Rob Osborn Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) The depends how you define the word "universe" Our observable universe is not infinite, but the universe (or multiverse) is infinite. There are many models that allow an eternal universe, for example http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Okay, what about the animals? How did God do it? Details please. Doesn't sound that you are open minded about that. The animals that exist in the heavens came to this earth also and procreated their species also. God brought them here to propagate their species. Plant species was done the same way- seeds were brought here and planted and from a central location spread throughout the world. Edited November 20, 2014 by Rob Osborn
thesometimesaint Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 Everyone is entitled to their own "opinions". It is my "opinion" that the theory of evolution from common descent is just a beliefe and far from being an actual scientific theory. Its good that we have our own opinions. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Rob Osborn Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Daniel Patrick Moynihan All one holds is beliefs whether they be right or wrong. My belief is that you are wrong. I feel good that you are wrong and it gives me peace to believe that my belief is true. You likewise feel the same about me. But, the most important thing here is that it isn't anyone's true right to dictate what is or isnt science to another. As long as we all can agree then we can proceed.
The Nehor Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 Everyone is entitled to their own "opinions". It is my "opinion" that the theory of evolution from common descent is just a beliefe and far from being an actual scientific theory. Its good that we have our own opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Your opinion just happens to be idiotic and make no sense, mostly because you do not know what an "actual scientific theory" is.
thesometimesaint Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 All one holds is beliefs whether they be right or wrong. My belief is that you are wrong. I feel good that you are wrong and it gives me peace to believe that my belief is true. You likewise feel the same about me. But, the most important thing here is that it isn't anyone's true right to dictate what is or isnt science to another. As long as we all can agree then we can proceed. I have absolutely every right and obligation to clearly state what is established science and what is not. You can believe anything you want. IE; You can believe the sun revolves around the earth like they did for thousands of years, and 25% of adult Americans believe it. However it is simply false that it does so. Or you can believe we would never be in space or on the moon because some religious leader figure said so. It is simply demonstrably false to posit such on science.
Stone holm Posted November 20, 2014 Author Posted November 20, 2014 "Theory" when applied to science is more than just a belief, it is something which has at least some evidence which is observable. Right now evolution is such a theory, since observable evidence gives considerable credence to it being scientifically correct. Our ability to test may eventually improve to the extent that it becomes discredited, but currently it is the best scientific evidence which we have. Intelligent design is not such a theory, but it is a belief which can in some instances be reconciled with the theory. Which is basically the stance which many Mormons have taken. There are a lot of unknowns right now. For example, we have evidence that the Neanderthals and the Homo Sapiens interbred, but we really don't know how they are related, just that they were able to mate and have viable offspring. As far a doctrine is concerned, we don't know what our beliefs do with the Neanderthals -- were they degenerate offspring of Adam and Eve, or were they alien to that bloodline. And if they were alien, did they have souls in the sense that we consider ourselves to have souls? If not, then do we believe that our ancestors mated with soulless creatures? There are simply too many questions out there which remain unanswered. But the important point of the original post is that the Pope isn't throwing science in the wastebasket because it may conflict with fundamentalist literalist readings of the Bible. That should put them somewhat closer to us, because its really hard to argue that the early Prophets of the Restoration were Biblical literalist fundamentalists -- clearly some of the later ones, like Joseph Fielding Smith were, but Brigham Young clearly was not.
danielwoods Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 "Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, was candid about how certain conclusions would be avoided at all costs, regardless of the evidence:Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."S.C. Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 (30 September 1999)
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 "Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, was candid about how certain conclusions would be avoided at all costs, regardless of the evidence:Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."S.C. Todd, correspondence to Nature 410(6752):423 (30 September 1999) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html"This comes from what is essentially a "letter to the editor" by Scott C. Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, about the Kansas Board of Education's 1999 decision to eliminate the required teaching of evolution in public schools. It was not from a formal scientific or philosophical paper. Creationists quote the above but leave out the very next sentence: Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism. In that next sentence, Dr. Todd correctly identifies the basis of the exclusion of the design hypothesis from science as methodological, not philosophical, naturalism. While it might be quibbled that Dr. Todd could have put it better, science, contrary to the fondest wishes of creationists, is still not metaphysics. To suggest that Dr. Todd was expressing a commitment to philosophical Naturalism is the height of disingenuousness. Also, the text which immediately precedes the quotation is: Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). That is hardly dogmatic anti-theism on Dr. Todd's part. Dr. Todd's complete letter to Nature can be found at its website (requires subscription). - John (catshark) Pieret and Tom (TomS) Scharle" The animals that exist in the heavens came to this earth also and procreated their species also. God brought them here to propagate their species. Plant species was done the same way- seeds were brought here and planted and from a central location spread throughout the world. What a nice theory, but the fossil record and DNA evidence contradict your theory.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 20, 2014 Posted November 20, 2014 ID theory doesn't predict that God did it. It simply is a system or theory that predicts that intelligent designed things, arise only from intelligent sources. This is opposed to strictly materialistic theories that say that all of life, intelligence that we observe must have arisen from non-intelligent processes and sources. If ID theory is a scientific theory, please describe how the designer did it? What predictions does ID theory make?
danielwoods Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html"This comes from what is essentially a "letter to the editor" by Scott C. Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, about the Kansas Board of Education's 1999 decision to eliminate the required teaching of evolution in public schools. It was not from a formal scientific or philosophical paper. Creationists quote the above but leave out the very next sentence: Of course the scientist, as an individual, is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism. In that next sentence, Dr. Todd correctly identifies the basis of the exclusion of the design hypothesis from science as methodological, not philosophical, naturalism. While it might be quibbled that Dr. Todd could have put it better, science, contrary to the fondest wishes of creationists, is still not metaphysics. To suggest that Dr. Todd was expressing a commitment to philosophical Naturalism is the height of disingenuousness. Also, the text which immediately precedes the quotation is: Most important, it should be made clear in the classroom that science, including evolution, has not disproved God's existence because it cannot be allowed to consider it (presumably). That is hardly dogmatic anti-theism on Dr. Todd's part. Dr. Todd's complete letter to Nature can be found at its website (requires subscription). - John (catshark) Pieret and Tom (TomS) Scharle" What a nice theory, but the fossil record and DNA evidence contradict your theory. None of the above changes the fact that scientists own views are incorporated into their theories without acknowledging it.
danielwoods Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) If ID theory is a scientific theory, please describe how the designer did it? What predictions does ID theory make? It isn't a study of how it was done. It wasn't observed. It's a theory about detecting whether or not something was designed by intelligent source. Who that source was or how that source did it's creative process isn't necessarily apart of the theory. Detecting whether something is designed or not is the same principle that the SETI project uses. In answer to your second question: http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.html Edited November 21, 2014 by danielwoods
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) It isn't a study of how it was done. It wasn't observed. It's a theory about detecting whether or not something was designed by intelligent source. Who that source was or how that source did it's creative process isn't necessarily apart of the theory. Detecting whether something is designed or not is the same principle that the SETI project uses. SETI gets signals all the time, so far no evidence of an intelligent alien. "Has the SETI Institute found an extraterrestrial signal?No SETI search has yet received a confirmed, extraterrestrial signal. If we had, the world would know about it. There is no policy of secrecy, and any promising signal would quickly prompt observations at other observatories. In the past, there were several unexplained and intriguing signals detected in SETI experiments. Perhaps the most famous of these was the “Wow” signal picked up at the Ohio State Radio Observatory in 1977. However, none of these signals was ever detected again, and for scientists that’s not good enough to claim success and boogie off to Stockholm to collect a Nobel Prize. Who would believe cold fusion unless many researchers could duplicate it in their labs? The same is true of extraterrestrial signals: they are credible only when they can be found more than once." How would we know that the signal is from ET? Virtually all radio SETI experiments have looked for what are called “narrow-band signals.” These are radio emissions that extend over only a small part of the radio spectrum. Imagine tuning your car radio late at night … There’s static everywhere on the dial, but suddenly you hear a squeal – a signal at a particular frequency – and you know you’ve found a station. Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. The static from these objects is spread all across the dial. In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called “carriers.” They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any given power level. If E.T. intentionally sends us a signal, those signals may well have at least one narrow-band component to get our attention.http://www.seti.org/faq#obs2 If ID theory is a scientific theory, you need to investigate how it was done, at least find some models or reasonable possibilities. Scientists make models all the time, so if ID theory is a successful scientific theory, you should have many models of how it was done. What about predictions? Scientific theories make predictions, what does ID theory predict? I believe in Theistic Evolution, but Theistic is not a scientific theory. Edited November 21, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 ID predicts that you cannot create life without intelligent processes preceding it. How many times do I have to say it?
Rob Osborn Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 I have absolutely every right and obligation to clearly state what is established science and what is not. You can believe anything you want. IE; You can believe the sun revolves around the earth like they did for thousands of years, and 25% of adult Americans believe it. However it is simply false that it does so. Or you can believe we would never be in space or on the moon because some religious leader figure said so. It is simply demonstrably false to posit such on science.Well, in your little mind you can think you can do whatever you want. Funny thing is though, you are not the science police!Whether you like it or not, ID is a scientific theory with many notable scientists who even write books describing in great detail the merits of this theory. Seems to me it is you who who are the kind who think we never put men into space, earth is flat, etc. Get with the program already. Thread ban for insults.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Well, in your little mind you can think you can do whatever you want. Funny thing is though, you are not the science police!Whether you like it or not, ID is a scientific theory with many notable scientists who even write books describing in great detail the merits of this theory. Seems to me it is you who who are the kind who think we never put men into space, earth is flat, etc. Get with the program already. Ad Hominem I eagerly await your publications in sources such as the Science, and Nature periodicals It was the claim of Joseph Field Smith that man would never be in space or on the moon.SEE May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: 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. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen. It is the Christian Bible that says the earth is flat.SEE "Daniel 4:10-11. In Daniel, the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth… reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”SEE Matthew 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world"SEE Luke 4:5: "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." Seems to me it is you that needs to get with the fact based world.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Atheism is rampant, what can I say... So Joseph Fielding Smith, Daniel, Matthew, and Luke were Atheists? :rofl: So is Theism. Both are irrelevant to science.
emarkp Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 Rob's tunnel vision appears to be "If you don't believe exactly as I do, you're an atheist." It's an odd redefinition of the word.
danielwoods Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) SETI gets signals all the time, so far no evidence of an intelligent alien. "Has the SETI Institute found an extraterrestrial signal?No SETI search has yet received a confirmed, extraterrestrial signal. If we had, the world would know about it. There is no policy of secrecy, and any promising signal would quickly prompt observations at other observatories. In the past, there were several unexplained and intriguing signals detected in SETI experiments. Perhaps the most famous of these was the “Wow” signal picked up at the Ohio State Radio Observatory in 1977. However, none of these signals was ever detected again, and for scientists that’s not good enough to claim success and boogie off to Stockholm to collect a Nobel Prize. Who would believe cold fusion unless many researchers could duplicate it in their labs? The same is true of extraterrestrial signals: they are credible only when they can be found more than once." How would we know that the signal is from ET? Virtually all radio SETI experiments have looked for what are called “narrow-band signals.” These are radio emissions that extend over only a small part of the radio spectrum. Imagine tuning your car radio late at night … There’s static everywhere on the dial, but suddenly you hear a squeal – a signal at a particular frequency – and you know you’ve found a station. Narrow-band signals – perhaps only a few Hertz wide or less – are the mark of a purposely built transmitter. Natural cosmic noisemakers, such as pulsars, quasars, and the turbulent, thin interstellar gas of our own Milky Way, do not make radio signals that are this narrow. The static from these objects is spread all across the dial. In terrestrial radio practice, narrow-band signals are often called “carriers.” They pack a lot of energy into a small amount of spectral space, and consequently are the easiest type of signal to find for any given power level. If E.T. intentionally sends us a signal, those signals may well have at least one narrow-band component to get our attention.http://www.seti.org/faq#obs2If ID theory is a scientific theory, you need to investigate how it was done, at least find some models or reasonable possibilities. Scientists make models all the time, so if ID theory is a successful scientific theory, you should have many models of how it was done. What about predictions? Scientific theories make predictions, what does ID theory predict? I believe in Theistic Evolution, but Theistic is not a scientific theory.Did you not read the link? http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.htmlThe ID model takes the same data we all have and understands that intelligence doesn't and hasn't ever been observed to arise from non-intelligent sources, it predicts that the things like DNA will have characteristics of a thing that is designed. For example, DNA is a four base communication system, far more complicated than anything we are currently using. It would be comparable to using words with 30 letters each that are also wrapped up in a 3D shape both of which dictate it's meaning and function. We function at a much lower level of complication, yet no one would deny that our communication is derived from intelligence source. Yet, evolutionists deny that DNA has an intelligent source. I would love it if evolutionists would at least come up with some evidence that supports such conclusions. Edited November 21, 2014 by danielwoods
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) SEE Teleological Argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument Plus ID is still an argument from ignorance How about the director of the human genome project? Thoroughly modern scientist, Theist, who rejects Intelligent Design as science.SEE http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FINDING-MY-RELIGION-Leader-of-the-Human-Genome-3299361.php Edited November 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Grudunza Posted November 21, 2014 Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) I know I've told Rob this before, but I don't disagree that there is intelligence within our natural world, or that having some measure of what we would call intelligence is an indicator that a greater intelligence exists. But that is a philosophical/spiritual idea, not a scientific one... at least for now. Until or unless we have some way to specifically identify and measure and define what the intelligence in natural and observable life is (as if the world could agree on such a thing), then we're better off using the already established and progressing discipline of science to observe and describe our world through. And we don't need to presume that embracing good and true science is somehow at odds with our theology. But we may need to be open about our understanding of theology to adapt, lest we keep trying to shoot Nerf arrows against the steel doors of what is revealed through science. Revealed truth is revealed truth, wherever it comes from and whatever it implies. We should embrace truth without fear. Evolution has all the hallmarks of revealed truth to me, shown in numerous ways for a long time now to be occurung, and those who oppose it for theological reasons increasingly appear to be Nerf archers. Edited November 21, 2014 by Grudunza
LinuxGal Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 ID predicts that you cannot create life without intelligent processes preceding it. How many times do I have to say it? If that rule applies to the living God himself, then we end up with a paradox of infinite regression, turtles all the way down, etc.
danielwoods Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 If that rule applies to the living God himself, then we end up with a paradox of infinite regression, turtles all the way down, etc. Which is why it's a different topic. ID doesn't theorize or claim to test for who, only if it an intelligent source. On that topic, that is why they knew Jesus was claiming to be God when he said, "before Abraham was, I AM" the "I AM" indicates the only self-existent being, that is God.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Did you not read the link?http://www.ideacenter.org/content1156.htmlThe ID model takes the same data we all have and understands that intelligence doesn't and hasn't ever been observed to arise from non-intelligent sources, it predicts that the things like DNA will have characteristics of a thing that is designed. For example, DNA is a four base communication system, far more complicated than anything we are currently using. It would be comparable to using words with 30 letters each that are also wrapped up in a 3D shape both of which dictate it's meaning and function.We function at a much lower level of complication, yet no one would deny that our communication is derived from intelligence source. Yet, evolutionists deny that DNA has an intelligent source.I would love it if evolutionists would at least come up with some evidence that supports such conclusions. Your ID arguments do not contradict common ancestry (Macro-Evolution) or Theistic Evolution. When scientists discover an alien signal, they will try to understand how it was done. Do ID proponents try to understand the how? If ID theory is a scientific theory, why don't you at least try?
danielwoods Posted November 23, 2014 Posted November 23, 2014 Your ID arguments do not contradict common ancestry (Macro-Evolution) or Theistic Evolution. When scientists discover an alien signal, they will try to understand how it was done. Do ID proponents try to understand the how? If ID theory is a scientific theory, why don't you at least try? Indeed, common ancestry is apart of evolutionary theories, ID contradicts this concept by pointing out that things that are designed, are not evolved. And some scientists have pointed out, that the step by step process required by evolution simply doesn't work chemically. When scientists detect an alien signal, they will be able to identify it as coming from an intelligent source. ID uses this exact same principle.
Recommended Posts