Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[zil]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

good to have you on the right side

How odd.  On my monitor, @Vort is on the left side, and what he wrote is on the right side.  Strange.

[Guest Godless]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Theres many beliefs regarding how long life has been on the earth. Its irrelevent to ID theory. 

What you're promoting isn't ID theory, it's Young Earth Creationism. And yes, there's a big difference. In my experience, it's very rare for ID theory supporters to suggest the age of the Earth as anything less than a 10 digit figure, and equally rare to dismiss macroevolution as a scientific reality (even if they don't accept all aspects of it). At best, you're operating on the fringe of ID theory. Good luck finding a credible scientist who supports your young earth worldview.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Godless said:

What you're promoting isn't ID theory, it's Young Earth Creationism. And yes, there's a big difference. In my experience, it's very rare for ID theory supporters to suggest the age of the Earth as anything less than a 10 digit figure, and equally rare to dismiss macroevolution as a scientific reality (even if they don't accept all aspects of it). At best, you're operating on the fringe of ID theory. Good luck finding a credible scientist who supports your young earth worldview.

Im not a young earth creationist. 

[Guest Godless]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im not a young earth creationist. 

That statement contradicts this one:

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont even believe life is older than thousands of years old on this planet. We gotta start there cause millions of years is so far removed from my understanding

 

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

That statement contradicts this one:

 

I believe the matter that makes the earth is eternal- been around forever. As for how old the earth is in planet form- not sure, doesnt even matter. I am only stating how long life has been dying on the earth. Thats not young earth creationism at all.

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum..so you too believe that there was no death before the fall. Right on, good to have you on the right side

My brother, I sincerely hope to find myself standing with you on the right hand of God at the last day. That is the only side I really care very much about.

This might be an interesting discussion to pursue. I have firm opinions that are unlikely to change, but I am willing to be open-minded. If you are the same, let's see if an entertaining and even fruitful discussion might result. On the other hand, if your mind is firmly made up and you have no interest in investigating possibilities, teachings, and their interpretations, then I think discussion would be not merely fruitless, but an exercise in frustration for all involved.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

My brother, I sincerely hope to find myself standing with you on the right hand of God at the last day. That is the only side I really care very much about.

This might be an interesting discussion to pursue. I have firm opinions that are unlikely to change, but I am willing to be open-minded. If you are the same, let's see if an entertaining and even fruitful discussion might result. On the other hand, if your mind is firmly made up and you have no interest in investigating possibilities, teachings, and their interpretations, then I think discussion would be not merely fruitless, but an exercise in frustration for all involved.

Kind of hard to have a discussion when honest heart fealt beliefs are mocked. But, yeah, Im willing to discuss things and have an open mind. I will say that I am firm solid in my beliefs, I know they are pretty close to the truth.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Kind of hard to have a discussion when honest heart fealt beliefs are mocked.

What you call "mockery" was my attempt at humor. I am sorry for it, since it clearly offended you.

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, yeah, Im willing to discuss things and have an open mind. I will say that I am firm solid in my beliefs, I know they are pretty close to the truth.

If you claim to "know" that your current beliefs "are pretty close to the truth", then that belies open-mindedness. For example, I am not open-minded on whether God lives. I can discuss it dispassionately, but at no point am I seriously going to set aside my belief in God. If someone makes a solid point that I am unable to answer, I might have to grant that he has bested me. But I won't be changing my opinion.

If this is the sort of "open-mindedness" you're talking about, then perhaps we can have a good conversation, but it's not what I meant.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

What you call "mockery" was my attempt at humor. I am sorry for it, since it clearly offended you.

If you claim to "know" that your current beliefs "are pretty close to the truth", then that belies open-mindedness. For example, I am not open-minded on whether God lives. I can discuss it dispassionately, but at no point am I seriously going to set aside my belief in God. If someone makes a solid point that I am unable to answer, I might have to grant that he has bested me. But I won't be changing my opinion.

If this is the sort of "open-mindedness" you're talking about, then perhaps we can have a good conversation, but it's not what I meant.

We have pretty much spent 17 pages going back and forth on trying to define each others beliefs. You dont get anywhere like that. Much of the discussion has been a debate about if my beliefs constitues "science". Im not here to debate the topic, I have tried to wade through it to hopefully get to a higher plane of where progress is made. I conceded a long time ago that I would recognize evolutionists beliefs about abiogenesis as a valid "scientific" endeavor. So, it would be nice if others would concede that ID is also a valid scientific endeavor. If you come back with the line that "but ID isnt science" then there really isnt a higher plane we will get to.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[estradling75]

50 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Kind of hard to have a discussion when honest heart fealt beliefs are mocked. But, yeah, Im willing to discuss things and have an open mind. I will say that I am firm solid in my beliefs, I know they are pretty close to the truth.

Right back at you.  You have repeatedly made it known that anyone that does not share your "honest heart felt belief" is an apostate idiot.  That is not any attempt to have a discussion.  Clear sign you desire an echo chamber.

The scriptures are clear that what a person sowth so shall they reapth.    If you are reaping "mocking of heart felt beliefs" it is because you sowed it, when you insulted and belittled others heart felt beliefs.

 

[MrShorty]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum..so you too believe that there was no death before the fall. Right on, good to have you on the right side

Death/no death before the fall has been a hotly debated topic for a long time -- including the somewhat public debate between then Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder B. H. Roberts (and Elder James E. Talmage when he decided to enter the debate in support of Elder Roberts). The first presidency was asked to intervene and settle the question of death/no death before the fall, and refused to take sides. To my knowledge, that position continues today. The statements from the first presidency mentioned in this thread all state that Adam was the first man, but do not declare anything about death/no death before the fall, or any other detail about what it means for Adam to be the first man. Until the Church officially takes a clear stand, I don't think it is right to declare "no death before the fall" the "one true truth" about creation, nor to declare anyone who believes in death before the fall as apostate or some other variation of "on the wrong side".

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Death/no death before the fall has been a hotly debated topic for a long time -- including the somewhat public debate between then Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and Elder B. H. Roberts (and Elder James E. Talmage when he decided to enter the debate in support of Elder Roberts). The first presidency was asked to intervene and settle the question of death/no death before the fall, and refused to take sides. To my knowledge, that position continues today. The statements from the first presidency mentioned in this thread all state that Adam was the first man, but do not declare anything about death/no death before the fall, or any other detail about what it means for Adam to be the first man. Until the Church officially takes a clear stand, I don't think it is right to declare "no death before the fall" the "one true truth" about creation, nor to declare anyone who believes in death before the fall as apostate or some other variation of "on the wrong side".

When did I call someone apostate? CFR please

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Right back at you.  You have repeatedly made it known that anyone that does not share your "honest heart felt belief" is an apostate idiot.  That is not any attempt to have a discussion.  Clear sign you desire an echo chamber.

The scriptures are clear that what a person sowth so shall they reapth.    If you are reaping "mocking of heart felt beliefs" it is because you sowed it, when you insulted and belittled others heart felt beliefs.

 

CFR on calling me calling someone an apostate idiot.

[estradling75]

59 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

CFR on calling me calling someone an apostate idiot.

Ok lets start with your very first post

On 1/16/2017 at 9:12 AM, Rob Osborn said:

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.E

Easy equation

Three things being equal to each other

Which then logically becomes

LDS beliefs= Belief in Intelligent Design

Which leads very simply to If you don't belief in Intelligent Design then you are not in harmony with LDS beliefs  aka Apostate.

That was just your first post.  There are many many others where you claim to "Know" what the LDS belief are and others are wrong.  Not just your beliefs but all of us.

 

 

Here is were you insult both someone intelligence and faith

On 1/16/2017 at 1:19 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Through secular conditioning of godless years of schooling this is most peoples belief. It kind of proves the whole point of our discussion.

instead if you know trying to have a discussion mocked his ideas and thoughts as godless(apostate) conditioning (aka without thought or in other words stupid).

Here is another one

On 1/16/2017 at 8:18 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Your bias towards secularism is showing through.

 

Here is you responding after being call out on it

On 1/16/2017 at 8:43 PM, Rob Osborn said:

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.

You double down that you are right and everyone else is ungodly... you mock them and label them secular which is pretty much calling them apostate

 

Here are some more

On 1/17/2017 at 6:41 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Evolution theory encompasses the origin of life from chemical evolution. Any basic biology class will teach you that.

The hey if you paid attention in school you would agree with me is another way of calling some one stupid

Oh here is another attack

On 1/18/2017 at 0:31 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Typical atheist evolution jargon response.

Given that the person responding is by all accounts a faithful LDS sister,  yet call her response and attempt to discuss atheist

This is only to page 7 of this thread.  You continue on through out the rest thread in a similar mannor

I could do more, but I know that I have proven the point that you have repeatedly mocked the faith and intelligence of other posters.  So you should not be surprised that you are getting it back.

[MrShorty]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

When did I call someone apostate? CFR please

My mistake. I had read "apostate/apostasy" into your posts, even though you technically never said them. I found T&S's review of Peter Enns's book The Evolution of Adam (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the_evolution_of_adam ) earlier this week which appears to present some of these "theistic evolution" type arguments. You or someone else posting as Rob Osborn called the book heresy. Perhaps heretic/heresy rather than apostate/apostasy is more in line with how you would characterize this side of the discussion? Or am I still misunderstanding?

Edited January 21, 2017 by MrShorty

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Ok lets start with your very first post

 

Easy equation

Three things being equal to each other

Which then logically becomes

LDS beliefs= Belief in Intelligent Design

Which leads very simply to If you don't belief in Intelligent Design then you are not in harmony with LDS beliefs  aka Apostate.

That was just your first post.  There are many many others where you claim to "Know" what the LDS belief are and others are wrong.  Not just your beliefs but all of us.

 

 

Here is were you insult both someone intelligence and faith

 

instead if you know trying to have a discussion mocked his ideas and thoughts as godless(apostate) conditioning (aka without thought or in other words stupid).

Here is another one

 

Here is you responding after being call out on it

You double down that you are right and everyone else is ungodly... you mock them and label them secular which is pretty much calling them apostate

 

Here are some more

The hey if you paid attention in school you would agree with me is another way of calling some one stupid

Oh here is another attack

 

Given that the person responding is by all accounts a faithful LDS sister,  yet call her response and attempt to discuss atheist

This is only to page 7 of this thread.  You continue on through out the rest thread in a similar mannor

I could do more, but I know that I have proven the point that you have repeatedly mocked the faith and intelligence of other posters.  So you should not be surprised that you are getting it back.

Well, don't suffer from a micro-aggression. Good grief. I see nothing there calling anyone apostate.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

54 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

My mistake. I had read "apostate/apostasy" into your posts, even though you technically never said them. I found T&S's review of Peter Enns's book The Evolution of Adam (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the_evolution_of_adam ) earlier this week which appears to present some of these "theistic evolution" type arguments. You or someone else posting as Rob Osborn called the book heresy. Perhaps heretic/heresy rather than apostate/apostasy is more in line with how you would characterize this side of the discussion? Or am I still misunderstanding?

That was me over at T&S. And yes, I have every right to call the book heresy. Heresy is a completely different thing than apostate.

heresy

 

Translate Button

 

[her-uh-see] 

 

noun, plural heresies.

1.

opinion or doctrine at variance withthe orthodox or accepted doctrine,especially of a church or religioussystem.

[estradling75]

19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, don't suffer from a micro-aggression. Good grief. I see nothing there calling anyone apostate.

I don't know why I bothered...  You refuse to accept anything that counters your own opinions...  no you did not call anyone apostate in that exact word... you called them " atheist" and "secular", and printed out basic math equations that show they don't follow LDS beliefs... but no you never used the word apostate... that is simply the clear implication you are leaving...  All While having the temerity to complain about people mocking your deeply held beliefs.   

If you can't handle the micro-aggressions then, Good grief do not use them against others

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by estradling75

[Guest MormonGator]

59 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You refuse to accept anything that counters your own opinions...   

Isn't that how the internet works? 

[estradling75]

18 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Isn't that how the internet works? 

Indeed...  Unfortunately I have a trigger of people who think it is ok for them to do unto others... but then cry foul when it is done unto them

 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed...  Unfortunately I have a trigger of people who think it is ok for them to do unto others... but then cry foul when it is done unto them

 

I wonder sometimes how people would interact if they met "in real life" (I hate that phrase. The internet is "real life". None of us are cyborgs. Except for @mirkwood. Dude is ike a T-1000 terminator). 

Would we be this argumentative/prickly/and sometimes downright unpleasant if we met for home teaching or at a ward function? 

[zil]

19 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

None of us are cyborgs. Except for @mirkwood. Dude is ike a T-1000 terminator). 

And @askandanswer.

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That was me over at T&S. And yes, I have every right to call the book heresy. Heresy is a completely different thing than apostate.

heresy

 

Translate Button

 

[her-uh-see] 

 

noun, plural heresies.

1.

opinion or doctrine at variance withthe orthodox or accepted doctrine,especially of a church or religioussystem.

As good a definition as any for "heresy". It doesn't necessarily change the thrust of the post I made. The Church has never officially declared evolution or "pre-Adamites" or "death before the fall" (as this last is usually thought of) as heresy. Many -- included some apostles (I'm looking at you Joseph Fielding Smith) have spoke rather strongly against these theories, but the Church has never officially declared them heresies. There are certainly philosophical and theological questions that these theories raise, and many different thoughts on how to reconcile them. As near as I can tell, the Church is not too worried about whether or not we adopt a "no death before the fall" philosophy, or something that looks like "God initiated the big bang and has let it all evolve naturally from there" or anything in between.

[askandanswer]

1 hour ago, zil said:

And @askandanswer.

 

1 hour ago, zil said:

And @askandanswer.

Just wait a little longer Zil. Try harder to keep the commandments and be good and righteously exercise faith, and your turn will come to be transformed into the next form of evolution. 

[zil]

Just now, askandanswer said:

Just wait a little longer Zil. Try harder to keep the commandments and be good and righteously exercise faith, and your turn will come to be transformed into the next form of evolution. 

Pfffff.  Thanks anyway.  There will be no Zyborgs in my house.