Teancum Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 I see it more as basic logic to see the hand of God in all things.Why?
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Why? We live in an ordered universe. Why is that?
passport Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Do it yourself.I don't even think that this research exists. You made the claim, it is your responsibility to show it is true. From what I've read Darwin's ideas about evolution were considered revolutionary during his time rather than what those in his day already accepted.It was revolutionary. In most places the prevailing view was that life was essentially static. Now the evidence shows that it is quite dynamic. Why are you saying "contemporary" animal? The science is the same in any time period, so according to evolutionary science no animal of any kind can turn into another kind of animal. Evolution is the accumulation of changes over generations of time. Are you the same as your parents? Are you even close to being the same as your direct ancestors of millions of years ago?
passport Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 The number one case of inference of ID theory, in my opinion, is that life only comes from life preceding it. Or, in simpler terms- intelligence itself can only arise from an intelligent action/process preceding it thus giving the inference that intelligence is "always" the product of intelligence itself.Looks like a non sequitur to me. Your parents did not design you. That being the case, how is life coming from life evidence in any way, shape, or form for ID theory. Some of evolutions many fairytale claims is that life arose by chance on this planet due to non intelligent processes that jump started life through random chance actions. The reason this is a fairytale is because scientific experiments have proven over and over again with extreme accuracy that life doesnt come from non intelligent processes in nature. That is the hypothesis of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution
thesometimesaint Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) We live in an ordered universe. Why is that? Because without order there can be no universe. But neither dictates the necessity of God. Edited March 7, 2015 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Because without order there can be no universe. But neither dictates the necessity of God.But it does show the necessity of intelligence that was pre-existing.
thesometimesaint Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 But it does show the necessity of intelligence that was pre-existing. No it does not. All it shows is what did happened. IE; No intelligent designer is needed for energy to cool. Entropy works.
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Looks like a non sequitur to me. Your parents did not design you. That being the case, how is life coming from life evidence in any way, shape, or form for ID theory. That is the hypothesis of abiogenesis, not the theory of evolutionMy being, which is an intelligent design, came from an intelligent design (my parents) preceding it. Their bodies, created from a design in the DNA a copy of themselves. The whole process is a long series of intelligent designs. If you want to argue tht the process of creating life doesnt involve intelligence and designs at the molecular level then be my guest but the whole scientific world knows that the processes involved in creating new life require a high degree of intelligence working with designed plans (DNA).Abiogenesis is within the field of study of evolution. Here, this from Berkeley-"Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from." http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtmlTo claim abiogenesis is not a part of evolution is a typical myth promoted by evolutionists so they do not have to deal with the elephant in the living room. 1
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 No it does not. All it shows is what did happened. IE; No intelligent designer is needed for energy to cool. Entropy works.Look, you can deny the Creator all the day long, I dont really care, but at least acknowledge the truth that your being, housing tens of trillions of individual cells is not the product of nature void of the Creator.
thesometimesaint Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Look, you can deny the Creator all the day long, I dont really care, but at least acknowledge the truth that your being, housing tens of trillions of individual cells is not the product of nature void of the Creator. Look, you have built up this fairytale land of I what believe, despite, and contrary to everything I have said. For the umpteenth time I'm not denying a Creator. I am stipulating that science has yet to prove or disprove him. I fully to expect that someday it will, but that day isn't likely to be today. It is obvious that you don't care. Though I do find it endlessly fascinating, and frustrating, that you use the products of science. Yet deny the power thereof. I believe in the Creator. What I can't do is posit him onto science. You continue to make unsupportable/unsupported assertions about what science say's. I don't know where we can go from here when you won't accept that I believe what I say I believe.
Teancum Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 We live in an ordered universe. Why is that? Ummmm I don't know if science would agree that the Universe is ordered the same way a theist would.
Teancum Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Because without order there can be no universe. But neither dictates the necessity of God. Now this I can agree with. Edited March 7, 2015 by Teancum
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Look, you have built up this fairytale land of I what believe, despite, and contrary to everything I have said. For the umpteenth time I'm not denying a Creator. I am stipulating that science has yet to prove or disprove him. I fully to expect that someday it will, but that day isn't likely to be today. It is obvious that you don't care. Though I do find it endlessly fascinating, and frustrating, that you use the products of science. Yet deny the power thereof. I believe in the Creator. What I can't do is posit him onto science. You continue to make unsupportable/unsupported assertions about what science say's. I don't know where we can go from here when you won't accept that I believe what I say I believe.We are at odds then. You claim a creator but deny his works. One day, God will show you he is the very professor of science.
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Ummmm I don't know if science would agree that the Universe is ordered the same way a theist would.Of course not, they (science) call the Creator and His works a "myth".
Bobbieaware Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) We are at odds then. You claim a creator but deny his works. One day, God will show you he is the very professor of science.At least you can take comfort in the fact that the scriptures and the temple present God as a very efficient, proactive and hands-on creator, always going down to the scene of the action, always busy, and always present in the very thick of things. The seemingly detached and distant God some champion is not at all portrayed, For what I presume to be important reasons, the creator of the scriptures is most definitely NOT depicted as an "automatic pilot" kind of guy. Edited March 7, 2015 by Bobbieaware 1
Teancum Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 We are at odds then. You claim a creator but deny his works. One day, God will show you he is the very professor of science. Ok Rob Where is God? Why does God remain hidden,elusive, a mystery, require faith... which means believe when there is no evidence or in spite of evidence. Why can we trust scripture? Why should we believe the Bible is really what God wants us to know. Lots of problems there. Further you as a Latter-day Saint... you rely on additional texts that you believe are scripture. Yet there is much evidence to cast doubt and questions as to the integrity of unique LDS canon. Why should a person rely on these? Honest persons want to know.
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Ok Rob Where is God? Why does God remain hidden,elusive, a mystery, require faith... which means believe when there is no evidence or in spite of evidence. Why can we trust scripture? Why should we believe the Bible is really what God wants us to know. Lots of problems there. Further you as a Latter-day Saint... you rely on additional texts that you believe are scripture. Yet there is much evidence to cast doubt and questions as to the integrity of unique LDS canon. Why should a person rely on these? Honest persons want to know.God doesnt remain hidden, you cant just sit there, you do have to find him. There is no mystery to God when one searches to find him. Ifhe is a disbeliever then no matter what and where a person searches, he will never see him or find him. Honest people would come to the conclusion in search, that God does exist and he loves us. There are myriads of evidence for God for those that search for him, but hardly any for skeptics who choose to only look to man for understanding. If you are not searching for God, then nothing i show you as evidence will suffice.
Teancum Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 God doesnt remain hidden, you cant just sit there, you do have to find him. There is no mystery to God when one searches to find him. Ifhe is a disbeliever then no matter what and where a person searches, he will never see him or find him. Honest people would come to the conclusion in search, that God does exist and he loves us. There are myriads of evidence for God for those that search for him, but hardly any for skeptics who choose to only look to man for understanding. If you are not searching for God, then nothing i show you as evidence will suffice. I am searching. I pray. I examine evidence. and on and on. But your post is tainted, slanted to what your own a priori dogma asserts. You state the HONEST PEOPLE will conclude that God exists? Really? So of course someone who concludes differently is dishonest.This is typical of the religious believer or apologist. They start with a premise that their belief is in fact true then look for the even slightest plausible evidence to support it... no matter how thin or evidence lacking it is. The true seeker of truth examines evidence and is willing to leave prior beliefs. They do not assume that prior beliefs are true nor do they spend energy in confirmation bias. They are willing to let the evidence lead them no matter how painful.
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 I am searching. I pray. I examine evidence. and on and on. But your post is tainted, slanted to what your own a priori dogma asserts. You state the HONEST PEOPLE will conclude that God exists? Really? So of course someone who concludes differently is dishonest.This is typical of the religious believer or apologist. They start with a premise that their belief is in fact true then look for the even slightest plausible evidence to support it... no matter how thin or evidence lacking it is. The true seeker of truth examines evidence and is willing to leave prior beliefs. They do not assume that prior beliefs are true nor do they spend energy in confirmation bias. They are willing to let the evidence lead them no matter how painful.Well, All I can say, after years of searching is that I have found the honest truth. So, in my conclusions I have to admit that if someone comes to a different conclusion, then they obviously arrived at the wrong destination because they placed faith in bad ideologies.The true seeker of truth doesnt have faulty parameters such as "I cannot posit God in science" (thanks TSS)
Teancum Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Well, All I can say, after years of searching is that I have found the honest truth. So, in my conclusions I have to admit that if someone comes to a different conclusion, then they obviously arrived at the wrong destination because they placed faith in bad ideologies.The true seeker of truth doesnt have faulty parameters such as "I cannot posit God in science" (thanks TSS) So in other words your dogma rules your world view and evidence does not matter to you.
Rob Osborn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 So in other words your dogma rules your world view and evidence does not matter to you.The evidence totally matters. For instance- The evidence that DNA is a design/blueprint for constructing the organisms/components of life shows to me that this is not a product of nature. Why? Because, scientific experiments have constantly shown that nature is wholly incapable of assembling a coded language for assembling intelligence. This isnt dogma, its the facts of scientific study.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Teleological argumentSEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument ID is inextricably bound to the Christian GodSEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Here is what one of the major proponents of ID Ken Ham has to say about NASA.http://www.examiner.com/article/creationist-ken-ham-says-nasa-is-a-waste-of-money-and-aliens-don-t-existI'm not sure why you cite such irrelevant arguments. They have nothing to do with my contention, which you really ought to reread, before jumping to your mainstream attack on mainstream, supernatural religious ideology. Normative Muslims, Christians, and Jews do have very vulnerable dogmas, which is probably why you trot out this nonsense, thinking wrongly perhaps that Mormonism has the same theological and theoretical base. You need to more carefully study the positions of anti-religious scientists like Richard Dawkins on the existence of advanced, "godlike" entities in our universe, before spouting off. Haven't we discussed this before? You learned nothing previously? Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic and humanistic religion, even though few Mormons have any idea what that might mean. You seem altogether unfamiliar with that fact. 1
Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Because, scientific experiments have constantly shown that nature is wholly incapable of assembling a coded language for assembling intelligence. Really? Umm. Can you provide a reference to the science that supposedly shows what nature is not capable of?
Rob Osborn Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Really? Umm. Can you provide a reference to the science that supposedly shows what nature is not capable of?What do you mean? We all know that nature by itself doesnt create intelligence.
Tarski Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Mormonism is an entirely naturalistic and humanistic religion, even though few Mormons have any idea what that might mean. You seem altogether unfamiliar with that fact.As is Scientology I believe. That is, unless one takes a central value of naturalism to be dependence on ordinary notions of publicly available evidence and the need for that evidence to be situated within a theoretical framework with explanatory power beyond the ad hoc and a framework unmuddled by endless exceptions and unconvincing rationalizations (as we see with attempts to harmonize evolution with scriptural theology). Notice that Scientologists and Mormons alike accept most science and yet neither accept the others theology which only shows that such "naturalistic theologies" are nothing like science since they lack the power to convince in the same way.
Recommended Posts