Rob Osborn
-
Posts
3852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rob Osborn
-
-
23 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
I am not sure what you are asking. You seem to have a non-traditional view of ID and mixing evolution with origin-ofo-lie theories (those are two different things).
My view of ID theory is mainstream ID theory. ID theory is misunderstood by most because of all the Darwinian evoloutionists propaganda against ID proponents.
Mainstream Evolutionary biology must deal with origins of life as it is a part of its own theory. Every biology class I ever took dealt with the origin of life. Every biology book I have owned has at least one or more chapters dealing with answering the origins of life.
-
2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
With all due respect, if you're going to call someone something, you should first get your facts straight. For example, I am anything but a secular humanist or biased against deity. Your comments here were off based and hurtful. The truth is I am an extremely devoted LDS woman who's active in her ward, joyful TR holder, and yes I study evolution professionally and that ENHANCES my faith in the almighty creator. Yep- I get to be paid to study God's handiwork, it's awesome
Im sorry if I offended you, that wasnt my point. Your answer typically shows a bias towards secularism. Thats all.
-
3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
Can God not control what we call chance? He sure can.
If such an intelligent designer was testable with repeated observation. As it is not, it is not a question science can answer. Yes, yes, there are indeed questions science can't answer.
Again, we are not asking if science can find the intelligent designer, thats not ID theory. If science can show evidence that life can only arise from life precedeing it, shouldnt we embrace it as part of science? Thats what ID theory is seeking to establish.
-
54 minutes ago, a mustard seed said:
I don't know...evolution kind of seems to me that it's saying God's design of us was imperfect. That He needed to tweak it and progress us from fish to ape to man or whatever. Why? When we look like Him already why would he go through all that as if searching for what to finish us as? Adaptation makes sense because we've seen it happen but missing link does not jibe with what we know about the nature of God.
I find it strange that with all the advanced knowledge that LDS have that some members would still believe man evolved from a lower species. If we are the seed of God, doesnt that mean we are his literal offspring? The geneology of man according to scripture places us back to Noah, then from Noah back to Adam and Adam as being the son of God. Why would God, who according to our doctrine has a physical body with sex organs just like ours use millions of years of chance to get a son who looks just like him when God already has the seed within to create a son the first time through a known process? Thus why it truly boggles my mind.
-
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:
With all due respect, the fact that you think anyone who disagrees with you is "biased towards secularism or liberalism" or whatever ideology you personally don't agree with is more than a bit troubling. @Jane_Doe is hardly part of the vast humanist secular conspiracy.
Im just replying to a very typical secular evolutionist type of reply. Whether she is really like that or not doesnt matter, its the fact that the arguments used by secularism are biased against anything that may denote deity.
-
4 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
Speaking as a profession peer-reviewed scientist, such mockery would be EXTREMELY inappropriate. A scientist may have whatever religious views they want. However, for peer-reeved scientific research, we need to address scientific questions and "whether or not there is a God/designer" is not a question that fits into the scientific method. The limitations of the scientific method are very well known.
Its not the question of whether there is a God/designer. Your bias towards secularism is showing through. Intelligent design theory is about refuting random evolutionary processes from chance alone. ID theory doesnt say evolution isnt possible, its saying the mechanism fir evolution is flawed. ID seeks to show that intelligent designs in nature only come about by intelligent designs preceding it. Now, who or what drives that process of design in nature is not important to ID theory.
Science is the drive to provide answers to what we observe. If what we observe as intelligence shows an intelligent process precedibg it then we shoukd acknowledge it. Thats science isnt it?
-
14 minutes ago, MrShorty said:
Obviously, I cannot speak for these BYU professors. Since their position is not adequately described, other than to say they "believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet," I cannot be sure exactly what these professors believe in. If I had to guess, based solely on Rob's description, I would guess some kind of "theistic evolution", where God initiates the creation (I don't know if it matters if it is at the universe, galaxy, solar system, or planetary level), and, with His perfect knowledge of natural laws (that He decreed?), was able to create/manipulate those initial conditions in such a way that He did not need to intervene further for His creations to appear and evolve exactly as He desired.
I recognize that theistic evolution has mixed acceptance among Christians. Some like it, others despise it. My impression is that the LDS church does not have an official position, so a good Mormon (including a BYU professor) could, in good conscience, accept and even promote such a philosophy -- recognizing that it would not have perfect answers to all of the philosophical, scientific, or theological questions that would arise. I could be wrong, but I suspect that Joseph Fielding Smith and others would be offended by Mormons promoting some forms of theistic evolution, but these opinions, to my knowledge, have never been elevated to "the official position of the Church."
A couple of links: https://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html
http://www.oldearth.org/theistic_evolution.htm
https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution/
I think its notable to add that recognized secular science does not support nor uphold theistic evolution. To do such would be admitting acceptance of intelligent design theory. You will not get someone like Steven Peck at BYU to admit to any kind of theistic evolutionary model. He may acknowledge the Creator in his religious and Sunday worship, but thats where it stops. He even told me once that he doesnt really see where or how the Creator fits in and perhaps the Creator himself is probably the result of this evolution preceding him.
-
50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I really can't seem to understand people who honestly believe the earth is only 6000 years old (or thereabouts).
Who? That doesn't even make sense.
The leaders in the BYU biology department in my day did a very good job of combining scripture with organic evolution and how they were not mutually exclusive.
Both Duane Jeffery and Steven Peck are two I have had personal conversations with. Duane Jeffery retired this last year but notable is the fact that he is a board member for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and has been for a long time. The NCSE was purposely established for the entire reason to combat any form of creation science and intelligent design theory and uphold a godless paradigm for our existance on this earth.
-
41 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
In order to engage in the conversation we would probably need to assume that these professors truly believe what they teach. Peer pressure begins in preschool, but my guess is that most who become full-time professors teach what they believe. They may tailor their presentations and do some self-editing, to protect their careers, but I doubt that many would outright refuse new understanding.
Its the cicular dilemma. Until we can again raise children in a God centered environment without so much secular persuasion were gonna continue to see a rise in Christian believers who no longer believe in the Old Testament teachings. Then when you add in the pressure of peers at the teaching level it just steamrolls. This has led to our secular science that somehow is worshiped as the Almight nowdays.
-
15 minutes ago, MrShorty said:
Speaking, again, from my own ignorance, I think there is more to this than just an "evil" plot to remove God from our lives.
One of the problems that I saw in the creationwiki law of biogenesis page Rob posted, is that, while arguing for a very strict adherence to the law of biogenesis (life must arise from other life), it fails to go back far enough. My ignorance of cosmology will probably show through, but I understand that essentially any reputable cosmology currently theorized acknowledges that our observable universe has a finite history -- time and space have a definable, observable beginning (even if we currently lack all of the tools and knowledge to fully observe that beginning point). With this as a starting point, I see two possibilities -- life as we know somehow existed as part of the matter "without form and void" that our universe sprang from, or there is a period after creation where the observable universe is lifeless. I also wonder if God/the Designer would have existed as part of the uncreated universe, or if He must have existed outside of that universe.
In these cases, is God/the Designer within my mortal ability to observe? If God exists outside of the universe, is He even observable by any mortal means? To my knowledge, there is not precedent (outside of religion) of observing anything outside of the universe interacting with the observable universe. Likewise, my cosmology cannot even begin to fathom an intelligence that existed as part of the universe before time 0 and could cause the time and space to begin. Other possibilities seem even further from the cognitive abilities of my mortal mind.
Likewise, if life "begins" before time 0, then its beginning is beyond my observation, and discussion of its beginning has no meaning. If life begins after time 0 (so that there is an observable time before life begins, then I should be able to observe the beginnings of life. If, however, the Designer is unobservable, whatever process He used to create life is going to appear to my observation as some form of abiogenesis.
IMO, the only way that ID has meaning as a scientific pursuit is if I hypothesize that both the beginnings of life and the Designer and His workings are both observable. For better or for worse, It seems to me that God exists almost exclusively outside of observation (except through spiritual means), which means that His part in the beginnings of life are also beyond observation. I don't believe that His existence beyond observation means that I must inevitably reject His existence, nor His influence in the observable universe.
There you go, the meaningless ramblings of another internet nobody, who may be just crazy enough to believe his own lies.
We have to begin with the false notion that our universe had a known beginning. Not sure if you are aware but science has yet been unable to even view the far reaches of our universe. How can they know something of which they cant even see and know whats there?
-
11 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
It may be that what many LDS reject is the most rigid versions of Young Earth Creationism, that insist the earth is 6,000 years old. Are there really some active LDS who do not believe that the complexity and functioning of the universe suggest something intelligent fashioned it?
I have spoken with several notable professors at BYU who honestly believe the Creator pretty much did nothing with the rise of life on this planet. They have to stick with that belief because otherwise they have to believe in intelligent design, but how dare they do such a thing amongst their secular peers at other colleges who would mock them.
-
16 minutes ago, Vort said:
I accept neither idea. Even if you want to interpret Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the endowment presentation as a literal mechanical account of the order of creation, it's clear that man came last, not first. As for Noah's flood, the ancients who wrote that account (probably handed down from what I assume was Moses' original) did not understand the spherical nature of the earth. There are many instances in scripture of the narrator saying that thus-and-such occurrence covered 'the whole earth", when what is clearly meant is that it covered the entire area under discussion, not the whole globe -- a concept with which the ancients would most likely not have understood. In short, I see no reason to believe that Genesis' particular usage of "the whole earth" regarding Noah's flood should be interpreted to mean the entire planet. That is a markedly anachronistic interpretation. like saying that the division of the earth in Peleg's time refers to continental drift. Just does not make sense in context.
Through secular conditioning of godless years of schooling this is most peoples belief. It kind of proves the whole point of our discussion.
-
11 minutes ago, Vort said:
Not to pick on Rob, but this is manifestly untrue. Assuming we have already made our temple covenants, we most certainly do have to live the law of consecration to enter the temple. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. It's one of our temple covenants, and if we do not live up to those covenants, we are unworthy to enter the temple.
I second (or third) what Carb wrote. The law of consecration is a sincere attitude: All we have we consecrate to the work of building up the kingdom of God (aka the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Everything we do, whether work, family time, buying a house, or anything else, is done with an eye toward building the kingdom. No exceptions. And if the bishop happens to ask us to sign over the deed to our house, of course we will immediately do so. Because it is not our house; it is the Lord's, and the bishop is the authorized agent to act in the name of the Lord in temporal matters.
I don't claim to live this law perfectly. I doubt I live any celestial law perfectly. But I pay my tithing, which is a really easy and clear-cut way to live at least one aspect of the law of consecration, and I make honest effort to live the rest. My leaders seem to be under the impression that this makes me worthy of going to the temple, and their say-so is what gets me in. So I accept that.
I disagree. Tge law of the celestial kingdom pertains to the law of consecration in its fullest where all the saints are equal in temporal things. I live in a very poor ward and I can readily testify that there aŕe many worthy temple reccomend holders who are at opposite ends of the spectrum temporally yet both work just as hard in Zion for their keep. The law states-
14 Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld
3 For verily I say unto you, the time has come, and is now at hand; and behold, and lo, it must needs be that there be an organization of my people, in regulating and establishing the affairs of the storehouse for the poor of my people, both in this place and in the land of Zion
4 For a permanent and everlasting establishment and order unto my church, to advance the cause, which ye have espoused, to the salvation of man, and to the glory of your Father who is in heaven;
5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.
6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;
7 For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.2 For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off.
3 Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs3 But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them;
4 And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;
5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself. -
15 minutes ago, Vort said:
Thanks to Anddenex for the explanation.
I'm actually in agreement with much of what Rob says (assuming Anddenex's explanation is correct). I get mighty tired of atheists using evolution as a weapon to rub the faces of believers in their atheism. Their dishonesty in doing so is breathtaking.
But the appropriate response to such actions is not to wage a holy jihad on organic evolution. It is to separate out the facts from their lies, and then demonstrate that one's beliefs are not in opposition to fact, and that the other implications are indeed lies.
For the record, I reject what I consider the Watchmaker Fallacy. Yes, if I see a watch on a forest path, I don't assume it evolved by natural means. But if I see a tiny cog in a watchmaker's factory, I do assume it's part of the factory and not that it was brought it from outside the factory in a separate special creation.
Our bodies are part of the world around us, made from the world's elements, and existing in the milieu of the biology and microbiology of the world. Nature is the canvas upon which we are painted. We are made of the same genetic material as the animals (and plants!) around us. There are even animals that look astoundingly like us, and that share the vast majority of our genome. We see animals exhibit love, devotion, loyalty, anger, betrayal, guilt, shame, and hatred. These things are a part of our biological heritage, not just our spiritual heritage. The ability to feel such emotions is a function of how our brains work -- a point we share with the "lesser beasts". People with brain damage or malformations in the areas of such emotions can be rendered unable to function on that level, not because they're evil, but because they're damaged.
The evidence for organic evolutuion is overwhelming. The evidence for it in our own bodies is overwhelming. If there were a valid religious reason to reject organic evolution, I might do so despite this evidence -- but there is no such reason. Latter-day Saint theology vs. organic evolution is not a choice that has to be made.
The story changes however when one accepts the idea that perhaps man himself was placed on the earth before the animals. Then what? Or what about the idea that there was a global flood in Noahs day. These ideas change everything in regards to evolution.
-
One of the avenues I have long wondered about is the enigma of "intelligence" from a purely scientific view. Sure, in religious belief we know tge source of this intelligence comes from spirit matter. But in purely a secular scientific way, there is no answer to explain the existance and rise of intelligence. We can look at all forms of life and nature, even the galaxies in the universe and see order, purpose and design elements. Even right down to the DNA itself, it being a coded intelligent blueprint for making life, we can see the elements of design, purpose and order. But, taking to that understanding level of without "intelligence" itself existing, none of it makes any sense. For instance- The DNA itself does not encode for the intelligence required to build such life form. Its kind of like a blueprint for a building- the blueprint is true but without an intelligent operator or intelligent entity to read and understand fully what it is the blueprint itself cannot just spontaneously build buildings. The blueprint and instructions may even specify how certain tasks are to be completed but without an intelligently trained operator it still means absolutely nothing. And so it is with life, the protein builders themselves, made from the DNA itself are not programmed with an intelligent operation that tells them how to operate and function in regards to carrying out the work itself. For, if that were true, then intelligence is nothing more than a mathematical equation applied to chemistry. But that isnt true, matter, being acted upon gains no intelligence by itself. Properly understood, the protein itself requires an external component of intelligence in order for it to work. Nature itself cant create this intelligence that understands and comprehends and is self aware, so where does it originate? Science, by itself, without God, will never ever know.
-
12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
When I bake a cake is that using science or is that intelligently designed?
Well, the baker (the intelligent designer) uses intelligence, combined with scientific laws to make a cake. You dont just happen to walk down a trail in the woods and happen randomly upon a chocolate cake sitting in the middle of the forest and assume mother nature made it.
-
12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
I think this is the point of "intelligent design" proponents who are searching for an "intelligent designer" scientifically, thus stating it is still scientific, and that it should be viable option for students to learn and hear a different thought approach in schools. Evolutionists will claim, no creator, but are still unable to provide any significant impact regarding abiogenesis and yet we still call it "science" or "scientific." Allow students to choose for themselves which theory they want to pursue, rather than only teaching one method -- theory.
I personally don't see anything wrong with it, and I don't see why anyone who professes a belief in "deity" would have any issues with it either. We live in a world that continually tries to separate science from religion as if they are mutually exclusively -- when they are not.
Its an entire movement that is trying to remove God from every aspect schooling, belief, society, etc. Is it possible another human intelligence brought life to this planet? Yes. But science will never accept that possibility because that "human intelligence" may be thought of as "God" by some people. This really points to the underlying problem being not so much about science (science, by itself, unbiased doesnt care if there is a Creator or not) but rather a philisophical belief regarding the existance of deity. Of course we all know Satan wants to teach that there is no God and any belief in such is heresy.
-
37 minutes ago, Vort said:
What are you talking about, Rob? What is the "law of biogenesis", and how have evolutionists argued that it must be proven false?
-
12 minutes ago, Vort said:
Rob, I suspect you don't understand what "scientific" means.
I agree with what seems to be your underlying point that we often proceed from false premises. This is the fundamental flaw of logic; even perfectly valid logic yields false conclusions when your premises are wrong. And our premises are almost always wrong in some respect. Because of this, the scientific method can yield absolutely outlandish conclusions.
The other side to that coin is that science tends to be self-correcting. Here is an example:
It was determined many hundreds of years ago that light was a wave of some sort. It spreads out past a barrier just like ocean waves do. It shows interference and other properties that water waves show. So light is definitely a wave of some sort.
The assumption was that there was some sort of "water" that light traveled through. After all, if you remove the water from the oceans, you remove the waves. The waves don't exist without water. The water defines the waves. So the "water" or medium through which the waves of light traveled -- the medium that actually defined light -- was named "the luminiferous ether". Great efforts were made toward isolating and studying this "ether" -- how fast it transmitted waves, whether it had mass, how it interacted with objects, etc.
Eventually a rather bizarre model of the luminiferous ether came about. The ether apparently had zero mass. It did not interact in any observable way with any material objects. It transmitted light at one speed in air but at other speeds in other materials. Most peculiarly, the motion of the earth seemingly didn't count -- light traveled just as fast in the direction of earth's motion as it did the other direction.
This was truly strange, because other waves do not work like this. If water waves travel at 20 MPH and you're in a boat traveling across a lake at 10 MPH, you would find that, relative to you, waves move in the direction you're traveling at only 10 MPH (20 - 10), but at 30 MPH (20 + 10) in the opposite direction. Similarly, if light travels at 300,000 km/s through the ether and the earth travels at 30 km/s around the sun, you would expect light to travel, relative to us on the earth, at only 300,000 - 30 = 299,970 km/s in the direction of earth's motion around the sun, but at 300,000 + 30 = 300,030 km/s in the other direction.
Careful experimental measurement confirmed that the speed of light was exactly the same in both directions.
So it was assumed that the luminiferous ether must somehow be pulled around with the earth -- that the earth's "ether" traveled with it, through the rest of the "ether". But this model was untenable, and arguably unscientific. Finally, scientists simply dropped the idea of the "ether" altogether, and began to say that light was somehow a "self-existent" wave, one that didn't require a medium to travel through. Which is pretty much where we are today.
The moral of this story is that science and scientific thinking can indeed lead us down rabbit holes, but the nature of science is self-correcting. As far as I can tell, this is not at all true with so-called "Intelligent Design".
You dont understand intelligent design theory then. If science is self correcting as you say then how come the law if biogenesis hasnt been proven false as evolutionists argue it must? Where is the obvious self correction there? They are hanging on to a false premise that has shown over and over to be unobservable, untestable and against all known laws in science.
-
8 minutes ago, Vort said:
They do not reject intelligent design; they reject Intelligent Design.
- intelligent design: "God is the Creator and stands behind all that happens." (Note that this is not at all incompatible with organic evolution.)
- Intelligent Design: "There is no possible way the eye could have evolved incrementally. Ergo, organic evolution is a false idea."
Intelligent Design has nothing directly to do with religion; it is a pseudoscientific effort to discount evolutionary theory, mostly by handwaving arguments.
No, intelligent dedign is a scientific effort to counter 2 arguments- 1.that life evolved from unguided (random) events in nature. This process is now termed "abiogenesis". 2. That complex structures in biologic life forms arise through slow evolutionary process void of any intelligent process preceding it.
-
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
There is a lot of evidence that some form of a biological evolution happened. I have no problem whatsoever accepting evolution and the existence of a God who created life in the first place.
Its that part about "God who created life in the first place" that states you believe in intelligent design. But, to actually state that life could not have evolved without divine providence is another story. Where do you stand- Did life evolve because of the Creators intervention and causual effects or did it happen on its own?
-
I was taught a lil differently. Temple interview questions qualify us to go to the temple. Obedience to all the temple ordinances and covenants qualify us to enter the celestial kingdom. For instance- we do not have to live the law of consecration to enter the temple. But, we do have to live that law to enter the celestial kingdom. Right now, we havent been generally commanded as a complete body to live the law of consecration. But, that time is coming and we all will have to live it to enter the celestial kingdom.
- Fether and a mustard seed
-
2
-
Belief in the Creator= LDS beliefs
Belief in the Creator= Belief in Intelligent Design
Its interesting though that a lot of LDS reject intelligent design. To me its the grand paradox how the two could possibly coexist.
- a mustard seed and eddified
-
2
-
Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
We certainly have mutating DNA, thats no doubt. But could that same random mechanism have brought about life itself? Evidence strongly shows it cant.