thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I never said God was false. I understand, but I am pointing out that is the basic assumption or premise behind the so-called teleological fallacy. IOW, it is a fallacy only if you accept that assumption. What I have repeatedly said is that as a scientist I can't posit him into science. And I agreed when I gave the analogy of the orchestra. The scientist can "see" each individual instrumentalist, but the conductor of the orchestra is invisible. ID is not scientific, it is meta science. Personally believe in God. God in the Christian religions is omnipotent. To a scientist that just means that ANY answer that involves God is the correct answer. Why does the sun revolve around the earth? Because God did it; Ptolemy Why do the orbits of the planets not fall apart? Because God did it; Newton. Why is there Irreducible Complexity in the bacterial flagella? Because God did it: Behe. Why is it a geocentric universe? Because God did it: Robert Sungenis, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/09/i-can-tell-you-how-lawrence-krauss-ended-up-in-our-film-he-signed-a-release-form-and-cashed-a-check/ And the LDS view is that God is subject to natural law, and uses it as we use laws to have a TV picture, send a space ship to the moon, etc. He is the conductor of the orchestra. The scientist can "see" the spaceship but not the "back office" activities to plan and manage it. We are talking about a serious change in how we view the debate between science and religion because the LDS view is so different from the theology of historic Christianity. The basic assumption behind a teleological fallacy is that because "Y" exists "X" is its cause. IE; It is categorically true that nearly all automobile accidents are caused by drivers. Equally true is that nearly all drivers have at at least one point eaten carrots. A teleological fallacy is that eating carrots causes automobile accidents. That is a philosophical argument. In scientific materialism there are only 2 things, matter and energy that have a bearing on what is observed.. Anything outside of that is not allowed in science. The earth spins on its axis because of angular momentum. FULL Stop. The philosophy of materialism says that God doesn't exist so can't be involved in it that observation. Do you understand the difference? IE; It could very well be that God wanted the earth to spin so provided that mechanism. Science can't address that issue of God. Only the mechanism. That is still an example of a teleological fallacy.
cdowis Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) I don't think "cause and effect" and teleological fallacy are the same thing, although superficially they appear very similar. The example of carrots and car accidents is an example of the former whilst the teleological fallacy assumes that the end result is NOT the result of an intelligent guiding force, a denial of an intelligent designer. A giraffe has a long neck as a specific design feature is classified as the latter. Edited April 10, 2014 by cdowis
Rob Osborn Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 That is a priori: If "Y" exists "X" must be its cause. Because it involves using a omnipotent source. ANY answer given using a omnipotent source is unallowed in science. IE; In science we can't say the earth rotates on it axis because God did it. It spins because of conservation of angular momentum. Now whether God created that law is not subject for science. You keep associating God with using magic. What if i were to say the universe itself was omnipotent? You couldnt prove me wrong certainly. You think that just because God is omnipotent that he is above and beyond every law in science. Perhaps you have never considered he is omnipotent because he has a perfect understanding and knowledge of the laws and how physics works. Why should God, who makes and institutes the laws be above the law Himself? God is bound to law just as you and I, he just has a perfect understanding of the laws. So, just because He knows land understands the laws better than science that he is thus excluded? What is it any of sciences business anyway who can and cannot be included and excluded from law when statements are made on belief rather than hard scientific evidence? That is precisely why your brand of science is atheist.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I don't think "cause and effect" and teleological fallacy are the same thing, although superficially they appear very similar. The example of carrots and car accidents is an example of the former whilst the teleological fallacy assumes that the end result is NOT the result of an intelligent guiding force, a denial of an intelligent designer. A giraffe has a long neck as a specific design feature is classified as the latter. SEE Evolution of the Giraffehttp://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck-ii/
cdowis Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) SEE Evolution of the Giraffehttp://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/how-the-giraffe-got-its-long-neck-ii/ I "see" alot of stuff on this article, so please give us a summary of your point. We have not discussed Lamark, for example, so tell me precisely what you want me to "SEE", rather than making me guess your point. Cut out the relevant section and past it here and I will be happy to respond either here or in a new thread ==>> ++++++++++++++++++++++= +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Edited April 10, 2014 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 You keep associating God with using magic. What if i were to say the universe itself was omnipotent? You couldnt prove me wrong certainly. You think that just because God is omnipotent that he is above and beyond every law in science. Perhaps you have never considered he is omnipotent because he has a perfect understanding and knowledge of the laws and how physics works. Why should God, who makes and institutes the laws be above the law Himself? God is bound to law just as you and I, he just has a perfect understanding of the laws. So, just because He knows land understands the laws better than science that he is thus excluded? What is it any of sciences business anyway who can and cannot be included and excluded from law when statements are made on belief rather than hard scientific evidence? That is precisely why your brand of science is atheist. God is omnipotent in LDS belief. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipotent?lang=eng Then your God is a trickster. He does one thing and then claims to have done another. Science is Agnostic when it concerns God. You are either being deliberately obtuse or deliberately disingenuous when you make such patently false claims. Your choice.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I "see" alot of stuff on this article, so please give us a summary of your point. We have not discussed Lamark, for example, so tell me precisely what you want me to "SEE", rather than making me guess your point. Cut out the relevant section and past it here and I will be happy to respond either here or in a new thread ==>> ++++++++++++++++++++++= +++++++++++++++++++++++++ "The giraffe’s tail is used to illustrate adaptation, or suitability to the conditions of existence, which comes about through the modifying effects of natural selection; the giraffe’s neck, with its seemingly incongruously low number of vertebrae, illustrates the unity of type (the same structures or organs in organisms of varying conditions of existence) which reveals common ancestry. Thus the giraffe is used to illustrate the two great unexplained phenomena faced by biology prior to Darwin– adaptation and unity of type– and Darwin’s unified explanation for these phenomena: descent with modification by means of natural selection. These examples continue throughout all editions of the Origin. But there is no mention of the long neck as a feeding adaptation.In the third edition of the Origin (1861), in the Historical Sketch, Darwin first mentions the neck as an adaptation for feeding. He is here explicating Lamarck, correctly noting Lamarck’s two evolutionary mechanisms, the effects of use and disuse (the inheritance of acquired characters, which Darwin, and essentially all his contemporaries, accepted; the later naming of this as ‘Lamarckian’ inheritance is unhistorical), and the innate drive for progressive development".
cdowis Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) God is omnipotent in LDS belief. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/omnipotent?lang=eng See my response below Then your God is a trickster. He does one thing and then claims to have done another. Thank you for sharing your opinion of Deity, and LDS doctrine. Science is Agnostic when it concerns God. You are either being deliberately obtuse or deliberately disingenuous when you make such patently false claims. Your choice. Or I can choose to respond that you have missed or misstated my point. I have sent a message to the webmaster on whether this represents official LDS doctrine. Clearly this definition is not doctrine, as you can see from my examples below. Do the Guide to the Scriptures represent official LDS doctrine? Specifically the article on omnipotence of God makes no mention that God is constrained in His power == can God deny justice, Can God violate natural laws, Can God lie, Can God allow the unclean to live in His presence, etc. This article does not represent LDS doctrine at all but I see no disclaimer but some assume it is an official statement of doctrine. Edited April 10, 2014 by cdowis
cdowis Posted April 10, 2014 Author Posted April 10, 2014 "The giraffe’s tail is used to illustrate adaptation, or suitability to the conditions of existence, which comes about through the modifying effects of natural selection; the giraffe’s neck, with its seemingly incongruously low number of vertebrae, illustrates the unity of type (the same structures or organs in organisms of varying conditions of existence) which reveals common ancestry. Thus the giraffe is used to illustrate the two great unexplained phenomena faced by biology prior to Darwin– adaptation and unity of type– and Darwin’s unified explanation for these phenomena: descent with modification by means of natural selection. These examples continue throughout all editions of the Origin. But there is no mention of the long neck as a feeding adaptation.In the third edition of the Origin (1861), in the Historical Sketch, Darwin first mentions the neck as an adaptation for feeding. He is here explicating Lamarck, correctly noting Lamarck’s two evolutionary mechanisms, the effects of use and disuse (the inheritance of acquired characters, which Darwin, and essentially all his contemporaries, accepted; the later naming of this as ‘Lamarckian’ inheritance is unhistorical), and the innate drive for progressive development". OK, so I agree that teleological fallacy can also refer to Lamarck. I felt that was a rather obscure example, but fair is fair.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 cdowis: According to LDS Scripture and Apostles God is omnipotent. As to what I believe I believe he is omnipotent. That being said that omnipotentce disallows him in science. What would you call someone who does one thing and then claims to have done another? As to what I believe. God is not a trickster. We are just starting to know the smallest part of what God knows, and does. I was responding to the claim that science is Atheistic. It is not. It makes no claim about God.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 OK, so I agree that teleological fallacy can also refer to Lamarck. I felt that was a rather obscure example, but fair is fair. Thank you.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 That is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is at species level. Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Macro-evolution does not even logically flow from micro-evolution when one considers the giant leaps that must happen to make it possible in several areas. Great leaps of imagination and faith.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 What evidence are you referring to? The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for micro-evolution yes. The evidence for macro-evolution - - well not so much unless you like fairy tales.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 That is a priori: If "Y" exists "X" must be its cause. Because it involves using a omnipotent source. ANY answer given using a omnipotent source is unallowed in science. IE; In science we can't say the earth rotates on it axis because God did it. It spins because of conservation of angular momentum. Now whether God created that law is not subject for science. If one is allowed to set the parameter to eliminate the answers they do not want to accept it is possible to win any debate. Just ban your opponents and you have it.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 I just didn't want to convey the idea that Nephi was saying there was and had been no death anywhere else in the universe when it came as a result of the fall of Adam and Eve (on this planet). Please note Nephi is talking about the Garden of Eden and not the entire planet.
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 That is a philosophical argument. In scientific materialism there are only 2 things, matter and energy that have a bearing on what is observed.. Anything outside of that is not allowed in science. Eliminating the possibilities is like poking your eye out so you can see better.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 The evidence for micro-evolution yes. The evidence for macro-evolution - - well not so much unless you like fairy tales. Evidences for macro-evolution.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY#aid=P9squIT8sE4
ERayR Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Evidences for macro-evolution.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.htmlhttp://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7tQIB4UdiY#aid=P9squIT8sE4 Like I said fairy tales. And what is frightening you and they do not seem to see it or refuse to.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) If one is allowed to set the parameter to eliminate the answers they do not want to accept it is possible to win any debate. Just ban your opponents and you have it. The purpose of a scientific debate is determine the value probable natural answers within the subject discussed. To interject a unrelated subject, while it may be of interest, is not the purpose of that debate. IE: When discussing high rise building construct(A worthy subject for science) an interjection of mushroom cultivation( Also a worthy subject for science) it is not related closely enough to high rise construction to warrant their conflation. Refusing to talk about mushroom cultivation while debating high rise construction is perfectly justified and rational. As I have demonstrated I'm more that willing to discuss God, and I am more than willing to discuss science. What I can't do is conflate the two in anything more than just the most superficial way. Edited April 10, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Gray Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution. Macro-evolution does not even logically flow from micro-evolution when one considers the giant leaps that must happen to make it possible in several areas. Great leaps of imagination and faith. What giant leaps would those be?
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Like I said fairy tales. And what is frightening you and they do not seem to see it or refuse to. I find fairy tales quite interesting(I'm a big fan of Tolkien's writings), but not related to science. It is fine with me if you prefer the Bronze Age telling of a Stone Age story. But I'm going to try to keep you well away from The Enlightenment Age, and later. "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it."Joseph Fielding Smith
Ahab Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Please note Nephi is talking about the Garden of Eden and not the entire planet.Yes the entire planet. Start from 2 Nephi 2:14 if that helps you to see a little better.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Yes the entire planet. Start from 2 Nephi 2:14 if that helps you to see a little better. That still doesn't substantiate your claim. Adam was created THEN placed in the GoE.
thesometimesaint Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Yes, and that fact does not invalidate my claim. HUH?
Recommended Posts