thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 I think creationists/id acknowledge the evidence, they just interpret it differently. I agree there may be similarities in primate genetics/dna but I think that means a common designer, not ancestor. However, both are only opinions and cannot be considered science. Science deals only with observable, falsifiable phenomenon. They don't even acknowledge the evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Science tries to tell us there were a bunch of migrating hoards who came over on a land bridge to the America's. Our scriptures tell a far drastically different story of people in boats who were guided by God to the promised land who then built up mighty nations, became highly civilized and then annihilated each other. Is there a middle ground here? Yes. Science doesn't really have any business trying to guess how man got to America. If there is evidence then there is evidence, but in this case no evidence exists as to how man got here. So, on the one side we can take archaeology digs and dig up evidence and on the other we have religion that states such and such happened. Now as to what "really" happened doesn't really matter until futher evidence comes to light. But both can bring evidence to the table and support each other and leave a middle ground of ideas and not call it "science". The Book of Mormon isn't about everyone who ever came here.
halconero Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 They should meet at the University of Toronto, where an aspiring medical doctor manages to major in biological anthrpology, immunology, while also taking a side of Early Christian Writings. I'm tired of debating this. Time for a (non-alcoholic) lager at Hart House (student union pub).
Rob Osborn Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 The Book of Mormon isn't about everyone who ever came hereNo but it is the main groups of the ancients. The Jaredites being the first humans here after the global flood.
Rob Osborn Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 They don't even acknowledge the evidence. The Bible is evidence. Do you think God is an animal? What about death entering the world as a result of mans transgression? Do you believe that? Do you even believe the Creation and Jesus Christ?
mfbukowski Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 They don't even acknowledge the evidence. Is this man in control of his appetites?
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 The Bible is evidence. Do you think God is an animal? What about death entering the world as a result of mans transgression? Do you believe that? Do you even believe the Creation and Jesus Christ? The Bible is not evidence of anything other than the Bible. IE; Are the stories of Homer evidence for Zeus? If we look like him, he looks like us. We look like an animal, so he looks like an animal. I believe the Garden of Eden was special place while in the world was not of the world. I believe God used Evolution in the Creation of us and our world. I believe in Jesus whom is the Christ. Now answer my questions. Do airplanes fly because of physics or that God holds them up? Do your children look like you because of genetics or because God made them that way? Does your belief in the Bible make the stars in the skies just holes in the firmament between Heaven and earth? Does your belief in the Bible make the earth flat? Do you really want to be in the 2+2=5 crowd?
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Is this man in control of his appetites? I have no way of knowing. But whichever it is, it isn't good for his health.
Rob Osborn Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 The Bible is not evidence of anything other than the Bible. IE; Are the stories of Homer evidence for Zeus? If we look like him, he looks like us. We look like an animal, so he looks like an animal. I believe the Garden of Eden was special place while in the world was not of the world. I believe God used Evolution in the Creation of us and our world. I believe in Jesus whom is the Christ. Now answer my questions. Do airplanes fly because of physics or that God holds them up? Do your children look like you because of genetics or because God made them that way? Does your belief in the Bible make the stars in the skies just holes in the firmament between Heaven and earth? Does your belief in the Bible make the earth flat? Do you really want to be in the 2+2=5 crowd?Hey, you are the one bashing my fellow bible carrying Christians. So why do endlessly drag videos of Christians professing their faith in the Creator and bash and belittle them? I really think you are just an atheist. Not appropriate. Knock it off.
Ahab Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Hey, you are the one bashing my fellow bible carrying Christians. So why do endlessly drag videos of Christians professing their faith in the Creator and bash and belittle them? I really think you are just an atheist.I think it's more a case of wearing 2 different hats.Sometimes he talks like a believer based on the faith that he has, and then at other times he talks more like a skeptical scientist who needs to see something before being able to believe it.Or at least that is the way it looks to me.
mfbukowski Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 I have no way of knowing. But whichever it is, it isn't good for his health.It's obviously irrelevant to his arguments, but my first impression was - why should I listen to this guy?
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Hey, you are the one bashing my fellow bible carrying Christians. So why do endlessly drag videos of Christians professing their faith in the Creator and bash and belittle them? I really think you are just an atheist. I carry a Bible, read my Scriptures religiously every day. I have faith in my Creator. I neither bash them nor belittle them. They are children of same God that I am. OTOH their ideas are just as fair game as anyone's are. So despite everything I have said, my life for the last 43 years, including faithful Church attendance, service, testimony, informal missionary work, Temple work, uncounted prayers. According to you with your supernatural mind-reading abilities I am an Atheist. You are either incredibly obtuse, or incredibly disingenuous. Your choice. Please let us all know which you are.
The Nehor Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Is this man in control of his appetites?Glad I am not the only one who has a hard time taking fat people seriously.
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 It's obviously irrelevant to his arguments, but my first impression was - why should I listen to this guy? I think we should listen very closely to everyone, especially him and people like him. Not that I agree with him, but without knowing his arguments it is very hard to debunk them.
Walden Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 No, believers go on faith in believing the word of God to explain our origins. There is no evidence that supports the theory of the evolution of man from a common descent. There is a lot of conjecture and assumptions built around an idea of origins but no real substantial real scientific proof. If science were to correctly report the evidence it would be only this- different species of animals share characteristics of similarities. Thats all, nothing more. If I didn't know any better, I would swear that your arguments are tongue-in-cheek and an attempt at irony....have you ever considered a profession writing as a post-modernist absurdist? I'm not sure what you consider "real substantial scientific proof," regarding the theory of evolution, but there is approximately 150 years of hard scientific data providing mountains of evidence for evolution. Likewise, your argument that there is "no evidence that supports the theory of the evolution of man from a common descent," well again, you are incorrect. There is plenty of evidence for the theory of common descent, and I can gladly send you links to the various evidences. Do you prefer the genetic evidence (including chromosonal and DNA evidence), anatomical evidence, paleontological evidence, geographical distribution evidence, observations of both natural and artificial election, or evidence of speciation? The theory of evolution is as "factual" as the theory of gravity, though considering there is still a Flat Earth Society, there seems to be a population of people who will deny objective evidence of just about anything in an effort to frame the world within the cozy confines of their belief system.
Rob Osborn Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 If I didn't know any better, I would swear that your arguments are tongue-in-cheek and an attempt at irony....have you ever considered a profession writing as a post-modernist absurdist? I'm not sure what you consider "real substantial scientific proof," regarding the theory of evolution, but there is approximately 150 years of hard scientific data providing mountains of evidence for evolution. Likewise, your argument that there is "no evidence that supports the theory of the evolution of man from a common descent," well again, you are incorrect. There is plenty of evidence for the theory of common descent, and I can gladly send you links to the various evidences. Do you prefer the genetic evidence (including chromosonal and DNA evidence), anatomical evidence, paleontological evidence, geographical distribution evidence, observations of both natural and artificial election, or evidence of speciation? The theory of evolution is as "factual" as the theory of gravity, though considering there is still a Flat Earth Society, there seems to be a population of people who will deny objective evidence of just about anything in an effort to frame the world within the cozy confines of their belief system. I am pretty sure the evolutioninsts already took all the spots on the post-modernist absurdist team. There is 150 years of wild speculation and a lot of fictional stories but no real proof of man evolving from a lower order of species. The only proof that exists is that all life share similarities. There is no proof of actual species changing into a completely different species. Even in the geologic column all that exists are a myriad of evidence of many different and separate species that suddenly show up then after a space suddenly either disappear or to this day remain unchanged after supposed hundereds of millions of years. Based on that "mountain" of evidence alone all we can surely claim is that no evolution of all life from common descent occurred. Paramount to the problem of evolution from common descent is the problem of explaining how life evolved through chemical evolution to begin with. Evolutionists disagree it has to do with evolution even though all biology books and classes discuss this very thing. The problem with the theory of evolution is that as far as evolution of all species from common descent there is nothing observable, nothing that can be tested and thus not falsifiable. So how then can it even be a theory? Evolutionists cannot place a viable testable hypothesis for organ evolution in all animals- there is no pathway for how they can show it worked. They end up explaining organ evolution by using different animals with what they think are or were different stages of it evolving. Once again- no proof, nothing to test, and certainly nothing observed. My daughters princess fairytales have more truth in them than evolutionary theory my friend.
Brian 2.0 Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 Rob, you're basically arguing for the elimination of all observational sciences and only deem science as science when it's experimental science. There's plenty of "observations" in the theory or evolution, your issue is that you think science should only be "repeatable experiments". This will drastically limit what is "science". More than you may realize.Below is from Wikipedia on "Observational Science:An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences.Other fields of scientific study can have observational as well as experimental aspects. In high-energy physics, for example, some interactions involving energies higher than can be created in any experiment can be observed indirectly through astronomical observations.To substitute for the inability to directly construct experiments as part of the scientific method, two main strategies are used. First, multivariate statistical techniques allow the approximation of experimental control with statistical control. Secondly, experimental observations of previously-unobserved phenomena can be used to suggest new hypotheses and test existing ones. This can be seen as making use of pre-existing "natural experiments".In the social sciences, sociology and economics are generally held to be examples of observational sciences, because of the impracticality (not to mention dubious ethical status) of manipulating whole societies or economies for experimental purposes. However, microeconomics can be regarded as an experimental science, because it is possible to set up experimental micro-economies.Sometimes fields of study can change from being observational to being experimental: for example, until the early 21st century, the study of comets was entirely observational -- it became experimental when the first man-made cometary collision was engineered in 2005. 1
Rob Osborn Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 I carry a Bible, read my Scriptures religiously every day. I have faith in my Creator. I neither bash them nor belittle them. They are children of same God that I am. OTOH their ideas are just as fair game as anyone's are. So despite everything I have said, my life for the last 43 years, including faithful Church attendance, service, testimony, informal missionary work, Temple work, uncounted prayers. According to you with your supernatural mind-reading abilities I am an Atheist. You are either incredibly obtuse, or incredibly disingenuous. Your choice. Please let us all know which you are. I have a hard time of telling though. You post videos like the one you posted and in all reality everything spoken of in that video is what our Church teaches as official doctrine. But its more than that, its a video about peoples faith- their testimony of God and the Creator. The driving point of the video is to show through faith and testimony that we are children of God, not animals, and because we are created in God's image we have a purpose and the bible shows us what that purpose is and from whence we came, why death is in the world and of a glorious resurrection through Jesus Christ. So when you drag videos on here and give satirical and demeaning remarks about those on the video you need to either look at your faith or repent.
Rob Osborn Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 Rob, you're basically arguing for the elimination of all observational sciences and only deem science as science when it's experimental science. There's plenty of "observations" in the theory or evolution, your issue is that you think science should only be "repeatable experiments". This will drastically limit what is "science". More than you may realize. Below is from Wikipedia on "Observational Science: Ok, lets take the theory of abiogenesis. What if I put up the theory of the flying spaghetti monster? Whats the difference? Theres no evidence for either, neither are or have been observed and testing for it has been utterly futlie. So whats the point?
Walden Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Ok, lets take the theory of abiogenesis. What if I put up the theory of the flying spaghetti monster? Whats the difference? Theres no evidence for either, neither are or have been observed and testing for it has been utterly futlie. So whats the point? I am reminded of that line from Princess Bride..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." You do know what the term "theory" means in the world of science, no? It is not used in the same context or manner as one might use to describe an "option" or an abstract thought. In science, a scientific "theory" is not abstract, but rather, it is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." Thus your "theory of the flying spaghetti monster" bears no relation to the use of the term theory when used in the context of the "theory of evolution,"......even our understanding of the laws of gravity is still termed the "theory of gravity," though I don't suppose you will be arguing against gravity anytime soon (but then again, I am rarely shocked anymore).
Brian 2.0 Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Ok, lets take the theory of abiogenesis. What if I put up the theory of the flying spaghetti monster? Whats the difference? Theres no evidence for either, neither are or have been observed and testing for it has been utterly futlie. So whats the point?So are you arguing for science to be only that that has repeatable experiments then? Do you believe there is any "science" in developing a theory based on observations and testing said theory against other observations? Those new observations not definitively proving the theory but just adding weight to it because it's in line with the theory? That shouldn't be part of science then?
Skylla Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Rob Osborn: Knock off the personal comments or you will be removed from the thread. Skylla
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 (edited) I am reminded of that line from Princess Bride..."You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." You do know what the term "theory" means in the world of science, no? It is not used in the same context or manner as one might use to describe an "option" or an abstract thought. In science, a scientific "theory" is not abstract, but rather, it is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation." I am very well acquainted with how "theory" is used in science. My whole point was that as absurd as is the flying spaghetti monster, so too is the theory of abiogenesis. So why is it even a theory by "science standards" of the word if there is no proof for it beyond the ideas in mans minds? Edited April 23, 2014 by Rob Osborn
Rob Osborn Posted April 23, 2014 Author Posted April 23, 2014 So are you arguing for science to be only that that has repeatable experiments then? Do you believe there is any "science" in developing a theory based on observations and testing said theory against other observations? Those new observations not definitively proving the theory but just adding weight to it because it's in line with the theory? That shouldn't be part of science then? My whole rant with it is that science should just stick with making exacting observations and then report on those precise observations and then test in the same manner. Leave out the political or personal agendas. Leave out the lying, leave out the bait and switch, leave out the special definitions of words, etc. There is a place where science can stop and philosophy and religion can pick it up. But when you have scientists who take science beyond its ability and start making assumptions about things to the point of it infringing upon religious ideas then you have a problem. Dawkins is walking proof of this very problem to the extreme.
Recommended Posts