwilling to make that assumption, that is ok. You then make up your own test -- you make clever arguments, for example. Finally, is the person willing to wait for that answer, under God's own timeline. Waiting patiently (Alma 32) is part of the test.

Edited January 29, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

I guess if you keep repeating yourself, it will magically become true.

Just curious, have you done any research in any of the social studies? I have a master degree, and was a research assistant. While your example of IQ scores follow the bell curve, human behaviour in real time is not similar to movement of iron filings. Humans have free choice, whilst iron filings are influenced by known laws. You tell people the dangers of smoking, and some choose to stop while others choose to continue despite the effects on their bodies.

Archeology, as a study of human behaviour, is dissimilar to watching iron filings. It is not predictive in the same way as physics and chemistry. While we can apply general concepts in the social sciences, and human behaviour, we do not find the predictability that we find in the hard sciences. The political processes, for example, may have trends, but could we have predicted the course of politics even over a few years, I am aware that uncertainty is found in human behaviour, compared to the movement iron filings.

But let us agree to disagree, since I suspect that you will continue your chant.

And telling a mistruth is still a mistruth no matter how often it is told.

Yes I have.

I am very specific in my example for a reason. The curve is exactly the same for both. I've never claimed that there are not fewer variables in the Iron filings experiment. Just the opposite.

There is a branch of psychology that posits that human reactions are determinist. B.F.Skinner being the father of Determinism. See Operant Conditioning. Also see Palov's Dogs for Conditioned Response. Myself; I am a follower of William Glasser's Reality Therapy

The nicotine in tobacco is a known additive substance. It just adds another variable in plotting smoking rates over time in populations.

I'm always in favor of disagreeing agreeably.

[thesometimesaint]

I suspect that you are aware that peer review is not all that it is cracked up to be. The ten to fifty year test is more reliable, but nobody wants to wait that long.

Every scientific experiment is based on assumptions. While those assumptions may be basic and universally accepted, they are assumptions that they are valid for this particular experiment. Now it is possible to reject those assumptions, but where does that leave you? You make up your own test without those assumptions.

Now, making the assumption that if there is a God, he will answer my prayer, is a basic assumption. If one is unwilling to make that assumption, that is ok. You then make up your own test -- you make clever arguments, for example. Finally, is the person willing to wait for that answer, under God's own timeline. Waiting patiently (Alma 32) is part of the test.

The basic assumption of all science is that the universe is natural, observable, and measurable. The Supernatural no matter how meaningful to as individuals is not natural, observable, or measurable to science.

Which God(s) would that be that scientists have to patiently wait for? Christianity is still waiting after some 2000 years for their God to return. The Hindu Gods are still there and no Hindu is waiting for their return.

[mfbukowski]

No matter how personally valuable to you or me or anyone of any religion spiritual experiences are not empirical evidences. Science CAN NOT impose any God, and still be Science. It doesn't care if you're Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Zoroastrian, Mormon, whatever. Religions have a built in bias towards whatever God(s) are invoked. Even Moroni's challenge presupposes a Mormon God.

And so of course you have shown convincingly that science begs the question. It cannot bring up God and still be science.

And you say religions are biased?

So it's nice to know we agree. Science and religion have nothing to do with each other. I have been saying that for years on this board. The sooner we dispose of the notion that they are speaking about similar things, the better off we all will be, both theists and atheists.

It's like talking baseball and guacamole recipes. Nothing much to do with each other.

[Gervin]

It's like talking baseball and guacamole recipes. Nothing much to do with each other.

Really?

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Field_of_Dreams_Guacamole

[cdowis]

The basic assumption of all science is that the universe is natural, observable, and measurable. The Supernatural no matter how meaningful to as individuals is not natural, observable, or measurable to science.

It appears that your knowledge of LDS religion is very scant. Just curious, do you consider the universe of quantum mechanics as natural, obsrvable and measurable? Is it possible that some may see it under the lable as "supernatural" (e.g. FTL communication with entangled particles).

You do not understand the Mormon religion because we believe that the Divine is natural, observable, and measurable. Like the universe of quantum mechanics, it takes special tools and circumstances, but we have those who have made those observations.

I think you are over your depth.

Which God(s) would that be that scientists have to patiently wait for? Christianity is still waiting after some 2000 years for their God to return. The Hindu Gods are still there and no Hindu is waiting for their return.

We have been waiting for the end of the solar system for a very long time, but just be patient. As to "which God", that is something between you and Deity, that you must find out for yourself. That is one of the great challanges of "what is the purpose of life" which, I believe, science has failed to identify. What scientific experiments would you suggest for that question? We have already given you our answer.

Edited January 29, 2013 by cdowis

[mfbukowski]

Really?

http://en.wikibooks....reams_Guacamole

Dang.

I guess there's an exception to everything! But that kind of proves the point I guess!

[mfbukowski]

You do not understand the Mormon religion because we believe that the Divine is natural, observable, and measurable.

In theory, yes. In practice (so far) not so much.

[Rob Osborn]

The basic assumption of all science is that the universe is natural, observable, and measurable. The Supernatural no matter how meaningful to as individuals is not natural, observable, or measurable to science.

Which God(s) would that be that scientists have to patiently wait for? Christianity is still waiting after some 2000 years for their God to return. The Hindu Gods are still there and no Hindu is waiting for their return.

I think it needs some clarification. You use this "supernatural" as if its some magical entity or power that defies the laws of nature and science. I dont believe in the supernatural, neither does my religion. I believe in Creator that obeys all laws in nature. What we directly observe in nature is intelligent processes that reproduce design and purpose. Nature, by itself cannot explain the reality of design and purpose in nature. The inference to design by a Creator in nature is without doubt. NO scientific experiment shows complexity arising without intelligent design to begin with. We measure and test the intelligent design process in every facet of science. By this direct inference, we prove there is a God day in day out over and over in scientific observations. We shouldn't force ourselves to be so blind and ignorant of this plain truth.

[cdowis]

thesometimesaint,

"Supernatural"

In The New Yorker magazine there was a cartoon showing of two ants on a kitchen table. The caption "Ant scientists discussing the wonders of the universe."

you will have to look elsewhere to find someone who is to impressed with your arguments -->> you are over your head here.

But I do look forward to your response. Again, perhaps you can tell us whether FTL communication between entangled particles is something "supernatural", or is it just something that we do not understand. We will understand if you have no response.

Edited January 30, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Supernatural by definition means pertaining to God.

To the best of our knowledge ants are incapable of discussing much of anything let alone the wonders of the universe. Their means of communication appears to be limited to scent.

It is hardly my responsibility that you refuse to understand simple English and math.

FTL communication between entangled particles is not well understood. Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as buckyballs,^[1][2] and even small diamonds^[3][4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,^[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc.

Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time^[6] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances.^[7]In Quantum entanglement, part of the transfer happens instantaneously. ^[8] Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there's no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles. ^[9]

This behavior is consistent with quantum-mechanical theory, has been demonstrated experimentally, and it is accepted by the physics community.^{[citation needed]} However there is some debate^[10] about whether a possible classical underlying mechanism could explain why this correlation occurs instantaneously even when the separation distance is large. The difference in opinion derives from espousal of various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox^[11] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.^[12][13] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,^[14] and recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.

We will understand if your apology isn't forth coming.

Edited January 30, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

Supernatural by definition means pertaining to God.

To the best of our knowledge ants are incapable of discussing much of anything let alone the wonders of the universe. Their means of communication appears to be limited to scent.

It is hardly my responsibility that you refuse to understand simple English and math.

FTL communication between entangled particles is not well understood. Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as buckyballs,^[1][2] and even small diamonds^[3][4] interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position,^[5] momentum, spin, polarization, etc.

Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time^[6] be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances.^[7]In Quantum entanglement, part of the transfer happens instantaneously. ^[8] Repeated experiments have verified that this works even when the measurements are performed more quickly than light could travel between the sites of measurement: there's no slower-than-light influence that can pass between the entangled particles. ^[9]

This behavior is consistent with quantum-mechanical theory, has been demonstrated experimentally, and it is accepted by the physics community.^{[citation needed]} However there is some debate^[10] about whether a possible classical underlying mechanism could explain why this correlation occurs instantaneously even when the separation distance is large. The difference in opinion derives from espousal of various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Research into quantum entanglement was initiated by a 1935 paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen describing the EPR paradox^[11] and several papers by Erwin Schrödinger shortly thereafter.^[12][13] Although these first studies focused on the counterintuitive properties of entanglement, with the aim of criticizing quantum mechanics, eventually entanglement was verified experimentally,^[14] and recognized as a valid, fundamental feature of quantum mechanics. The focus of the research has now changed to its utilization as a resource for communication and computation.

We will understand if your apology isn't forth coming.

This is obviously a wikipedia quote- you should at least provide a link or mention it is a quote. I thought you actually wrote this until I saw the "Citation needed" links

[thesometimesaint]

I think it needs some clarification. You use this "supernatural" as if its some magical entity or power that defies the laws of nature and science. I dont believe in the supernatural, neither does my religion. I believe in Creator that obeys all laws in nature. What we directly observe in nature is intelligent processes that reproduce design and purpose. Nature, by itself cannot explain the reality of design and purpose in nature. The inference to design by a Creator in nature is without doubt. NO scientific experiment shows complexity arising without intelligent design to begin with. We measure and test the intelligent design process in every facet of science. By this direct inference, we prove there is a God day in day out over and over in scientific observations. We shouldn't force ourselves to be so blind and ignorant of this plain truth.

The imposition of any God, even one whom follows natures law, in science is an unnecessary addition. See the Law of Parsimony.

Intelligent Design has been thoroughly debunked.

[Rob Osborn]

The imposition of any God, even one whom follows natures law, in science is an unnecessary addition. See the Law of Parsimony.

Intelligent Design has been thoroughly debunked.

Oh, it has? I was unaware of this debunking. To think, we are ourselves intelligent designs and we are hardly debunked. So how does one get around such laws as biogenesis? Just curios because last time I checked this law seems pretty darn hard to go around.

[cdowis]

You want an apology.

OK, I apologize for posting to you, and asking you questions. You are unable to comprehend the allegory of the ant scientists, and I do not understand your "clear English", we have no common ground for communication.

You can now have the last word.

Edited January 30, 2013 by cdowis

[BCSpace]

No; the Scriptures aren't irrelevant. But your interpretation of them is.

I'm curious, how do you define "temporal" then?

LDS doctrine seems to throw a wrench in this area. Regarding D&C 77:6 it says:

D&C 77:6–7. Why Was the Book Sealed That John Saw?

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

It appears that the physical act of creation is being placed where we usually think of the spiritual. Perhaps this is just a way of saying that we need not be concerned with the creative process and what happened before as it relates to our salvation.

[Rob Osborn]

LDS doctrine seems to throw a wrench in this area. Regarding D&C 77:6 it says:

It appears that the physical act of creation is being placed where we usually think of the spiritual. Perhaps this is just a way of saying that we need not be concerned with the creative process and what happened before as it relates to our salvation.

Yes, but the temporal age of the earth relates specifically to how long life has been dying on the earth. According to this scrpture, life has only been dying on the earth for around 6,000 years.

[cdowis]

Yes, but the temporal age of the earth relates specifically to how long life has been dying on the earth. According to this scrpture, life has only been dying on the earth for around 6,000 years.

Perhaps you can give us that specific citation out of the scriptures.

I think that is just another assumption like the location of the Hill Cumorah , but perhaps you can give us scriptures that say utterwise. I personally think that death was present during the creation process, and it was suspended (removed) on the sixth day in the Garden of Eden. But that's just me.

Edited January 31, 2013 by cdowis

[Rob Osborn]

Perhaps you can give us that specific citation out of the scriptures.

I think that is just another assumption like the location of the Hill Cumorah , but perhaps you can give us scriptures that say utterwise. I personally think that death was present during the creation process, and it was suspended (removed) on the sixth day in the Garden of Eden. But that's just me.

D&C77:6

I personally dont believe that life was placed on the earth until the seventh day and that Adam was the first living form before any of the animals.