Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting

Rob Osborn

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3852

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Rob Osborn

  1. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

    The attached article comes from the current online version of New Scientist. I don't fully understand it and I neither endorse or oppose it, I simply add it here because it seems to be highly relevant to this discussion. It makes the claim that life may have appeared many different times on earth. It also claims that the basic building blocks and processes for creating life do not require any fantastic events or unusual inputs, and that the main ingredients can be readily found in even a basic chemistry lab. Interestingly, the article makes a few references to the importance of clay in the creation of life.

     

    multiple emergence of life.docx

    The link shows just why I balk at evolutionists claims. All these "what-ifs". And yet, even with their intelligently designed experiments they still cant get chemicals to form, create building directions for proteins and build biologic material. This is where it matters the most- chemical chains have to form that actually carry out a design that can be duplicated and carry out a purposeful action. Its what we would define as an intelligent design.

    Computer programs, made to simulate this chemical chance of events are unable to simulate the necessary specified intelligent information. William Dembski has actually published work on this fact that specified information requires an intelligent input.

  3. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

    I respect you for stating your definitions and thank you for them.  Your definitions are different than those used in the scientific community.  

    This is incorrect.  I do not argue for or against ID from a scientific POV because it's not a scientific question. 

    At least point out where I am wrong. You cant just give a blanket statement like that. You make it sound like I have ID theory erong when I copied it word for word from a leading ID site.

  4. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

    Rob,

    I'm really having difficulty figuring out what your position really is.  Could you please explain

    1) What you believe ID actually says.
    2) What you believe organic evolution actually says.
    3) What you believe peer review actually is.
    4) What you find to be strong and weak arguments in each.
    5) What you think many here (who are apparently on the opposite side as you) believe about evolution.

    1. The standard definition- "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. "

    2. Im gonna rephash this a bit because we are speaking in terms of lifes origins here. Generally, the theory of evolution has all species coming from a common ancestor and from that common ancestor it was evolved from nonlife matter.

    3. Peer review can mean many different things in context. Generally it refers to a common acceptance of your paper or works from your peers in that field. But, in this field its generally swayed automatically against intelligent design theory. ID theory papers and studies have gained acceptance in the peer review from time to time but its far from common.

    4. Not sure what you are asking. If you are referring to ID and evolution then here is my response- I dont really see any weak arguments in ID theory. I find it very refined and worked out by established scientists who really know their stuff. The strong point of ID in my opinion is that it directly counters evolutions weakest point on the origin of life and how DNA is understood.

    With evolution, its strongest point is micro evolution or change/varrience in species. We all are witnesses to variety amongst species. Its a no brainer, it exists. One of its weakest points besides explaining how life first arose, is how to explain how different species all come from a common ancestor. We cant observe it, we cant test it, it just sits there on paper as an ideaology. Science has no real answer here and because we cant observe or test it, it really shouldnt even qualify as a scientific theory. Its just a philosophy at this point in my opinion.

    5. Im not sure what anyone in here really believes in honestly. Jane doe says she believes in ID but then argues against it scientifically. Kind of a paradox to me.

  5. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

    There is no science behind it, because the question of a designer can not be tested with the scientific method.  Likewise, science can't prove Jesus is the Son of God.  Not all questions can be answered with science, and not all beliefs originate with science.  I do believe many things not proven by science, including the existence of a creator named Jesus Christ. 

    Lets just agree to disagree. I believe the question of design in nature can be observed and tested with scientific method. You dont, thats fine, lets move on.

  7. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Godless said:

    I made a small change in the wording of your original quote to make a point. In science, majority consensus determines scientific truth. By denying one of the fundamental concepts that drives everything we know about the biological world, you are giving yourself the credibility of the flat earth society. And it certainly doesn't help that you keep lumping abiogenisis (a highly theoretical field) with biological evolution (a widely-accepted and extensively researched/documented scientific principle).

    Religion vs. Science. Apples and oranges. Or to put it another way:

     

     

    The alien seeding theory doesn't imply direct/intelligent intent. Any organic (or inorganic, for that matter) material that enters the Earth's atmosphere is, by definition, considered alien. This theory suggests the possibility that, in an entirely random event, an asteroid or other celestial object struck the Earth and that it just happened to have some sort of lifeform (most likely a single-celled organism) inhabiting it. Granted, this only answers the question of where life on Earth came from, not where the asteroid-hitching lifeform came from. And ultimately this theory has very little, if any, evidence backing it. It's merely been stated as something that's theoretically possible.

    Please dont misquote me. Thanks.

  9. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

     In some cases. In some cases the majority thinks something happened because it did. The majority of historians think Jesus existed. The majority of historians think the holocaust happened. The majority of doctors think smoking cigarettes is bad for you. 

    But we actually have photos of the holocaust. We also have tremendous evidence for Jesus. What kind of evidence is there that life arose on its own in an unguided, unitelligent process in nature? None!

  10. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    I'm sorry, but these type comments are very low-balled and gives the appearance of not being interested in listening.  For the sake of civilized discussion, I'm going not going to respond to any more of them.

    Thats alright because the moment you say "peer review" in a discussion about evolution and ID I already know to go in pure defense mode as that is a known tactic of ID critics. At that point neither side makes any headway, it just becomes tit for tat.

  13. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

    Again, this thread is not about forensic criminology. 

    But, what happens if we find that structures such as DNA couldnt of possibly been developed naturally in nature as evolutionists say? Whats left? If it can be shown that the encoding process had to have some intelligent input or direction would it not directly imply intelligent design? In forensic criminology they use this same inference from scientific testing to deduce that a person was either murdered or not and perhaps why and how and who by.

  15. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

     You brought up a source that I cannot read without paying for it, hence I cannot comment on it.  If he cites peer-reviewed articles, you can link those directly without requiring others to purchase the book.

    The peer review stuff is a bunch of crap. Its just another tactic evolutionists use knowing that to prequalify for peer review one has to be pro evolution to even get noticed or looked at. Its kind of like letting the Iranians decide on whether the Palestinians should be given Israel.

  23. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    I cannot evaluate a book I cannot read (you must buy it first).

    You're hiding behind blind stereotypes when evidence to the contrary is standing right in front of you.  In a way, you remarks are just like people who say "you're beliefs in Mormonism are typical of an uneducated idiot- Mormonism promotes a lack of education" when they are addressing a college graduate whom has studied LDS beliefs thoroughly.  

    Hum...I am pretty sure theistic evolution is junk science too.

  24. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

    Okay, I've been following this thread for quite a while and enjoyed the exchange.  But Rob, this has gone way too far.  Godless is an atheist.  Jane_Doe is a fully active Mormon who happen to be in a career field in evolutionary science.  Please don't make these stupid statements.

    Now that I've chimed in, let me just say... Rob, you're hailing from a position of butthurt.  All your assertions come from your disgust of evolution scientists because of your experience with them.  This kind of arguments is what makes scientists - including those who are devout theists - dismiss Intelligent Design (captial I, captial D) discussions.  The people in that creation.com site are like you.  They come from the same position of butthurt that's why scientists dismiss them.

    Tons of evolutionary scientists - including Darwin himself (even as history is harsh on him) - are theists.  But they don't wield God like a hammer to bludgeon non-believers with their theistic science.

     

    Im just stating that the response is typically an atheists quick response. Im not saying she is an atheist, just her response is typically the same response you get from atheists. My point is to show that secular evolutionary theory is backed and promoted by atheism.

  25. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    No, they are not incompatible.  I myself am a very religious LDS person.  In my small department we have a man who's an Evangelical presiding elder at his church, Lutheran Sunday School teacher, Evangelical women's group leader, devoted Presbyterian, another LDS man, a devoted Catholic woman, and those are just the people I can think of off the top of my head.  These are all men and women devoted to God while researching evolution.  

    I'm not an atheist, you have been told this repeatedly and can even see it under my name.  Please cease these blind slanderous remarks. 

    Evaluating the quality of science has to do with the QUALITY of the scientific method applied, not with whatever the conclusion was.  For example, the previous site you linked was completely devoid of any actual science being done.  No science = a junk site.

     

    So, is Behe's work junk science or is his work sound?