Adam And The Apes

[thesometimesaint]

But if God made the laws, then isn't that controlling every atom all the time?  Not just the origin of life, but the origin of the fine tuned laws of the universe, I think that is where you can start seeing God...

 

Can something exist before the rules for its existence exist.

[thesometimesaint]

 

What group of peer reviewed and accepted scientists agree with panspermia though?

 

See my previous suggestion on becoming familiar with logical flaws.  

 

Anyway, do Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe count?

 

I find it also of equal interest that no Darwinian evolutionist believes it took a Creator for life to start on this planet.

 

Darwin?  Perhaps you could do a CFR on his views of a creator.

 

The issue really comes down to whether or not God should be accepted into science. Obviously, there are several posters here who believe that any mention of God in science to either explain something or in reference to something in science should be absolutely forbidden! What happens if we truly come to find out that it was God who transported life here?

 

Panspermia is neutral on that subject, as I understand it.  Some lean towards comets as the means of transport.

 

Does this then mean its no longer science? If we can come to accept that science can acknowledge God then perhaps we can have a more complete discussion on important topics like where we came from, where our species is going, and our relationship of intelligence with other creations.

 

Where exactly did I mention God in my post?

 

 

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

[thesometimesaint]

Science, whether it wants to or not, whether it is aware of it or not, deals with the handiwork of God when it tries to understand the natural world. Many of the early scientists knew that . I present this quote :

After the knowledge of, and obedience to, the will of God, the next aim must be to know something of His attributes of wisdom, power and goodness as evidenced by His handiwork.... It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed. — James Prescott Joule (father of thermodynamics,) address to the British Association, 1873 - See more at: http://crev.info/2014/01/biomimetics-stories-showcase-natural-designs/#sthash.fuxj2gZb.dpuf

 

Not exactly my idea of a science lab.

[mfbukowski]

So in this particular instance, science was very much dealing with religion. This is only one of a great many scriptural instances of science intersecting with religion in a very real way. I'm sure you'd never get the Nephites who witnesses this miracle with their five senses to say that what they observed wasn't real and that their method for discerning the miracle wasn't scientific.       

I am sure you are right, but unfortunately their testimony is not replicable so it is not scientific.

 

I have had my own experiences with MY five senses which tell me that the gospel is true- and those experiences are no different than the Nephites of old.  But they are not science.

 

For science to be science, the observations must be REPLICABLE.  Anyone must be able to go out and perform the experiment at ANY TIME.  Water will boil at 212 degrees if you do the experiment or if I do it.

 

One does not have to ask God or have a humble heart seeking for guidance to test the boiling point of water.  It is a REPLICABLE EXPERIMENT.

 

Unfortunately we have to walk by faith- the savior is not here to make food from nothing for each of us to see with our own eyes.

 

Technically what we have here is a "story" which a scientist might think was made up, or legendary or a fraudulent account concocted by Joseph Smith.  It is not possible to verify except by the spirit, in our own hearts, if we are willing to hear the word of the lord.

 

Unfortunately not all are willing.

[mfbukowski]

Never thought of it as truism, although I think Sheldrake argument was a bit more than that, in that he cited the fact that scientists had struggle for years to get certain crystals to form, but once they formed in one lab they started forming in labs all over the world without the possibility of contamination.

That's "morphic resonance" which I think is very interesting and is not a tautology by any means.

 

There are of course also his other classic experiments- the dog who knows you are coming home well before you arrive, people knowing when someone is looking at them, and the supposed fact that complex crossword puzzles can be shown to become statistically "easier" to do as more people do them.

 

The problem is that these are all very difficult to verify by experimental means in a lab, but have fascinating implications for the Mormon concept of "spirit matter".

[thesometimesaint]

I am sure you are right, but unfortunately their testimony is not replicable so it is not scientific.

 

I have had my own experiences with MY five senses which tell me that the gospel is true- and those experiences are no different than the Nephites of old.  But they are not science.

 

For science to be science, the observations must be REPLICABLE.  Anyone must be able to go out and perform the experiment at ANY TIME.  Water will boil at 212 degrees if you do the experiment or if I do it.

 

One does not have to ask God or have a humble heart seeking for guidance to test the boiling point of water.  It is a REPLICABLE EXPERIMENT.

 

Unfortunately we have to walk by faith- the savior is not here to make food from nothing for each of us to see with our own eyes.

 

Technically what we have here is a "story" which a scientist might think was made up, or legendary or a fraudulent account concocted by Joseph Smith.  It is not possible to verify except by the spirit, in our own hearts, if we are willing to hear the word of the lord.

 

Unfortunately not all are willing.

 

Even if those scientists were to willing to,and did, accept the word of the Lord. It would have no effect on science. IE; Effect the boiling point of water.

[mfbukowski]

Well, God did not make the laws. They existed before he was God. But the point is, there is a difference between setting something in motion and controlling every movement. Mortal organisms develop through evolution. At least this is the method our God used. 

Please tell me how we verify these statements.

 

They are just as much religion as anything else.  Who measured the laws before God existed?  Where is the data for what there was before it was created/organized?

 

I happen to believe these things also, but I acknowledge that these beliefs have no verification and are really nothing more than the best story we can make up with the data we have.  It helps to qualify your statements.

[mfbukowski]

We know how evolution works because it can be observed. 

Where has it been observed, that an organism has evolved in a laboratory?

[mfbukowski]

I guess I just have two examples for you:

 

1) Do you believe genetic material experiences mutation.

 

2) Do you believe that certain physical traits are more suited for particular environments?

Bravo!

Really that is all there is to evolution:  The environment changes.  What survives, survives.  Period.

[mfbukowski]

Can something exist before the rules for its existence exist.

And can a law exist before someone calls it one?  If a tree falls in the forest before anyone exists, is there a "law" of gravity?

[thesometimesaint]

Where has it been observed, that an organism has evolved in a laboratory?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UtGdqbTgy_c

[thesometimesaint]

And can a law exist before someone calls it one?  If a tree falls in the forest before anyone exists, is there a "law" of gravity?

 

Technically no. Laws are just man made rules for how things operate. It is a bit like asking did gravity exist before the Big Bang. The rules governing gravity existed without gravity actually existing. Mind blowing isn't it?

 

[mfbukowski]

Technically no. Laws are just man made rules for how things operate. It is a bit like asking did gravity exist before the Big Bang. The rules governing gravity existed without gravity actually existing. Mind blowing isn't it?

 

Not really, it's what I have been saying forever, and before me, most of the 20th century philosophers I stole the idea from.

 

You will really "get" it when you realize that not even the "rules" can be said to "exist" before they were defined by people.  The "rules governing gravity" are no different than gravity itself when you think about it.  "Gravity"= "Rules of gravity".

 

But another step is to realize that defining these rules is to create them.  That is what men do.  And God being a man, means that all is "Manmade"

 

Now THAT is mind blowing.

Edited January 11, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UtGdqbTgy_c

Great stuff- thanks for that- very interesting!

[halconero]

I have taken classes in engineering, business, welding and none of those classes ever mentioned the origins of life. Thats 0%. The point still stands that you cannot divorce the principle of lifes origins from evolutionary biology.

Obviously. As you acknowledge, those classes have nothing to do with the biological functions.

My major has to do with human biology. Their is a concern with the biological origins of life, but such concerns do not necessarily need to be addressed through evolution.

Evolutionary theory, and the biological origins of life are related fields, but still subsets of a larger field: Biology.

For example: Aerospace engineering and the history of the combustible engine are related, but you can still go through a whole course on the former with little knowledge on the later. Evolutionary theory does not need to rest on the origins of the biological life to test and observe on going process.

Furthermore, besides finches and moths, there are examples of macroevolution that is observable in both microorganisms and ring species.

[thesometimesaint]

Not really, it's what I have been saying forever, and before me, most of the 20th century philosophers I stole the idea from.

 

You will really "get" it when you realize that not even the "rules" can be said to "exist" before they were defined by people.  The "rules governing gravity" are no different than gravity itself when you think about it.  "Gravity"= "Rules of gravity".

 

But another step is to realize that defining these rules is to create them.  That is what men do.  And God being a man, means that all is "Manmade"

 

Now THAT is mind blowing.

 

I'm not so quite sure. We humans do use words to describe a phenomenon. I'm not convinced yet that the phenomenon wouldn't exist without the words to describe it.

[Rob Osborn]

There is no scientific proof of a global flood. Any appeal to any God or Godlike force is by definition not science.

 

See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

I would like to modify your statement. I think it should read-

" The way I interpret the evidence, I see is no scientific proof of a global flood. Any appeal to any God or Godlike force, is in my opinion, not science."

We should be careful in how we define what is and what is not science. Observations, tests, and all manner of documentation of the geologic layers including eye witness accounts can be attributed to the scientific process or scientific understanding of such evidences. Opinions, ideas, etc, can all be part of that scientific process and part of our scientific understanding of the observable evidence. But to come right out and say that only one opinion- one view is acceptable as science and nothing else can be considered science is just plain bad for science itself. Let's put some facts in place here in relation to the geologic column-

We can see evidence of rapid deposits and layer building in catastrophic portions all over the world

We see evidence that every major mountain chain in the world has been upthrust from below sea level having come up from underwater

We see massive evidence of fast burial of billions of once living things from all over the world

We see massive evidence of catastrophic erosive events of bodies of water that have since been removed from the upthrust topography all over the world

There is consensus from the geologists that pretty much all land was under water in the past and that upthrust of lands shows this fact in its many geologic layers no visible

What this basically comes down to is trying to define "when" exactly these events took place. Its not that there is no lack of evidence of a massive catastrophic set of events in the past, its that there is a lack of agreement on what happened and how long those processes took.

[katherine the great]

 That famous paper in Science (10/18/13) showcased more variation within the Denisovan skulls than between the other skulls long thought to be distinct species of Homo. 

 

Okay, I just read this.  I agree with almost everything your post said except for this.  We have no Denisovan skulls.  In fact the only thing we have from this enigmatic hominid is part of a finger bone, a couple of teeth and maybe part of a toe.  DNA was successfully extracted from (I think) the finger but we really don't know anything about the morphology of their skulls and certainly not about the intraspecies variation of their skulls.

[Freedom]

Where has it been observed, that an organism has evolved in a laboratory?

Why look at a laboratory, why not  just look at your own family? 

[cinepro]

In the past, I've been interested in why LDS scholars who believe in a limited or mythical flood don't get something published in the Ensign explaining to other LDS why such a theory is rational and still compatible with LDS doctrine (as they insist it is).  My view is that such a theory isn't compatible with official LDS doctrine (which has been stated many times over the years).

 

I recently came across an interesting article from the Fall 2007 issue of Dialogue Magazine.  It is an LDS look at these alternate theories, and in the footnote we are told the following:

 

 

 

1. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This is the article mentioned at the beginning of Duane Jeffery, A Noahs Flood:ModernScholarship and Mormon Tradition, Sunstone,Issue 136 (October 2004): 27. He describes two Brigham Young University faculty members who wrote the article and submitted it toBYU Studies. After some three years and about five major revisions to suit the editor, BYU Studies essentially accepted the article. After yet another review by another panel, the article was rejected.

page 103

 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V40N03.pdf

 

 

So, while the explanations and arguments for how such alternate theories might be compatible with LDS doctrines are interesting and entertaining, at this point in time, I think you're fooling yourself if you think so.  If faithful LDS scholars couldn't even get an article published in BYU Studies, that's a really bad sign.

Edited January 12, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

I would like to modify your statement. I think it should read-

" The way I interpret the evidence, I see is no scientific proof of a global flood. Any appeal to any God or Godlike force, is in my opinion, not science."

We should be careful in how we define what is and what is not science. Observations, tests, and all manner of documentation of the geologic layers including eye witness accounts can be attributed to the scientific process or scientific understanding of such evidences. Opinions, ideas, etc, can all be part of that scientific process and part of our scientific understanding of the observable evidence. But to come right out and say that only one opinion- one view is acceptable as science and nothing else can be considered science is just plain bad for science itself. Let's put some facts in place here in relation to the geologic column-

We can see evidence of rapid deposits and layer building in catastrophic portions all over the world

We see evidence that every major mountain chain in the world has been upthrust from below sea level having come up from underwater

We see massive evidence of fast burial of billions of once living things from all over the world

We see massive evidence of catastrophic erosive events of bodies of water that have since been removed from the upthrust topography all over the world

There is consensus from the geologists that pretty much all land was under water in the past and that upthrust of lands shows this fact in its many geologic layers no visible

What this basically comes down to is trying to define "when" exactly these events took place. Its not that there is no lack of evidence of a massive catastrophic set of events in the past, its that there is a lack of agreement on what happened and how long those processes took.

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

Fortunately it isn't just my interpretation of what science is. I have about 2000 years of recorded human history behind it.

 

You are entitled to have your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

No we don't see rapid deposits all over the world. We do see rapid deposits in areas like river estuaries. We see erosion and deposition all over the world.

Upthrust is a well established scientific fact. So is subsidence.

No we don't see fast, on human time scales, burial all over the world. IE; The coal deposits took millions of years to form, and even those are not all over the world.

Floods no matter how catastrophic are regional.

Yes we all agree that at one time the entire earth was covered with water(ice). However those times are far older than any member of the human species(IE;Noah).

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

 

I'll make it very simple for you. You want to disprove evolution?  Great; more power to you. Here is how you do it, and have science accept it. It takes no special skill or training. Get a shovel and dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. Publish your find for all to see it, and evaluate it. Real scientists have been trying to do just that for about 150 years now, and not one has succeeded. Who knows maybe you'll be the  first.

 

I'll give you an example. Let's say you're not feeling well for some unknown reason. You go to the doctor. He does some tests(experiments). He tells you you have the flu. You disagree and claim it is for some unknown reason. You go to doctor after doctor with the same complaint. After going to some 50,000 doctors telling you that you have the flu, you finally find one that agrees that it is for some unknown reason. Which is more likely the case. That it is that you have the flu, or it is for some unknown reason?

[thesometimesaint]

In the past, I've been interested in why LDS scholars who believe in a limited or mythical flood don't get something published in the Ensign explaining to other LDS why such a theory is rational and still compatible with LDS doctrine (as they insist it is).  My view is that such a theory isn't compatible with official LDS doctrine (which has been stated many times over the years).

 

I recently came across an interesting article from the Fall 2007 issue of Dialogue Magazine.  It is an LDS look at these alternate theories, and in the footnote we are told the following:

 

 

 

 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/issues/V40N03.pdf

 

 

So, while the explanations and arguments for how such alternate theories might be compatible with LDS doctrines are interesting and entertaining, at this point in time, I think you're fooling yourself if you think so.  If faithful LDS scholars couldn't even get an article published in BYU Studies, that's a really bad sig

 

IIRC Hugh Nibley argued for a limited flood, and said so in the his articles published in the Improvement Era.

[strappinglad]

Okay, I just read this.  I agree with almost everything your post said except for this.  We have no Denisovan skulls.  In fact the only thing we have from this enigmatic hominid is part of a finger bone, a couple of teeth and maybe part of a toe.  DNA was successfully extracted from (I think) the finger but we really don't know anything about the morphology of their skulls and certainly not about the intraspecies variation of their skulls.

So what were these ? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6156/326.abstract

[Rob Osborn]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

 

Fortunately it isn't just my interpretation of what science is. I have about 2000 years of recorded human history behind it.

 

You are entitled to have your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

No we don't see rapid deposits all over the world. We do see rapid deposits in areas like river estuaries. We see erosion and deposition all over the world.

Upthrust is a well established scientific fact. So is subsidence.

No we don't see fast, on human time scales, burial all over the world. IE; The coal deposits took millions of years to form, and even those are not all over the world.

Floods no matter how catastrophic are regional.

Yes we all agree that at one time the entire earth was covered with water(ice). However those times are far older than any member of the human species(IE;Noah).

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

 

I'll make it very simple for you. You want to disprove evolution?  Great; more power to you. Here is how you do it, and have science accept it. It takes no special skill or training. Get a shovel and dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. Publish your find for all to see it, and evaluate it. Real scientists have been trying to do just that for about 150 years now, and not one has succeeded. Who knows maybe you'll be the  first.

 

I'll give you an example. Let's say you're not feeling well for some unknown reason. You go to the doctor. He does some tests(experiments). He tells you you have the flu. You disagree and claim it is for some unknown reason. You go to doctor after doctor with the same complaint. After going to some 50,000 doctors telling you that you have the flu, you finally find one that agrees that it is for some unknown reason. Which is more likely the case. That it is that you have the flu, or it is for some unknown reason?

Its obviously in the "how" of interpretation of the evidence. I see evidence, I see the scientific tests and understanding of that pointing to catastrophic events in recorded history. I am entitled to view these facts in light of my understanding and they do stand as "facts" and "testimony" that the global flood was a real historical and catastrophic series of chain reacting events. Its ok if we have a different view- thats what makes us great. But do know this- even as you look at your theory as science, so do I look at the theory I believe in as science. You cant tell me its not fact or science just as I cant do the same with you- its all what we believe.

The basic flaw in your idea to me about disproving evolution is that it doesn't matter what our side comes up with- no matter what evidence we find your side will always discount it and discredit it in the name of your science. How they date dinosaur bones is as most know- circular reasoning- find the bone- decide on how old the bone is- then use that to age to determine the age of the rock. Thus, if they find any other fossils in this same rock they know how old it is. And, if they find an out of place fossil then some new rule is set up to explain it away. The problem is this- scientists in the past have indeed carbon dated dinosaur bones and have revealed results in the thousands, not millions, of years in age. But, your side of science has always discounted this evidence as tainted, unproven, and completely unacceptable. If that wasn't enough, scientists even found real organic carbon filled soft tissue inside dinosaur bones of the which absolutely should not be there if dinosaurs really did go extinct millions of years ago. For many years this evidence was discounted as tainted, as a fake, etc, until eventually new peer reviewed and accepted places redid the tests which showed the validity of the soft tissue indeed was real and from the dinosaur bones. So what did science have to say about this? Again, they just chalk it up as an anomaly, some even set out to rewrite the very rules of how carbon can be preserved, etc etc. They just can't ever accept the other side of this that perhaps dinosaurs are far less older than we think and that we need to desperately revise our dating methods in science because - they suck!

[thesometimesaint]

Its obviously in the "how" of interpretation of the evidence. I see evidence, I see the scientific tests and understanding of that pointing to catastrophic events in recorded history. I am entitled to view these facts in light of my understanding and they do stand as "facts" and "testimony" that the global flood was a real historical and catastrophic series of chain reacting events. Its ok if we have a different view- thats what makes us great. But do know this- even as you look at your theory as science, so do I look at the theory I believe in as science. You cant tell me its not fact or science just as I cant do the same with you- its all what we believe.

The basic flaw in your idea to me about disproving evolution is that it doesn't matter what our side comes up with- no matter what evidence we find your side will always discount it and discredit it in the name of your science. How they date dinosaur bones is as most know- circular reasoning- find the bone- decide on how old the bone is- then use that to age to determine the age of the rock. Thus, if they find any other fossils in this same rock they know how old it is. And, if they find an out of place fossil then some new rule is set up to explain it away. The problem is this- scientists in the past have indeed carbon dated dinosaur bones and have revealed results in the thousands, not millions, of years in age. But, your side of science has always discounted this evidence as tainted, unproven, and completely unacceptable. If that wasn't enough, scientists even found real organic carbon filled soft tissue inside dinosaur bones of the which absolutely should not be there if dinosaurs really did go extinct millions of years ago. For many years this evidence was discounted as tainted, as a fake, etc, until eventually new peer reviewed and accepted places redid the tests which showed the validity of the soft tissue indeed was real and from the dinosaur bones. So what did science have to say about this? Again, they just chalk it up as an anomaly, some even set out to rewrite the very rules of how carbon can be preserved, etc etc. They just can't ever accept the other side of this that perhaps dinosaurs are far less older than we think and that we need to desperately revise our dating methods in science because - they suck!

 

No one is denying that catastrophic events haven't occurred. Last years' hurricane Sandy was catastrophic, but it wasn't a global hurricane.

 

Again you can believe anything you want. You can believe that a magical invisible unmeasurable flying spaghetti monster lives in your garage. That is fine with me as it is your belief. You can even try to convince me to believe in such. However I going to insist that for me to believe it then you have to provide sound reasons/evidence why I should believe it.

 

I don't discount it. I just find the arguments and evidences presented by science to be more convincing than your beliefs. I would appear that I agree with every recognized scientific organization on the planet.

 

A fossil can not be older than the rock it is found in. That is like saying I'm older than my mother.

 

You can't date fossils using radioactive carbon dating. The last of the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago. Radioactive carbon dating is only effective to around 40,000 years. You are off by a factor of more than 1500 times.That is like me starting out for Provo; Utah and ending up in Vancouver; British Colombia. 

 

Organic compounds are not necessarily radioactive carbon. We use coal everyday, it is from well before the dinosaurs ever walked the earth. It too has no radioactive carbon in it. As to soft tissue from T-Rex this article very well debunks the creationists opinions on it. SEE http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna#.UtMDQLTgy_c