Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 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. Our current understanding in science, when you look solely at the evidence, is that we have a very complex system of intelligent information that works within a highly advanced ecosystem where all the little parts add up and make life work. We are speaking along the lines of such an astronomically large amount of ordered intelligence that works in relative harmony with each other. All the evidence point s to life being here by design. All the evidence also points to life being nothing else but highly complex and intelligent. The part that is frustrating is that you have mainstream science that tries endlessly to disregard this clear evidence in place of a paradigm that goes against all evidence and builds endlessly upon beliefs that have no testability, no observation, etc. Rather than coming out in honesty and stating that life here is no accident and certainly not a random act of nature they state the ignorant part with absolutely no evidence or credulity. Do they think we are idiots? Do they think we take fairy tales seriously? So much work now has been done with understanding cellular structure and the part that the DNA plays within it. These highly intelligent and purposeful processes cannot be chalked up to being the mere result of "gravity" acting on matter over a very long time. So much resear h has been done with the odds/probability of life coming into existence that it is now understood to be downright impossible for life to come into existence on its own. And yet, they continue over and over again with the same dogmatic statements of ignorance.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) When has life ever been observed to come from non-living matter? It hasn't yet. But that is not the question. The question is what is the chemistry of living things. & Edited April 4, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 There will always be a "it hasn't yet" with scientists trying to dream up ways life could have evolved from nothing. Its interesting that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to life evolving from nothing yet they have a theory as to how it happened? Were we not in a huge debate earlier over what constitutes a "theory"? How can one make a theory of something that has no evidence, no observational property and every test refutes it?
Gray 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. Following blueprints to build something doesn't make you a designer.
Gray Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 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. Yes, and that's exactly what we see throughout our DNA
MiserereNobis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 There will always be a "it hasn't yet" with scientists trying to dream up ways life could have evolved from nothing. Its interesting that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to life evolving from nothing yet they have a theory as to how it happened? Were we not in a huge debate earlier over what constitutes a "theory"? How can one make a theory of something that has no evidence, no observational property and every test refutes it? You still haven't read those articles from philosophers of science about scientific theories and facts, have you
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 It hasn't yet. But that is not the question. The question is what is the chemistry of living things. It hasn't yet. Indicates faith, not science. Hope. What the chemistry of living things are, doesn't begin to explain where the design originated. So what we observe is 100% of the time, life comes from life, not non-living matter. And 100% of the time designs originate from intelligent sources not non-intelligent sources. Yet, the abiogenesis believers have hope that we will one day find the evidence that supports their belief that life came from non-living matter. And that is called science?
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Following blueprints to build something doesn't make you a designer.Its a design. The question is if this design rises on its own. Science tells us that designs ontaining intelligent information do not arise on their own
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 There will always be a "it hasn't yet" with scientists trying to dream up ways life could have evolved from nothing. Its interesting that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to life evolving from nothing yet they have a theory as to how it happened? Were we not in a huge debate earlier over what constitutes a "theory"? How can one make a theory of something that has no evidence, no observational property and every test refutes it? Ptolemy said pretty much the same thing nearly two millennia about the orbits of the planets using the evidence and tools he had available. He attributed it to Zeus his God. Guess what we no longer use the geocentric theory of planet orbit. Life didn't evolve from nothing. Abiogenesis is the theory of how relatively simple compounds developed and joined to form life as we know it. A theory is an explanation for an observed fact. That repeated testing has confirmed. IE; Germ Theory of disease; The Theory of Gravity. You are either being deliberately obtuse, deliberately disingenuous. Your choice.
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 You still haven't read those articles from philosophers of science about scientific theories and facts, have you So where are any facts or observations that make the theory of abiogenesis a "theory"?
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Yes, and that's exactly what we see throughout our DNA Not really. There are also insertions, deletions, transpositions, and switching on and off genes.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 So where are any facts or observations that make the theory of abiogenesis a "theory"? SEE
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Ptolemy said pretty much the same thing nearly two millennia about the orbits of the planets using the evidence and tools he had available. He attributed it to Zeus his God. Guess what we no longer use the geocentric theory of planet orbit. Life didn't evolve from nothing. Abiogenesis is the theory of how relatively simple compounds developed and joined to form life as we know it. A theory is an explanation for an observed fact. That repeated testing has confirmed. IE; Germ Theory of disease; The Theory of Gravity. You are either being deliberately obtuse, deliberately disingenuous. Your choice.But there is no evidence of abiogenesis. How can it be a theory? It would be just as fair for me to say I have a theory that unicorns flew hete from another galaxy and brought life with them. bh
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I have a theory that if I take the battery out of my car it will still start and run. This theory has the same probability of success that abiogenesis does.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I have a theory that if I take the battery out of my car it will still start and run. This theory has the same probability of success that abiogenesis does. Not a very good theory. The first cars didn't have batteries to start and run. They had hand-cranks.
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 SEE Lies and conjecture. Funny how he says abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but then he goes on to explain how evolution came about in the process of abiogenesis. Funny that this was his big lie. There is no evidence that cells started out as these simple little chemical fusings. Complete fairy tale BS. Show me some real evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Lies and conjecture. Funny how he says abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution but then he goes on to explain how evolution came about in the process of abiogenesis. Funny that this was his big lie. There is no evidence that cells started out as these simple little chemical fusings. Complete fairy tale BS. Show me some real evidence. You are either being deliberately obtuse or deliberately disingenuous. Your choice.
MiserereNobis Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) So where are any facts or observations that make the theory of abiogenesis a "theory"? That's not the point of those articles. They are not arguing about abiogenesis or evolution or anything like that. They are about what constitute scientific facts, theories, observations, and explanations. Since you are constantly referring to these things, you should probably read what the experts have to say about them. You are obviously passionate about this (or stuck, I'm not quite sure which...) so I think it would be a good idea if you actually read this stuff. It's good to be informed in a field when you are going to continually make claims about that field. Or maybe it's more fun to go on and on without actually doing some research ETA: here's a great anthology you can get for $22 on amazon.com: Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science Edited April 4, 2014 by MiserereNobis
Rob Osborn Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 You are either being deliberately obtuse or deliberately disingenuous. Your choice.No, I just get tired of being fed the same conjecture presented as fact. There is no evidence of chemical evolution into life. This isnt about intelligent designers working in labs to create life, its about what we observe from evidence in nature. There is no evidence in nature of chemical evolution.
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Not a very good theory. The first cars didn't have batteries to start and run. They had hand-cranks. Indeed, abiogenesis doesn't even have that going for it. No magneto!
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Indeed, abiogenesis doesn't even have that going for it. No magneto! The magneto in Abiogenesis is heat.
Gray Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Its a design. The question is if this design rises on its own. Science tells us that designs ontaining intelligent information do not arise on their own Evolution runs on a naturally-occurring algorithm that does create designs. In any case, in Mormon theology, there doesn't seem to be an intelligent designer, only an intelligent builder.
Gray Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I have a theory that if I take the battery out of my car it will still start and run. This theory has the same probability of success that abiogenesis does. Abiogenesis is a great deal more plausible than that. Consider: in all the history of science, we've never discovered any trace of special intervention in the cause of any natural phenomena. What makes you think the origin of life will be the one exception.
thesometimesaint Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Abiogenesis is a great deal more plausible than that. Consider: in all the history of science, we've never discovered any trace of special intervention in the cause of any natural phenomena. What makes you think the origin of life will be the one exception. Even if their idea is true. I don't want them any where near a science lab or a school science class.
danielwoods Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 The magneto in Abiogenesis is heat. So who cranks the hand crank? Abiogenesis is a great deal more plausible than that. Consider: in all the history of science, we've never discovered any trace of special intervention in the cause of any natural phenomena. What makes you think the origin of life will be the one exception. What makes abiogenesis more plausible? Where are the facts that support this "more plausibility"? What is interesting is your contention that we've never discovered any trace of special intervention in the cause of any natural phenomena. Oh? What is the cause of the universe then? What is the cause of intelligence? You might claim they are naturally caused. Yet, that claim goes against the observable evidence.
Recommended Posts