Fundamental Question about your belief; Intelligent Design

[bcuzbcuz]

33 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

bcuz...You claim to be Mormon, no? Look at your own sig line. Are you disagreeing with Wexler now? Is truth only so if we first understand it? I do not even believe in "utter nonsense". That is far too strong. Nobody is wrong about everything, and every error has some foundation in truth.

I don't know how to respond about Wexler, I have no reference points at all. 

I was responding to a world supposedly made from a conglomeration of other planets. Physically it makes no sense how to transport such materials across the boundless realms of space nor to assemble those puzzle pieces into neatly arranged layers that tell about an evolution from early sea life, throught the Cambrian until modern life.

Of course, if the creation of this planet is presumed to be a long register of miraculous, magic events, all the evidence in the world will not convince otherwise. 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, BCSpace said:

I could go with the Big Bang caused God.  No problem.  At some point, there had to be intelligences that raised themselves up to be Gods and have perfected the process of Gods being created through the Atonement.  Whether that happened after our Big Bang or after some other Big Bang for some other universe, it makes no difference.

Why did there have to be intelligences that raised themselves up to be Gods?  Can your position be tested in a controlled study?

Do you know of any reputable cosmologists or evolutionary scientists who may agree with what you postulate above?

[Teancum]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

One man's opinion.  Nobody really can even say what the Big Bang really was.  They call it a "singularity" but what it consisted of and what triggered it.  Why did it occur 13.8 billion years ago and not 18 billion years ago.  What happened that sparked it.  It is all guessing.  Perhaps God caused it and perhaps God did not.  Some believe that there may be many big bangs that have occurred in a multiverse system.  As big as our universe it, there are far bigger things out there.  If our universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?  Perhaps there is another universe system 50 billion light years away that started by its own big bang.  We just can't see it yet.

I don't think it is all guessing.  The positions scientists take on this is based on the best evidence we have now.   Those positions could change based on newly discovered evidences and knowledge.   Before Hubble confirmed in 1929 that the universe is expanding science believed it was simply static.   Hubble's discovery led to the Big Bang theory.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

What utter nonsense.

Well Joseph taught it, even if he is fallible.  Which means you get to add another teaching of Joseph to your "rejected as false" pile (along with D&C 132).

Tell me again why you are a member if Joseph brought forth so many teachings and revelations you reject?

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I was responding to a world supposedly made from a conglomeration of other planets. Physically it makes no sense

Unlike walking on water, turning water into wine, the dead returning to life, fasting for 40 days, ordering storms to stop.

Those of course don't disagree with science at all.  And we're back to the pick and choose gospel again.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

I don't think it is all guessing.  The positions scientists take on this is based on the best evidence we have now.   Those positions could change based on newly discovered evidences and knowledge.   Before Hubble confirmed in 1929 that the universe is expanding science believed it was simply static.   Hubble's discovery led to the Big Bang theory.

It is not the observable that leads some to question science.  It is the mathematical proofs and theorems and formulas and laws derived by limited minds to explain what is observed.  It is not what is seen that contains the errors but the analysis of what is seen.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, BCSpace said:

I could go with the Big Bang caused God.  No problem.  At some point, there had to be intelligences that raised themselves up to be Gods and have perfected the process of Gods being created through the Atonement.  Whether that happened after our Big Bang or after some other Big Bang for some other universe, it makes no difference.

Abraham 3:18 “if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”

Moses 1:3 “Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?....37 The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.  38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.”

D&C 29:33 “my works have no end, neither beginning”

Joseph Smith, King Follett Funeral Oration, 1844:

Quote

“The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself… The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end… There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven… Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. The first principles of man are self-existent with God” (Journal of Discourses 6:6-7).

 

[JarMan]

Evolution provides the best framework for understanding how various life forms came into existence. Adding an intelligent design component does nothing to improve the framework - or model. Useful scientific models need to be predictive. We are constantly finding evidence, for example, of things predicted by general relativity or quantum mechanics. These discoveries verify the usefulness of those models. The same thing is true of evolution where we constantly find things in the fossil record that verify its usefulness as a model. I'm agnostic on whether or not there is intelligent design. But it's irrelevant from a scientific perspective unless you can show how it improves the existing model, for example, by providing better predictive power. 

[smac97]

On 5/27/2016 at 9:25 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

My perspective; Once I got good information about Darwinian Evolution I did not believe ID, which was still in my believing days.

My question to you is, do you believe in ID? If not how do you reconcile your unbelief in ID with your faith in LDS/Christianity?                                       From my perspective at no point of life ID makes sense; The rise of Animal Kingdom, Human Evolution at no point harmonizes with ID.                         Before giving you any pointers about pointing out the slippery slope of ID I'd to read your comments on this issue.                                                         Thank you.

I think you need to define terms.  "Intelligent Design" has varying definitions and applications.

Thanks,

-Smac

[longview]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I don't know how to respond about Wexler, I have no reference points at all. 

Because we do not know ALL truths.   There are too many unknowns in our sciences.  There are a LOT more suppositions, conjectures, guesswork, contrived "narratives" and assumptions than there are "facts."  People "theorize" that the "Big Bang" must have happened because of the "red shift."  The farther away the object is from us, the faster it is receding from us.   But what if the "red shift" is occurring because of "photon decay?"  I have explained this in a few other threads on this board.

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I was responding to a world supposedly made from a conglomeration of other planets. Physically it makes no sense how to transport such materials across the boundless realms of space nor to assemble those puzzle pieces into neatly arranged layers that tell about an evolution from early sea life, throught the Cambrian until modern life.

Why must ALL science "FIT" in your "frame of reference?"  God knows ALL science.  Carnal man knows only a small subset.  There are spiritual objects that the "natural eye" cannot see.  What if there are more dimensions than the 4 we know of ("space/time").?  What if spiritual objects operate in the "hidden dimensions?"  Our soul is composed of "clay tabernacles" united with the "spirit body" (your real inner self).  What if God can shift physical objects into different dimensions and transport them without being subject to the limiting speed of light?

The geological features in the earth are NOT uniform.  They are haphazard and "fragmentary."  The evolution "narrative" is mostly interpolations and interpretations.

4 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Of course, if the creation of this planet is presumed to be a long register of miraculous, magic events, all the evidence in the world will not convince otherwise. 

NO.  God is a rational being with great powers.  He only has to say the "word" and the host spring into action to bring it about.  See my signature paragraph below.

 

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Before Hubble confirmed in 1929 that the universe is expanding science believed it was simply static.   Hubble's discovery led to the Big Bang theory.

How can this be confirmed if "photon decay" is taken into consideration?  Hubble may have made a "leap" when he should have asked more questions.

[smac97]

On 5/28/2016 at 7:45 AM, Atheist Mormon said:

HI, very well written, I cannot discern of what religion are you, which is not at all important....What I can say is......I don't feel, hear, sense anything from another being...wether in my mind or any visual demonstration. I did not witness anything. However when I wanted to have any answers about evolution, geology, human anthropology I saw that worldwide scientific community coming into a consensus about science.

I'm not sure I find "scientific consensus" to be the most reliable thing it the world.  

First, I'm not sure it exists in the way you seem to be portraying it.

Second, to the extent it exists, I don't think it's as set-in-stone as you seem to be portraying it.  Consensus can and does change over time.  All the time.

Third, to the extent it exists, it is nevertheless susceptible to corrupting influences.  Politics has an effect.  Money has an effect.  Vanity has an effect.  Tradition and received knowledge have an effect.  Errors in data have an effect.  Errors in interpreting and applying data have an effect.  Gaps in data have an effect.  And on and on and on.

That is not to say that we cannot utilize and rely on "science."  Of course we can.  But to uncritically rely on "consensus" as a man-made alternative to religious faith in evaluating the truth claims of the LDS Church, well, no.  I won't do that.  "Science" is a very human endeavor.  it has flaws and limitations.  It is not a pristine and unadulterated fount of all knowledge.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mikegriffith1]

On 5/27/2016 at 0:25 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

My perspective; Once I got good information about Darwinian Evolution I did not believe ID, which was still in my believing days.

My question to you is, do you believe in ID? If not how do you reconcile your unbelief in ID with your faith in LDS/Christianity?                                       From my perspective at no point of life ID makes sense; The rise of Animal Kingdom, Human Evolution at no point harmonizes with ID.                         Before giving you any pointers about pointing out the slippery slope of ID I'd to read your comments on this issue.                                                         Thank you.

I suggest you have not gotten good information on ID and have not read some of the better critiques of Darwinian evolution. When the true history of the world is written, evolution will go down as the greatest hoax ever foisted upon mankind. When you apply common sense, evolution is silly and absurd on its face.

One question I have never been able to get a logical, plausible answer to is this: Assuming a godless universe, why would "natural selection" (which is a tautology) have selected components that offered no value when selected but that would later be needed to perform functions that did not even exist when selected? The evolutionist answer boils down to sheer chance, blind luck, and this amazing luck would have had to happen over and over and over again.

http://www.discovery.org/a/9761

http://www.discovery.org/a/51

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by mikegriffith1

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well Joseph taught it, even if he is fallible.  Which means you get to add another teaching of Joseph to your "rejected as false" pile (along with D&C 132).

Tell me again why you are a member if Joseph brought forth so many teachings and revelations you reject?

Good point

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It is not the observable that leads some to question science.  It is the mathematical proofs and theorems and formulas and laws derived by limited minds to explain what is observed.  It is not what is seen that contains the errors but the analysis of what is seen.

Science is the quest for knowledge by using the best empirical data available and testing it in controlled studies and other methods.  While scientists are subject to confirmation bias as we all can be good science does is willing to accept new knowledge that may over turn prior assumptions.  Science does not make claims that cannot be tested. 

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, longview said:

Because we do not know ALL truths.   There are too many unknowns in our sciences.  There are a LOT more suppositions, conjectures, guesswork, contrived "narratives" and assumptions than there are "facts."  People "theorize" that the "Big Bang" must have happened because of the "red shift."  The farther away the object is from us, the faster it is receding from us.   But what if the "red shift" is occurring because of "photon decay?"  I have explained this in a few other threads on this board.

Why must ALL science "FIT" in your "frame of reference?"  God knows ALL science.  Carnal man knows only a small subset.  There are spiritual objects that the "natural eye" cannot see.  What if there are more dimensions than the 4 we know of ("space/time").?  What if spiritual objects operate in the "hidden dimensions?"  Our soul is composed of "clay tabernacles" united with the "spirit body" (your real inner self).  What if God can shift physical objects into different dimensions and transport them without being subject to the limiting speed of light?

The geological features in the earth are NOT uniform.  They are haphazard and "fragmentary."  The evolution "narrative" is mostly interpolations and interpretations.

NO.  God is a rational being with great powers.  He only has to say the "word" and the host spring into action to bring it about.  See my signature paragraph below.

 

How can this be confirmed if "photon decay" is taken into consideration?  Hubble may have made a "leap" when he should have asked more questions.

Hubble's discoveries led other scientists after him to question,challange and test his findings all of which have led to what science currently understands about what we call the Big Bang.  If you theorize photon decay provides better answers then pursue that and test it.  Maybe you will overturn the best current science on how our universe began. 

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure I find "scientific consensus" to be the most reliable thing it the world.  

First, I'm not sure it exists in the way you seem to be portraying it.

Second, to the extent it exists, I don't think it's as set-in-stone as you seem to be portraying it.  Consensus can and does change over time.  All the time.

Third, to the extent it exists, it is nevertheless susceptible to corrupting influences.  Politics has an effect.  Money has an effect.  Vanity has an effect.  Tradition and received knowledge have an effect.  Errors in data have an effect.  Errors in interpreting and applying data have an effect.  Gaps in data have an effect.  And on and on and on.

That is not to say that we cannot utilize and rely on "science."  Of course we can.  But to uncritically rely on "consensus" as a man-made alternative to religious faith in evaluating the truth claims of the LDS Church, well, no.  I won't do that.  "Science" is a very human endeavor.  it has flaws and limitations.  It is not a pristine and unadulterated fount of all knowledge.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with all you say about science and a good scientist would agree as well.  

And all you say above is is further problematic for finding truth through religious means.   And most religious claims cannot be tested through critical methodology. Someone's claim of some special knowledge through divine means cannot be tested nor can it be subjected to methods that may falsify such claim. That means anyone can claim just about anything about God and who and what God is or may be.  

 

Good science challenges the status quo, critically, rationally,and vigorously and will toss aside previous conclusions based on new and better knowledge.  This what happened with Einstein and many of the scientific theorems he came up with which changed many of Newton's conclusions about gravity. Religion does not do this.  It posits claims and says have faith. The burden of proof should be on those making claims about supernatural things not the other way around. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, mikegriffith1 said:

I suggest you have not gotten good information on ID and have not read some of the better critiques of Darwinian evolution. When the true history of the world is written, evolution will go down in history as the greatest hoax ever foisted upon mankind. When you apply common sense, evolution is silly and absurd on its face.

One question I have never been able to get a logical, plausible answer to is this: Assuming a godless universe, why would "natural selection" (which is a tautology) have selected components that offered no value when selected but that would later be needed to perform functions that did not even exist when selected? The evolutionist answer boils down to sheer chance, blind luck, and this amazing luck would have had to happen over and over and over again.

http://www.discovery.org/a/9761

http://www.discovery.org/a/51

 

I recommend two books for you to help you better understand evolution and the science behind it:

Your Inner Fish:  http://www.amazon.com/Your-Inner-Fish-Journey-3-5-Billion-Year/dp/0307277453

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_15/184-7461461-6318615?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+greatest+show+on+earth&sprefix=The+greatest+sh%2Cstripbooks%2C368

 

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by Teancum

[thesometimesaint]

Anytime we have to posit God onto science to make it work it is no longer science but religion.

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Anytime we have to posit God onto science to make it work it is no longer science but religion.

I think the bigger issue is trying to posit man's science on to God's works.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a problem with either God or science. I'm perfectly content to let science tell me how God did it, and religion to tell me why.

[Atheist Mormon]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you need to define terms.  "Intelligent Design" has varying definitions and applications.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't know any other definitions of ID, I never thought "intelligent Design" had any other definition than which was soundly defeated in Dover trials.

Michael Behe being it's creator

[bcuzbcuz]

10 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said:

I suggest you have not gotten good information on ID and have not read some of the better critiques of Darwinian evolution. When the true history of the world is written, evolution will go down as the greatest hoax ever foisted upon mankind. When you apply common sense, evolution is silly and absurd on its face.

One question I have never been able to get a logical, plausible answer to is this: Assuming a godless universe, why would "natural selection" (which is a tautology) have selected components that offered no value when selected but that would later be needed to perform functions that did not even exist when selected? The evolutionist answer boils down to sheer chance, blind luck, and this amazing luck would have had to happen over and over and over again.

http://www.discovery.org/a/9761

http://www.discovery.org/a/51

 

You're new here (welcome, by the way) so I don't know anything about you other than a few posts. But if you're open to gaining new knowledge I suggest reading "Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. You'll find the read much more fulfilling than sticking just to discovery.org

[CV75]

On 5/27/2016 at 0:25 PM, Atheist Mormon said:

My perspective; Once I got good information about Darwinian Evolution I did not believe ID, which was still in my believing days.

My question to you is, do you believe in ID? If not how do you reconcile your unbelief in ID with your faith in LDS/Christianity?                                       From my perspective at no point of life ID makes sense; The rise of Animal Kingdom, Human Evolution at no point harmonizes with ID.                         Before giving you any pointers about pointing out the slippery slope of ID I'd to read your comments on this issue.                                                         Thank you.

Intelligent design is a great career niche.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

On May 27, 2016 at 0:09 PM, Jude2 said:

I've read a lot on this, both sides of the argument, and it all came down at least for me to the dna. Evolution was all theorized long before we understood just how complicated putting together the first few strands of dna was.  The odds of it all coming together makes it impossible without a moving cause/God. The definition of evolution is sort of self serving, it's random and mindless yet not random if ya get all the right genes in the right place at the right time, bang the egg laying animal has a womb and grows breast at the same time, have they found a womb type animal that doesn't have breast or a egg laying animal that does? 

 The logic just isn't there for me. 

You are aware that chimpanzees and humans share 96+% DNA...including virus mutations in the same exact  gene sequence...this could only occur with a common ancestor 

[longview]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

If you theorize photon decay provides better answers then pursue that and test it.  Maybe you will overturn the best current science on how our universe began. 

I did another review of photon decay and found that apparently all discussions involve split components of the photon too close in size.  That would NOT work for my "hypothesis."  It requires a steady emission of infinitesimals from the photon over 13 to 15 Billion light years which would enable it to continuously undergo the "red shift."

It seems the scientists are currently revamping and second-guessing their various theories (Quantum Mechanics and String Theory and whatnot).  It probably will require much more sophisticated math to go further beyond their current set of quarks in order to figure out the underlying "infinitesimals."  I cannot even begin to step past basic college physics.  So no can do (unless a new Einstein and a new Neils Bohr were to rise among us).

Edited May 29, 2016 by longview