Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 It takes intelligence to appreciate the majesty of nature, if that's what you mean.No, show me how intelligence arises from gravity just because gravity works. In other words, explain how it is possible that the law of gravity can account for why intelligence (such as that within each and every life form) exists.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 No, show me how intelligence arises from gravity just because gravity works. In other words, explain how it is possible that the law of gravity can account for why intelligence (such as that within each and every life form) exists. Do you honestly think he's arguing against the existence of Intelligence (in this case God)?
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 I asked you a specific question, and you responded with links. Answer the question, and then I'll read your links. Sheesh.I have already replied. We can't dialogue on the subject if you fail to acknowledge my answers.
thesometimesaint Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 So, you admit a material physical entity did something scientific to create life but what he did is not a subject of science? Thats like saying Pasteur really did advance germ theory, vaccinations, etc, but that what he did is not the subject of science. Whether God was involved or not is irrelevant to science. I can show that though natural processes that Pasteur existed. I can show what he did is true using those same natural processes. Anytime any God or Godlike force is invoked it is no longer natural but supernatural. Galileo, Roman Catholic, had no need to invoke God when he accurately described spots on the sun and movements of the planets in ellipses. Newton, Anglican, did need to invoke God when he accurately describe gravity, and the laws of motion. Darwin, Anglican, did not need to invoke God in the Origins of Species. Eyring, LDS, did not need to invoke God to explain theoretical chemistry. Philo Farnsworth - inventor of the television. Marvin Harris - inventor of the transistor radio. Alan Ashton - inventor of the modern word processor. Nolan Bushnell - Father of Video Games; inventor of "Pong". Harvey Fletcher - inventor of the hearing aid, stereophonic sound, the audiometer, more than 20 other inventions. William Clayton - inventor of the odometer. Jonathan Browning - revolutionary gunsmith; inventor of the repeating rifle. John Moses Browning - revolutionary gunsmith; inventor of the automatic shotgun and many other developments. Lester Wire - inventor of the electric traffic light. Alvino Rey - inventor of the electric guitar. Thomas Stockham - father of digital sound recording (CDs, DVDs). Paul Boyer - received Nobel Prize for describing the mechanism of ATP synthesis. All LDS. All scientist or used science in their work. Not one felt the need to invoke God in their work. 1
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Do you honestly think he's arguing against the existence of Intelligence (in this case God)?No, just putting forth the ridiculousness of belief that intelligence can exist and be explained by the law of gravity.
Ahab Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 No, both words adequately describe your contempt for mainstream Christian beliefs. No, not contempt. I'm just trying to be clear ehen telling their false beliefs are... a mistake, while I try to tell them what the truth is.Can we get back to that now? We were talking about how there is nothing above or beyond nature and how we can know that.
thesometimesaint Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Let me put you to task- Go to any of the leading Intelligent Design websites (not creationist) and show me where, anywhere on their sites, that their prime objective is to teach Genesis or any biblical figure and ways of worship? I earnestly await...but I am certainly not going to hold my breath. Now you are being deliberately obtuse.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Whether God was involved or not is irrelevant to science. I can show that though natural processes that Pasteur existed. I can show what he did is true using those same natural processes. Anytime any God or Godlike force is invoked it is no longer natural but supernatural. Galileo, Roman Catholic, had no need to invoke God when he accurately described spots on the sun and movements of the planets in ellipses. Newton, Anglican, did need to invoke God when he accurately describe gravity, and the laws of motion. Darwin, Anglican, did not need to invoke God in the Origins of Species. Eyring, LDS, did not need to invoke God to explain theoretical chemistry. Philo Farnsworth - inventor of the television. Marvin Harris - inventor of the transistor radio. Alan Ashton - inventor of the modern word processor. Nolan Bushnell - Father of Video Games; inventor of "Pong". Harvey Fletcher - inventor of the hearing aid, stereophonic sound, the audiometer, more than 20 other inventions. William Clayton - inventor of the odometer. Jonathan Browning - revolutionary gunsmith; inventor of the repeating rifle. John Moses Browning - revolutionary gunsmith; inventor of the automatic shotgun and many other developments. Lester Wire - inventor of the electric traffic light. Alvino Rey - inventor of the electric guitar. Thomas Stockham - father of digital sound recording (CDs, DVDs). Paul Boyer - received Nobel Prize for describing the mechanism of ATP synthesis. All LDS. All scientist or used science in their work. Not one felt the need to invoke God in their work.There you go again with the whole "supernatural" thing again. Has science proven that God is outside of science?
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 Now you are being deliberately obtuse.CFR from an ID site showing their religious form of worship please
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 No, not contempt. I'm just trying to be clear ehen telling their false beliefs are... a mistake, while I try to tell them what the truth is. Can we get back to that now? We were talking about how there is nothing above or beyond nature and how we can know that. You're right. My objections to your careless use of language is not germane to the thread.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 There you go again with the whole "supernatural" thing again. Has science proven that God is outside of science? What does "outside of science" mean?
Ahab Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Whether God was involved or not is irrelevant to science.I can show that though natural processes that Pasteur existed. I can show what he did is true using those same natural processes. Anytime any God or Godlike force is invoked it is no longer natural but supernatural. Galileo, Roman Catholic, had no need to invoke God when he accurately described spots on the sun and movements of the planets in ellipses. Newton, Anglican, did need to invoke God when he accurately describe gravity, and the laws of motion. Darwin, Anglican, did not need to invoke God in the Origins of Species. Eyring, LDS, did not need to invoke God to explain theoretical chemistry. Philo Farnsworth - inventor of the television. Marvin Harris - inventor of the transistor radio. Alan Ashton - inventor of the modern word processor. Nolan Bushnell - Father of Video Games; inventor of "Pong". Harvey Fletcher - inventor of the hearing aid, stereophonic sound, the audiometer, more than 20 other inventions. William Clayton - inventor of the odometer. Jonathan Browning - revolutionary gunsmith; inventor of the repeating rifle. John Moses Browning - revolutionary gunsmith; inventor of the automatic shotgun and many other developments. Lester Wire - inventor of the electric traffic light. Alvino Rey - inventor of the electric guitar. Thomas Stockham - father of digital sound recording (CDs, DVDs). Paul Boyer - received Nobel Prize for describing the mechanism of ATP synthesis. All LDS. All scientist or used science in their work. Not one felt the need to invoke God in their work.As LDS scientists I'm sure they realized God was helping them with their work and thay they were in communion with God when they discovered the truth they found while using the scientific method id discovery, so for you to suggest God wasn't involved would be, to put it simply, a mistake.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 What does "outside of science" mean?Not really sure, but evolutionists use the word to dismiss God saying that anything outside of science cant be science. Funny thing is- there is no science to state whether or not God is outside of science. All the evidence points to is that we are not sure. Funny how science has kicked God out of his own creation- out of his own laws of science. thats like saying the "A Tale of Two Cities" wasn't really written by Charles ****ens let alone man.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Not really sure, but evolutionists use the word to dismiss God saying that anything outside of science cant be science. Funny thing is- there is no science to state whether or not God is outside of science. All the evidence points to is that we are not sure. Funny how science has kicked God out of his own creation- out of his own laws of science. thats like saying the "A Tale of Two Cities" wasn't really written by Charles ****ens let alone man. IMO, "outside of science" means that you can't prove or disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. That would seem to be quite obvious. That is why science is agnostic about God: it doesn't concern itself with the existence of God or who or what caused existence in the first place. It limits itself to what we can observe and experiment with. Rather than see this as arrogant or anti-God, it's better to say that science understands its limitations and doesn't presume to venture into areas it cannot deal with, such as the existence of God.
Rob Osborn Posted February 27, 2014 Author Posted February 27, 2014 IMO, "outside of science" means that you can't prove or disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. That would seem to be quite obvious. That is why science is agnostic about God: it doesn't concern itself with the existence of God or who or what caused existence in the first place. It limits itself to what we can observe and experiment with. Rather than see this as arrogant or anti-God, it's better to say that science understands its limitations and doesn't presume to venture into areas it cannot deal with, such as the existence of God.When scientists refer to the supernatural being God an outside of science they are meaning that the supernatural is magic and outside of any and all scientific law.
jkwilliams Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 When scientists refer to the supernatural being God an outside of science they are meaning that the supernatural is magic and outside of any and all scientific law. I don't think that is the case at all. Granted, some believers appeal to the supernatural in order to explain things they can't understand, but that isn't to say that science believes God has nothing to do with the natural world. I don't know any LDS scientists, for example, who would agree with you.
thesometimesaint Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Please read the links I provide before you ask obtuse questions. What is Intelligent Designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design Intelligent Design is Conservative Christianity.The leading proponents of this version of the argument are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the United States, and believe the designer to be the Christian deity. The Discovery Institute is a political not a scientific organization.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy Intelligent Design is Creationismhttp://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing-link-cd.html
thesometimesaint Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 (edited) As LDS scientists I'm sure they realized God was helping them with their work and thay they were in communion with God when they discovered the truth they found while using the scientific method id discovery, so for you to suggest God wasn't involved would be, to put it simply, a mistake. I never said he wasn't involved. I just said that I and these faithful LDS had no need to invoke him in their work. Edited February 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 CFR from an ID site showing their religious form of worship pleaseMost modern KKK sites do not publicly say they are white supremacists. Guess they have turned over a new leaf. This is ridiculous. If you are obtuse enough to honestly imagine that the flood data comes from "the evidence" and not from an attempt to support a specific reading of Genesis then......wow.....just........wow.Yes, I did just compare IDers to grown men who run around wearing ghost costumes. I stand by the comparison.
MiserereNobis Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 So in your mind blather does not equate to a successful mistake. Okay. I suppose using 2 words is better than using only one word, but I think we can do better than that. Let's get into what you mean by a "successful" mistake. Successful in what sense? We're still talking about a mistake, so what are you suggesting the mistake is good for? I learn what not to do from my mistakes, and it's usually better to avoid mistakes in the first place. I was just, using 3DOPs term, suggesting a way that you could view something that you see as wrong, namely mainstream Christian doctrine (particularly Catholic) in a better light. The words blather and nonsense all mean that it is stupid and not intelligent. Something can be intelligent and wrong. I'm not just suggesting that you be more charitable, which is of course a worthy thing to do, but I'm also suggesting that you be less arrogant. As I said before millions and millions of souls have been nourished by the doctrines you think are stupid. Thousands of minds WAY more intelligent than ours on this board have worked through these doctrines and not found them stupid. So, thinking of them as being successful (i.e. intelligent, long-lasting, efficacious for nourishing of souls) but a mistake (not correct) is both charitable and honest. Ok, no more disrailing this thread 1
Bikeemikey Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Even LDS do not believe the eart was created in 6 sequential 24 hour days. LDS believe that there was not yet an appointment of time given to earth when it was created and that when he did appoint man his reckoning he measured it as 1000 years is as one day to him.So now the earth was created in 7000 years?That is not a mainstream lds belief.
mfbukowski Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 I take it then, that you agree that it's not good form to call someone else's beliefs "blather."It's all blather all the way down. All we have are sentences which are always blather to someone. I think everyone needs to read and understand Wittgenstein. All language is pretty limited.So much for your trap.
The Nehor Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 So now the earth was created in 7000 years?That is not a mainstream lds belief.6000 with a 1000 year break where basically nothing happened.
mfbukowski Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 It's all blather all the way down. All we have are sentences which are always blather to someone. I think everyone needs to read and understand Wittgenstein. All language is pretty limited.So much for your trap.I have used the word nonsense before.Do you prefer that? I think you have probably called Mormonism nonsense before. We hear that all the time around here.
Gray Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 No, show me how intelligence arises from gravity just because gravity works. In other words, explain how it is possible that the law of gravity can account for why intelligence (such as that within each and every life form) exists. Gravity didn't directly give rise to intelligence, it gave rise to planets and stars. If you're looking for the origin of biological intelligence, try chemistry.
Recommended Posts