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

    9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    This is totally off topic.  

    This is a junk site.  If you want to state something, a good source should preferably be peer-reviewed or at minimum published by a research institution.  

    Typical atheist evolution jargon response.

    Years ago I bought and read Behe's "Darwins Black Box". What did evolutionists say- that it was junk science. Yeah, theres no obvious bias is there?

  5. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Vort said:

    Rob, for at least the third time -- this is simply not so. Yes, there is a lot of sneering and eye-rolling toward the ID community. (In my judgment, much of this sneering is not undeserved, but I think it's the wrong way to respond.) But there are also solid responses to every point the ID people bring up. Irreducible complexity? Such as -- what? The eye is not irreducibly complex. Simply making up a term such as "irreducible complexity" does not mean that term is truthful, or that the examples are irrefutable.

    They cant prove irreducible complexity wrong. It bothers them tremendously.

  6. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Vort said:

    In the scientific community, this is true, but only in the sense that appealing to God as an explanation for some phenomenon is not acceptable. Do you understand why this is the case?

    But we arent even talking about appealing to God. In ID theory, they propose nothing more than appealing to topics such as irreducible complexity. But because that signifies that some sort of "intelligent" or directed process is involved they shunt it because it could be extrapolated or connected that the "intelligent" or directed process may include creation believers belief in God. The irony of it is that they cannot even accept that we ourselves are intelligent designers. They avoid the words intelligent and design like the plague because it too closely is associated with God! Heaven forbid!

  7. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

    Just a few thoughts.

    When defending Evolution Theory, people tend to cite the notion of reliability that is supposed to come from peer reviewed material and other scientific sources.  The problem I've seen first hand is that the peer review system is fantastic in theory, and looks great on paper.  The reality is that it isn't nearly as reliable as it's made out to be.

    As to spontaneous biogenesis:  As has been pointed out it's sort of the Big Bang theory of biology but the problem is that it's statistically impossible.  Pure random chance cannot account for the problems inherent in trying to get proteins to form in the sort of environment that would have existed. 

    The same goes for the diversity of life.

    Now, I know some folks reconcile it by suggesting that Evolution Theory is true, but that it's simply the mechanism by which God brought about Creation.  Maybe it's so, but my skepticism of Evolution isn't because of religion, but because of the realities of the theory and the environment in which it's touted.  The theory itself is very inconsistent and riddled with problems, but because it's the only alternative to Creationism or Intelligent Design, it's the only port in the storm for an atheistic academic culture.

    I may add that "peer reviewed" must be purely atheistic. No legitimate papers are accepted by the "peer reviewed" process that include the possibility of deity.

  8. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Vort said:

    Rob, this is the crux of the matter. And it simply is not so. I admit that many individuals who call themselves "scientists" have this attitude, but it is not implicit in science itself. In reality, there are many scientists who are also theists. Read my post above on the "God of the gaps" if you want to understand why I think this issue arises so often.

    I have met and talked with some. Steven Peck from BYU is one such theist who believes in evolution. But, like most of them, he excludes the Creator from an actual part of the process of how life came to be. Thats a fact.

  10. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    44 minutes ago, Vort said:

    Obviously. You say this like it's a bad thing. But particle physicists are most happy dealing with elementary particles that originally "poofed" into existence rather than deal with how that existence got started. A particle physicist does not have to understand or even believe the "Big Bang" theory in order to do science; he just needs to look at the particles. Same with evolutionary scientists. For most of them, the specifics of biogenesis are not relevant to what they're doing. All they care about is that DNA exists and that it acts in certain predictable, quantifiable ways.

    But, evolutionists, and scientists in general, can only accept that naturalism accomplished everything including the first formation of life. They may care less how it happened, just as long as some "God" didnt do it.

  11. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

    True; however, they are two different independent studies, and are classed differently also.

    Evolution: the study of the change of alleles within organic "existing" life.

    Abiogenesis: the study of how life began -- non-existent life (a note to remember, life can begin without a change in alleles).

    This is where the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of abiogenesis" are fundamentally different, and I believe it is wisdom that we do not conflate different studies of science. Remember, the origin of life doesn't require any "change" among alleles within organic life. The moment "offspring" were born is when the "theory of evolution" begins, as long as their is a change of alleles, if not, evolution did not take place (As to my understanding, binary fission is not evolution, as there is no change in alleles from a clone of oneself). 

    Similar principles may apply, but this doesn't make them the same study (even if they are encompassed within the same field of "evolutionary biology"). The theory of abiogenesis stems (speaking from my last reads which were a while ago) from the notion that all organic (even non-organic) life is made from elements (mainly compound elements). E.g. Hydrogen and Oxygen combined create H2O. Our bone structure is the combination of elements combined. This is my current understanding of "abiogenesis" which is a different idea of "evolution" than the "theory of evolution" regarding life and its changes. 

    Evolutionists are most happy dealing with a first life form that has "poofed" into existance rather than deal with how that first life form evolved. Most important though, they can accept that nature somehow poofed it into existance and call that "science" rather than have a supernatural being do it.

  13. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    25 minutes ago, Vort said:

    They have confirmed the mechanism works, and they have demonstrated the mechanism as functioning for thousands of years.

    How do you know gravity worked a million years ago? After all, there's no direct evidence. But there is plenty of indirect evidence, and such an inference is eminently reasonable.

    Your martyr pose is noted. The fact that dinosaur soft tissue survived for 70 million years is astounding, but I don't see how it evidences "your brand of science". As was pointed out, no usable DNA could be recovered from it -- and since they have recovered DNA from mummies approaching a million years old, that suggests the dinosaur soft tissue was far, far older. I may be wrong, but I suspect that doesn't really support your brand of science. :)

    The inference of gravity analogous to DNA must logically hold that DNA has always been complex. To state otherwise would be analogous to saying gravity evolved slowly.

    The dino soft tissue only works for my brand of science. I dont believe anything that was once alive on this planet is older than 7,000 years old. Thats my brand of science and if its more true than evolutionary models, this whole argument is a moot point.

  15. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    26 minutes ago, Vort said:

    No, they are not. The big stir a few years ago about dinosaur soft tissue being preserved and serving as a source for DNA apparently came to naught, as did the Jurassic Park idea of using DNA from amber-preserved mosquitoes. But they (those evolutionary scientists you mentioned) are apparently extracting DNA from frozen tissues >10,000 years old and from mummies well over 100,000 years old. In one case, horse DNA on the order of 700,000 years old was recovered. Human DNA over 100,000 years old has also been recovered. Here is the Wikipedia article.

    So, how can they know how DNA evolved if they can only trace it back a micro fraction in time?

    BTW, they actually did get real soft tissue from dinosaur bones, but thats evidence for my brand of science and doesnt apply.

  16. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Vort said:

    No, Rob. They were not. Abiogenesis is pure speculation, far less grounded than even the "Big Bang". Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily well-grounded. it has been observed in nature. It can be traced through fossil evidence, It can be shown through DNA analysis of modern beings and ancient preserved tissues. It is seen in animals, plants, and microbiota. To suggest that abiogenesis is inane, so therefore evolutionary theory is clearly false, is simply nonsense.

    If I am not mistaken but, im pretty sure scientists of the evolutionary brand arent extracting DNA from fossils millions of years old.

  17. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    11 minutes ago, Vort said:

    No, Rob. They were not. Abiogenesis is pure speculation, far less grounded than even the "Big Bang". Evolutionary theory is extraordinarily well-grounded. it has been observed in nature. It can be traced through fossil evidence, It can be shown through DNA analysis of modern beings and ancient preserved tissues. It is seen in animals, plants, and microbiota. To suggest that abiogenesis is inane, so therefore evolutionary theory is clearly false, is simply nonsense.

    If I am not mistaken but, im pretty sure scientists of the evolutionary brand arent extracting DNA from fossils millions of years old.

  18. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    Evolutionary Biology includes much more than the Theory of Evolution.  For example, any theories on the origin of life are part of the Evolutionary Biology, but not part of the Theory of Evolution.  A person can study evolution professionally their entire life and never touch origin of life theories (I know many such scientists).

    Do you have any references for your stance here?

    The mechanism of Darwinian theory of evolution is "natural selection". According to Berkeley they say this same mechanism of Darwinian evolution was at work before life came about in the evolution of the building blocks of life that finally became life. Im not making thus stuff up. Here, read this-

     http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_04

  19. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Rob Osborn

    15 minutes ago, Vort said:

    Doesn't this indicate that "evolutionists" do not necessarily consider abiogenesis to be a part of their work?

    Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to grant your proposition that abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory, what of it? Abiogenesis has nothing to do with inheritance, mutation, survival and reproduction of the fittest, and other foundational elements of organic evolution. Abiogenesis stands out there on its own. It's as if you took issue with the Big Bang, and so discarded all elements of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.

    If you're going to argue against organic evolution, argue against it as a whole, or choose a central feature to argue against. Don't pick one small, even insignificant point, argue against it to your own satisfaction, and then claim that you have therefore disproven every element of the entire structure. You have not.

    Im just saying that there really is no evidence that intelligent life came about from the method or theory they believe in. Abiogenesis in evolutionary theory is the means whereby single steps or blocks were added upon each other until eventually it became "life". All of those steps leading up to and after it became life were part of the same process. 

  20. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

    I'm missing your point here.

    My point is that science understanding is a philosophy. Truth, whatever it is, stands independent of that philosophy. Thus, we cant just say "it must be true because science said so". Of the different philosophies out there in science regarding lifes origins and age of the earth, etc, truth still stands independent of the different brands (different philosophies" on what may be true). No single philosophy of man has the very complete truth. That is my point. We may and do indeed argue or debate over who is right and who is wrong but no one single philosophy of science can be proven "true" by mans current understanding.

  21. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

    This is talking about the field of Evolutionary Biology, not the Theory of Evolution.  The former is much more broad (being an entire field of study) than the latter (which is one particular theory).  

    Berkeley wouldnt bring up the origins of life in the evolution portion of online study if it wasnt part of it. Evolutionists like to distance themselves from the discussion because there isnt really any evidence and what they do have is subjective conjecture at best. ID proponents know this and jump all over it and so evolutionists try to skate around it alltogether. The fact remains though that whatever was their supposed "first life form" came about under the same Darwinian theory of evolution process that created it as also that propogated it afterwards. It didnt just "poof" into existance.

  23. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    52 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

    What if you are using the scriptures to argue science, but have a misunderstanding of scripture?  That can happen as well.  

    For example, you mentioned no death until the Fall.  If we assume that means for man, plants and animals, we would be incorrect, and likely follow up with some incorrect assumptions. Talmedge was a gospel scholar, and he was also a geologist.  He said that the fall brought death for man; many plants and animals died before the earth was prepared for man.  (No I don't have the reference it's in my notes from BYU-I science class. :))

    Russel M. Nelson said, "All truth is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Whether truth comes from a scientific laboratory or by revelation from the Lord, it si compatible.  All truth is part of the everlasting gospel. There is no conflict between science and religion.  Conflict only arises from an incomplete knowledge of either science or religion or both."  https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-gather-at-byus-life-sciences-building-for-dedication?lang=eng

    It just depends on what brands of science and religion one believes in. My brand of science doesnt include millions of years of evolution just as my brand of religion believes in the creation, fall, and redemption and immortality of all life.

  24. Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

    in LDS Gospel Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

    I'm sympathetic as well @Vort but science is a harsh mistress who doesn't care about our sympathies or personal feelings. Science doesn't care if I don't accept the theory of gravity. If I jump off the Space Needle odds are that I'll plunge to my death. 

     

    That said, I do think that God created life. How, I don't claim to know. 

    I will take a stab at it. I think plant life started here through planting seeds, watering them, some sun, etc. Animal and human life started by parents procreating them.