Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Read for comprehension. Science can't prove any Creation beliefs. Science can't disprove any Creation beliefs. They are all equally valid as beliefs. However beliefs are not science. So, according to your own words, a "belief" in abiogenesis is not science. Gotcha.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Does your advocacy of creationism make you an evangelical Christian? After all, that seems to be their thing, not the LDS church's thing. Lets put the facts in place- Yes I do advocate for a Creator. I am a Christian. This is LDS teaching.
cdowis Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Dr. Hawking has ALS with destroys everything in your body except your mind. That you find it funny entertainment to watch a brilliant man's slow fatal disease consume him is telling. You are truly a sick individual. I was talking about Dawkins and his inability to respond to Hawkin's question. That being said neither Dawkins nor Hawkings are qualified to have anything more than their personal opinion on God. You need to tell that to Dawkins. He is very vocal about his opinion about God, as a scientist.
cdowis Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) While a belief in God is perfectly logical, it is not falsifiable or empirically testable. Science is by definition limited to what can be tested and/or observed, and ultimately subject to falsification. God is a great subject for philosophy, but completely outside the scope of science Did you understand Hawkin's argument? You have a choice between God, or multiple UNIVERSES (not just planets, solar systems, or galaxies, but universes) to overcome the issue of probability of the exact conditions suitable for life. That is not my argument but Hawkins. And Dawkins response was explosion and sparkles as he attempted to answer, and finally admitted he could not offer an answer. I think that comes very close to falsifying the athiest view. In another lecture, Dawkins stated that he does not believe in "coincidences" and went into detail on that point. He has boxed himself in with no escape from the obvious conclusion. Edited April 3, 2014 by cdowis
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Lets put the facts in place- Yes I do advocate for a Creator. I am a Christian. This is LDS teaching. But the church doesn't endorse intelligent design. Not officially.
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) Did you understand Hawkin's argument? You have a choice between God, or multiple UNIVERSES (not just worlds, or galaxies, but universes) to overcome the issue of probability of the exact conditions suitable for life. That is not my argument but Hawkins. And Dawkins response was explosion and sparkles as he attempted to answer, and finally admitted he could not offer an answer. I think that comes very close to falsifying the athiest view. In another lecture, Dawkins stated that he does not believe in "coincidences" and went into detail on that point. He has boxed himself in with no escape from the obvious conclusion. We don't have enough data to evaluate how improbable any possible form of life is, because we only know of those kinds that arose on earth. If there are infinite universes, and even if the odds of life spontaneously arriving are 1 in a quadrillion, that means there are an infinite number of universes that spontaneously give rise to life. But again, we just don't have the data to answer the intelligent creation question (for or against) from science. Edited April 3, 2014 by Gray
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 But the church doesn't endorse intelligent design. Not officially. The church also doesn't endorse political candidates, even if they are temple reccomend Christlike members of the church. Now to the point- Are LDS teachings in harmony with the definition of Intelligent design? What is intelligent design? Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php Let us reason here now. The Church does not agree with Darwinian evolution of all life coming from a common ancestor and especially not that man evolved from a lower order of species.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 We don't have enough data to evaluate how improbable any possible form of life is, because we only know of those kinds that arose on earth. If there are infinite universes, and even if the odds of life spontaneously arriving are 1 in a quadrillion, that means there are an infinite number of universes that spontaneously give rise to life. But again, we just don't have the data to answer the intelligent creation question (for or against) from science. Is it possible to randomly flip a coin and have it alternate heads and tails each time perfectly for 10 trillion times? That is the same odds that life can just randomly happen anywhere in the universe. Of course we may give something like the coin flip actual odds but in truth and reality- it will never ever happen. If it did happen it would only actually prove that the sequence was altered by an intelligent cause making it happen that way.
MiserereNobis Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago. http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php I thought you didn't believe in an old earth? Is it possible to randomly flip a coin and have it alternate heads and tails each time perfectly for 10 trillion times? That is the same odds that life can just randomly happen anywhere in the universe. Of course we may give something like the coin flip actual odds but in truth and reality- it will never ever happen. If it did happen it would only actually prove that the sequence was altered by an intelligent cause making it happen that way. Begging the question.
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 So, according to your own words, a "belief" in abiogenesis is not science. Gotcha. Abiogenesis is a scientific theory that explains the development of what we call life from organic compounds. As with any scientific theory it is subject to change and/or falsification with more information, IE; Newton explained the elliptical orbits of planets as a result of gravity. Laplace explained why those orbits don't fall apart because the different gravities cancel each other out. Einstein explained it in large scale space time fabric movements, and Quantum Mechanics explains it in small scale based on probability. All of those explanations are different because they cover different aspects of the same thing.
thesometimesaint Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Is it possible to randomly flip a coin and have it alternate heads and tails each time perfectly for 10 trillion times? That is the same odds that life can just randomly happen anywhere in the universe. Of course we may give something like the coin flip actual odds but in truth and reality- it will never ever happen. If it did happen it would only actually prove that the sequence was altered by an intelligent cause making it happen that way. Evolution is not about impossibly high odds.SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 The church also doesn't endorse political candidates, even if they are temple reccomend Christlike members of the church.Now to the point- Are LDS teachings in harmony with the definition of Intelligent design? No, because in LDS theology God is not a designer, but rather a builder.
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) Is it possible to randomly flip a coin and have it alternate heads and tails each time perfectly for 10 trillion times? That is the same odds that life can just randomly happen anywhere in the universe. Of course we may give something like the coin flip actual odds but in truth and reality- it will never ever happen. If it did happen it would only actually prove that the sequence was altered by an intelligent cause making it happen that way. Yes, if you are flipping coins an infinite number of times. The specific probability you gave is a guess. There is no meaningful way to calculate odds when we don't even know the parameters. Edited April 3, 2014 by Gray
danielwoods Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 We don't have enough data to evaluate how improbable any possible form of life is, because we only know of those kinds that arose on earth. If there are infinite universes, and even if the odds of life spontaneously arriving are 1 in a quadrillion, that means there are an infinite number of universes that spontaneously give rise to life. But again, we just don't have the data to answer the intelligent creation question (for or against) from science. When has life ever been observed to come from non-living matter?
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 No, because in LDS theology God is not a designer, but rather a builder.So god put no design in place to make life happen? Thats ridiculous. Of course he has designs. He designed that he woyld build an earth. He designed matter to suppirt life. I could go on all day long his many designs.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Yes, if you are flipping coins an infinite number of times. The specific probability you gave is a guess. There is no meaningful way to calculate odds when we don't even know the parameters.You are right, there is no way to meaningful calculate the oddsof life coming into existence from nothing- we have never oberved such a thing nor do we have any such model that could possibly predict such. So just going off of conjecture I would say that because our DNA contains more info than a library then I think it faur to say- what are the oddsof a typewriter writing out all of the books in a library all by its random self? Never gonna happen! So perhaps in truth, there are no odds of life arising on its own- it too could never happen.
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 When has life ever been observed to come from non-living matter? It hasn't, but there are plausible models for it. Still a hypothesis, not a theory
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) You are right, there is no way to meaningful calculate the oddsof life coming into existence from nothing- we have never oberved such a thing nor do we have any such model that could possibly predict such. So just going off of conjecture I would say that because our DNA contains more info than a library then I think it faur to say- what are the oddsof a typewriter writing out all of the books in a library all by its random self? Never gonna happen! So perhaps in truth, there are no odds of life arising on its own- it too could never happen. The "library" of our DNA shows every indication of non-goal-oriented evolution rather than intentional design. There is no hint of forward planning. It's the jumbled mess that you don't typically find in intentional design but that happens in nature all the time. Edited April 3, 2014 by Gray
Gray Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 (edited) So god put no design in place to make life happen? Thats ridiculous. Of course he has designs. He designed that he woyld build an earth. He designed matter to suppirt life. I could go on all day long his many designs. Really? When did God design the human body? God is a man. Did he design himself? In reality, LDS theology is actually not terribly dissimilar atheist modes of thought on our origins. No first causers in sight. There were also worlds before God became God, so He couldn't have designed that either. Edited April 3, 2014 by Gray
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 Really? When did God design the human body? God is a man. Did he design himself? In reality, LDS theology is actually not terribly dissimilar atheist modes of thought on our origins. No first causers in sight. There were also worlds before God became God, so He couldn't have designed that either.Do you ever design anything and carry out those intelligent plans? Certainly if humans do it then God must do it on a grander scale. I rest my case.
Rob Osborn Posted April 3, 2014 Posted April 3, 2014 The "library" of our DNA shows every indication of non-goal-oriented evolution rather than intentional design. There is no hint of forward planning. It's the jumbled mess that you don't typically find in intentional design but that happens in nature all the time.So what law in nature writes DNA code? All nature can do is create copy errors and mutations of that code. Try again my friend.
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 It hasn't, but there are plausible models for it. Still a hypothesis, not a theory What makes them plausible?
cdowis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 We don't have enough data to evaluate how improbable any possible form of life is, because we only know of those kinds that arose on earth. If there are infinite universes, and even if the odds of life spontaneously arriving are 1 in a quadrillion, that means there are an infinite number of universes that spontaneously give rise to life. But again, we just don't have the data to answer the intelligent creation question (for or against) from science. Perhaps you should tell that to Hawkin. He's the one who suggested it, and I'm sure he will be impressed with your analysis.
Grudunza Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Do you ever design anything and carry out those intelligent plans? Certainly if humans do it then God must do it on a grander scale. I rest my case. Yes, and we agree there in a theological/philosophical sense, and that's why I believe in lowercase "intelligent design" as a philosophical concept and as a personal faithful belief. Where I think so many are counter to you, though, Rob, is that we have no means of really identifying or defining where "God" comes in from a scientific standpoint, and thus it's not practical to try to put a design marker on anything in that sense. At least not with our current understanding. Better to be dispassionate when it comes to science, so we can learn and develop what we can through it and from its own data, without trying to somehow squeeze unknown or undefinable or spiritual data into it. I do feel that our LDS theology in particular allows for a great partnership between our spiritual understanding of things and what we know and learn from science, but still, until/if God can be more specifically measured and identified in a physical way, it doesn't really work to try to fit him or some theological concepts into the science. Still just a lot of square pegs and round holes.
Recommended Posts