Evolution And Entropy, Anybody Know F. Kent Nielsen

[thesometimesaint]

Abiogenesis is the study of how life first originated on this planet. Evolution doesn't concern itself with Abiogensis.

To date we haven't been able to form life in the test tube, but we have created the necessary RNA.

http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/

Edited May 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

Evolution club rules.

1. There are no flaws in the theory of evolution.

2. Do not talk about flaws in the theory of evolution.

3. DO NOT talk about flaws in the theory of evolution regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

4. Any other questions, refer to rule #1.

You are SO wrong. The theory of evolution is a theory and as such all you need to do is find, for example, one little skeletal fossil that is out of place. Find a confirmed rabbit skeleton mixed in amongst Cambrian fossils and evolution falls apart. Good luck with your search.

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed. Facts in science aren't as useful as theories. IE; Things fall down is a simple fact, the explanation of that fact is the theory of gravity.

When young earthers come up with a fully modern human skeleton in a previous undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. Then I'll listen.

[ERayR]

Agreed. Facts in science aren't as useful as theories. IE; Things fall down is a simple fact, the explanation of that fact is the theory of gravity.

When young earthers come up with a fully modern human skeleton in a previous undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. Then I'll listen.

Color me skeptical. If past experience with out of place things is any indicator it will first be dismissed then those that bring it up will be ridiculed.

NOTE NOTE NOTE: This is not an endorsement of young earth claims. NOTE NOTE NOTE

Edited May 20, 2013 by ERayR

[mfbukowski]

Color me skeptical. If past experience with out of place things is any indicator it will first be dismissed then those that bring it up will be ridiculed.

NOTE NOTE NOTE: This is not an endorsement of young earth claims. NOTE NOTE NOTE

Agreed- the discoverer would be labeled a fraud and probably ostracized.

[bcuzbcuz]

Color me skeptical. If past experience with out of place things is any indicator it will first be dismissed then those that bring it up will be ridiculed.

NOTE NOTE NOTE: This is not an endorsement of young earth claims. NOTE NOTE NOTE

I understand your skepticism, but out of place items like bowls and pieces of metal stuck in coal is not the same as skeletal fossils being mixed up in the fossil order. And such fossil discoveries will not be welcomed straight off. Many careers exist around a well defined fossil record with Pre-Cambrian fossils only containing pre-columbian fossils, etc. But a fossil, completely out of place, like someone drowned in Noah's flood, and the bones resting among dinosaurs would raise a huge storm. Evolutionary theory would have to be totally revamped.

[Rivers]

Wouldn't something like that simply be disregarded as an anomaly?

[ERayR]

Wouldn't something like that simply be disregarded as an anomaly?

YES That is exactly what is happening to artifacts today, by the hundreds.

[Steve Thompson]

Did he teach physics courses or was he always focused on history of science (I can't find any reference to any courses besides history and philosophy)? Just curious now that I've spent sometime trying to find out...

Yes, he taught physics courses. I took physics 122 from him in 1977. I also took the "science and religion" course from him in the summer of 1978. He was a much better teacher of the history of science than he was of physics. I'm sorry to hear he is in ill health.

[mfbukowski]

It's like instances of faith healing.

If you call them the "placebo effect" they are perfectly acceptable as scientifically recognized phenomenon. They are still unexplained, but suddenly they are acceptable. Calling them "miracles" is totally out, because that is religious terminology.

Go figure.

Edited May 20, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Far be it from me to question a BYU professor's conclusions. But evolution doesn't violate the law of entropy. Basically because this earth isn't a closed system. We are constantly receiving heat energy from our sun.

................................

It isn't enough to provide an energy source, whether a system is open or closed, but rather the supposed mechanism by which energy can somehow cause the spontaneous generation of life, or effect actual evolutionary change from one species to another. Such a mechanism is unknown, and we have never been able to cause the spontaneous generation of life.

Now, if you inject intelligence into the equation, you may have a chance of creating synthetic life, and of doing genetic engineering. The notion is called "intelligent design." The godlike power we have been developing since abandoning the Garden of Eden.

[Robert F. Smith]

Abiogenesis is the study of how life first originated on this planet. Evolution doesn't concern itself with Abiogensis.

Somehow, sometime, we have had this conversation before.

Anyhow, strictly speaking, you are correct. However, those touting evolution like to mix the two concepts in one: Archebiosis and an evolutionary sequence from that point on.

To date we haven't been able to form life in the test tube, but we have created the necessary RNA.

http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/ .

Correct again, thus making the point that intelligent design (ID) is alive and well on planet Earth. We will create life, probably in this century. Humans will then endeavor to do genetic engineering with their newly designed simulacrum. It'll be a brave new world.

[Alvino]

It's like instances of faith healing.

If you call them the "placebo effect" they are perfectly acceptable as scientifically recognized phenomenon. They are still unexplained, but suddenly they are acceptable. Calling them "miracles" is totally out, because that is religious terminology.

Go figure.

That's because "miracle" implies a particular sort of cause intervened (God, angles, etc) while "placebo" doesn't.

[Alvino]

It isn't enough to provide an energy source, whether a system is open or closed, but rather the supposed mechanism by which energy can somehow cause the spontaneous generation of life, or effect actual evolutionary change from one species to another. Such a mechanism is unknown, and we have never been able to cause the spontaneous generation of life.

I think it's a mistake to look for a "spontaneous generation of life". Viruses are much simpler than cells and they barely fit what we would think of as 'life'.

Now, if you inject intelligence into the equation, you may have a chance of creating synthetic life, and of doing genetic engineering. The notion is called "intelligent design." The godlike power we have been developing since abandoning the Garden of Eden.

I propose we inject something even simpler into the equation instead of intelligence: a few living, functioning cells. That's silly and begs the question of how life arose, but so does the intelligence injection and a few living cells is much more probable than intelligent beings.

[bcuzbcuz]

Wouldn't something like that simply be disregarded as an anomaly?

Once ia an anomaly, twice is coincidence, thrice is a pattern. How many people died during Noah's flood? How many animals have been found as fossils that supposedly died during same flood? If anyone found a fossilized human amongst properly dated fossils, more than a few eyebrows would be raised.

[bcuzbcuz]

YES That is exactly what is happening to artifacts today, by the hundreds.

Merely saying something doesn't make it true. The artifacts you have talked about, to date, don't exactly fall within the verified occurrences category.

[ERayR]

Merely saying something doesn't make it true. The artifacts you have talked about, to date, don't exactly fall within the verified occurrences category.

Exhibit #__

[SeattleGrunge]

So, back to the OP....anybody know professor Nielsen well enough and feel motivated enough to contact him to:

1-see if he still feels the same

2-if so, has he heard the arguments against his position

3-if so, does he still stand by his article

4-if so, why

5-if not, would he be willing to write or speak about it

....?

[thesometimesaint]

Color me skeptical. If past experience with out of place things is any indicator it will first be dismissed then those that bring it up will be ridiculed.

NOTE NOTE NOTE: This is not an endorsement of young earth claims. NOTE NOTE NOTE

All that is necessary is come up with a satisfactory theory that takes into account all that is known about the subject in question. That is how science works.

The Giordano Bruno's of the world are few and far between

How is the claim that these out of place manufactured artifacts NOT a claim that the earth is young? Please explain.

Edited May 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

All that is necessary is come up with a satisfactory theory that takes into account all that is known about the subject in question. That is how science works.

The Giordano Bruno's of the world are few and far between

How is the claim that these out of place manufactured artifacts NOT a claim that the earth is young? Please explain.

Because, if you would take the time to look at it you would find that at least some of them are found in coal seem that are one hundred million to three hundred million years old.

This is an example of what I a talking about. Not even taking time to look at the information in the links given.

[mfbukowski]

So, back to the OP....anybody know professor Nielsen well enough and feel motivated enough to contact him to:

1-see if he still feels the same

2-if so, has he heard the arguments against his position

3-if so, does he still stand by his article

4-if so, why

5-if not, would he be willing to write or speak about it

....?

Why is this so important to you?

I honestly don't mean to be coarse, and I wish him well, but in a sense, who cares what he thinks now? He is one voice among many on both sides of the issue- why is this individual so important to you?

[SeattleGrunge]

Some statements carry such significance that they continue to significantly promote incorrect doctrinal beliefs. BRM and JFS aren't around to counter the statements they made. In my experience, this is one of the next most frequently cited arguments against evolution by LDS's. Evolution is also IMHO the most significant scientific subject that people unnecessarily lose their testimony over. Of all the subjects where science and LDS doctrine (or assumed doctrine) clash, it is so polar in that the science is so powerful and the belief against it is so unnecessary and incorrect. I've seen quite a few people start their road to disaffection on this topic. Getting a statement from the professor against his previous article in the Ensign would be helpful and only second to someone stating the opposite in the Ensign or conference (which I don't have any power to influence or request). I tried to reach out to him myself, but didn't find any contacts. I would hope that someone else could. If so, I think it could 1-do a lot to stop this erroneous belief, 2-help keep many from having their faith shaken.

[thesometimesaint]

Because, if you would take the time to look at it you would find that at least some of them are found in coal seem that are one hundred million to three hundred million years old.

This is an example of what I a talking about. Not even taking time to look at the information in the links given.

I looked at your links. There are only two real possibilities. One is that scientists are lying, that coal isn't really hundred's of millions years old. Or that by some means clearly man made manufactured objects were placed in that coal.

[ERayR]

Some statements carry such significance that they continue to significantly promote incorrect doctrinal beliefs. BRM and JFS aren't around to counter the statements they made. In my experience, this is one of the next most frequently cited arguments against evolution by LDS's. Evolution is also IMHO the most significant scientific subject that people unnecessarily lose their testimony over. Of all the subjects where science and LDS doctrine (or assumed doctrine) clash, it is so polar in that the science is so powerful and the belief against it is so unnecessary and incorrect. I've seen quite a few people start their road to disaffection on this topic. Getting a statement from the professor against his previous article in the Ensign would be helpful and only second to someone stating the opposite in the Ensign or conference (which I don't have any power to influence or request). I tried to reach out to him myself, but didn't find any contacts. I would hope that someone else could. If so, I think it could 1-do a lot to stop this erroneous belief, 2-help keep many from having their faith shaken.

Evolution. That one word encompasses so much some true, some questionable and some not true. To say that opposition to parts of this is in error is in itself in error. Why do you think it is an all or nothing proposition? As pointed out there are anomalous artifacts that can not be fit into an all or nothing proposition which are ignored or rejected by the adherents of evolution.

thesometimessaint has posted that "All that is necessary is come up with a satisfactory theory that takes into account all that is known about the subject in question". Alright evolution proponents come up with a theory that accounts for these anomalies.

[SeattleGrunge]

Evolution. That one word encompasses so much some true, some questionable and some not true. To say that opposition to parts of this is in error is in itself in error. Why do you think it is an all or nothing proposition? As pointed out there are anomalous artifacts that can not be fit into an all or nothing proposition which are ignored or rejected by the adherents of evolution.

thesometimessaint has posted that "All that is necessary is come up with a satisfactory theory that takes into account all that is known about the subject in question". Alright evolution proponents come up with a theory that accounts for these anomalies.

To clarify, I'm saying that I am in opposition to the blanket statement that any belief in evolution is against the church's official position and there is no room for a middle ground. Many Saints that I deal with feel that way, and many times they cite that article as proof that their position is correct.