Science and Religion

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No they're not.  They have solid scientific evidence that Intelligent Design doesn't have.  So, no, we can't agree on that either.

Solid scientific evidence eh? Thats laughable.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Solid scientific evidence eh? Thats laughable.

I edited my post to expand on it.

And yes, your science-hating position is evident here too.  It really clouds this entire conversation.  The cup is fulleth...

I have a Master's of Science degree.  It kinda compels me to engage in the defense of Science... but, it's kinda exhausting trying to teach a rock.  So yeah, I'm better off just keeping to my role of housewife.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I edited my post to expand on it.

And yes, your science-hating position is evident here too.  It really clouds this entire conversation.  The cup is fulleth...

These debates always go right where this one now is. You can believe your beliefs I will believe mine. You can have your own definition of science and philosophy and I can have mine. Nothing wrong with that.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[anatess2]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

These debates always go right where this one now is. You can believe your beliefs I will believe mine. You can have your own definition of ciience and philosophy and I can have mine. Nothing wrong with that.

I edited that post too.

[anatess2]

@LiterateParakeet I'm sure the exchanges of the past two pages is enlightening to your survey.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I edited my post to expand on it.

And yes, your science-hating position is evident here too.  It really clouds this entire conversation.  The cup is fulleth...

I have a Master's of Science degree.  It kinda compels me to engage in the defense of Science... but, it's kinda exhausting trying to teach a rock.  So yeah, I'm better off just keeping to my role of housewife.

I agree.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I agree.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[priesthoodpower]

On 2/26/2017 at 4:01 PM, eddified said:

I googled that and didn't really see what you are talking about, can you elaborate?

Dr. Bruce Lipton (Cellular Biologist/PHD/Medical school professor)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_kwbHpBKEo

Watch the whole 2.5 hours to get a full understanding of his research but the part you asked for is at 1:51:00 - Evolution wasn't an accident, creation and evolution simultaneously occurs

 

here are some other footnotes and their timelines

06:15 - the belief of genetic determinism

09:10 - the mission of science

36:00 - genes dont control biology, they are only a blueprint

1:19:00 electromagnetic forces

1:51:00 - Evolution not by accident

1:51:00 - Darwinian flow chart

2:28:00 - power of prayer and power of hate

2:29:30 - Dr Bruce goes from a "non-spiritual" scientist to now believing in spiritual identity

 

[wenglund]

The way I reconcile science/evolution with religion/creation, is to view the former as attempting to explain what is earth life and theorize how it came into being, whereas the later attempts to explain how to best live earth life and how to gain life eternal in the heavens to come. Different, but compatible perspective of the same thing. Different tools for different jobs. 

To me, there is a very good reason the creation/fall narrative is told in several different books in the LDS standard works (Genesis, Moses, Abraham) as well as in the temple, and it isn't to explain how, exactly and literally physical life began on earth. I will leave you all to discover what is that reason, if you haven't figured it out already.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

@LiterateParakeet

There are problems with the Big Bang theory.  Most involved in the scientific community realize that the Big Bang theory creates more problems than it solves but it is still the best explanation that we have.  I was taught by my father to never coitize something that you do not have a better replacement for.   So I support the Big Bang theory not because I cannot find flaws but because it is far superior to any other theory – especially the theories that various religious individuals try to integrate into aspects of science with a whole lot of what they speculate from religion.  Then dare say that science is foolish for holding to unproven theories.

I have similar thoughts concerning evolution.  I am a strong advocate of evolution but I also realize that many of the principles that are used to define evolution have known problems.  That does not mean that evolution has a problem – just how many scientists are trying to apply evolution.  There are observable (empirical) evidences that are not well explained and there are exceptions that prove we do not understand some aspects – but we do know that evolution is taking place.  Evolution is a proven commodity.

I will conclude this post with the great flaw of what is called “intelligent design”.  First; the very notion is redundant.  There is no design that happens without intelligence.  In my field of artificial intelligence, the top scientist are realizing that there is a great deal of evidence of intelligence in what we believe to be nonliving matter – especially in quantum (sub atomic particles) physics.

We are at a threshold of understanding and an era that is bringing about a lot of change to thinking.  However, there are many in the religious community that is still struggling with evolution and the sense of the Big Bang theory that are being left behind with the discoveries of dark matter, dark energy and dark radiation – not to mention the Boson particle and many things they do not understand or seem to care about.  Those that worship a G-d that only does unexplainable things are quickly losing ground to science that can explain what religions can’t and hasen't for thousands of years.  Religious thinkers that base their faith in fantasy are looking even more silly in our day than those religious thinkers that put Galileo under house arrest for saying the earth was not flat and not the center of the universe in his day – because they thought the scriptures said something different.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

@LiterateParakeet

There are problems with the Big Bang theory.  Most involved in the scientific community realize that the Big Bang theory creates more problems than it solves but it is still the best explanation that we have.  I was taught by my father to never coitize something that you do not have a better replacement for.   So I support the Big Bang theory not because I cannot find flaws but because it is far superior to any other theory – especially the theories that various religious individuals try to integrate into aspects of science with a whole lot of what they speculate from religion.  Then dare say that science is foolish for holding to unproven theories.

I have similar thoughts concerning evolution.  I am a strong advocate of evolution but I also realize that many of the principles that are used to define evolution have known problems.  That does not mean that evolution has a problem – just how many scientists are trying to apply evolution.  There are observable (empirical) evidences that are not well explained and there are exceptions that prove we do not understand some aspects – but we do know that evolution is taking place.  Evolution is a proven commodity.

I will conclude this post with the great flaw of what is called “intelligent design”.  First; the very notion is redundant.  There is no design that happens without intelligence.  In my field of artificial intelligence, the top scientist are realizing that there is a great deal of evidence of intelligence in what we believe to be nonliving matter – especially in quantum (sub atomic particles) physics.

We are at a threshold of understanding and an era that is bringing about a lot of change to thinking.  However, there are many in the religious community that is still struggling with evolution and the sense of the Big Bang theory that are being left behind with the discoveries of dark matter, dark energy and dark radiation – not to mention the Boson particle and many things they do not understand or seem to care about.  Those that worship a G-d that only does unexplainable things are quickly losing ground to science that can explain what religions can’t and hasen't for thousands of years.  Religious thinkers that base their faith in fantasy are looking even more silly in our day than those religious thinkers that put Galileo under house arrest for saying the earth was not flat and not the center of the universe in his day – because they thought the scriptures said something different.

 

The Traveler

I would venture to say evolutionists base their faith in fantasy. I mean its really crazy how they got this primordial soup, lightning, blobs of life emerging- straight out of some kind of Hollywood Halloween script!

The biggest problem facing you guys is convincing us that your Halloween script is real and not fantasy. The great premise of Intelligent Design is we arent living in fantasy land in Hollywood. ID is sound logical reality. Its been proven over and over. Life isnt eome chance encounter of life beginning from some fantastic natural phenomenon. You guys work for Marvel?

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I would venture to say evolutionists base their faith in fantasy. I mean its really crazy how they got this primordial soup, lightning, blobs of life emerging- straight out of some kind of Hollywood Halloween script!

The biggest problem facing you guys is convincing us that your Halloween script is real and not fantasy. The great premise of Intelligent Design is we arent living in fantasy land in Hollywood. ID is sound logical reality. Its been proven over and over. Life isnt eome chance encounter of life beginning from some fantastic natural phenomenon. You guys work for Marvel?

 

Often when I have discussions with individuals concerning politics and religion I run into what we could classify as “Fake News”.  Very often when talking about “Mormonism” I encounter individuals of various “Christian” denominations that tell me what “Mormons” believe and even though I am a “Mormon” refuse to believe what I tell them is the truth of Mormons.

The reason I bring this up is because I have never encountered even a single evolutionist in the scientific community that even pretends to have any understanding of how life began.  Not one.   Your characterization of life beginning is a complete fabrication that I have heard before – but only from uninformed religious types hostile to science, evolution, logic and empirical evidence.   Sort of the same cloth as the anti-Mormons.that claim to speak the truth of Mormonism.

Did you know that viruses are used in genetic engineering and can radically change the genetic makeup of a species?  That almost anything you purchase at the store to eat has been produced at some level of genetic modification (man induced evolution).  Evolution is now taking place with human intervention.

As I have said before – if you want to argue the problems of evolution I can give you actual scientific empirical evidence.  But at the same time that we consider the actual logical holes in evolution – it is a mistake to imply that G-d loves ignorance and therefore a failure to understand certain principle or empirical evidence is the best proof that G-d exists.

 I love the statement by the Apostle Paul that in scripture said, “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.” That is what Christians (disciples of Christ) should be doing – they should be the world’s best – not worse – scientists.   It may surprise you – but I if one will accept evolution as possible and that the principles of engineering (physics) are valid I can prove that G-d most likely exists and is the most possible, probable and plausible reason that our universe exists.  The only resistance to this evidence and logic that I have experienced has come from the religious community.  Go figure????

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Often when I have discussions with individuals concerning politics and religion I run into what we could classify as “Fake News”.  Very often when talking about “Mormonism” I encounter individuals of various “Christian” denominations that tell me what “Mormons” believe and even though I am a “Mormon” refuse to believe what I tell them is the truth of Mormons.

The reason I bring this up is because I have never encountered even a single evolutionist in the scientific community that even pretends to have any understanding of how life began.  Not one.   Your characterization of life beginning is a complete fabrication that I have heard before – but only from uninformed religious types hostile to science, evolution, logic and empirical evidence.   Sort of the same cloth as the anti-Mormons.that claim to speak the truth of Mormonism.

Did you know that viruses are used in genetic engineering and can radically change the genetic makeup of a species?  That almost anything you purchase at the store to eat has been produced at some level of genetic modification (man induced evolution).  Evolution is now taking place with human intervention.

As I have said before – if you want to argue the problems of evolution I can give you actual scientific empirical evidence.  But at the same time that we consider the actual logical holes in evolution – it is a mistake to imply that G-d loves ignorance and therefore a failure to understand certain principle or empirical evidence is the best proof that G-d exists.

 I love the statement by the Apostle Paul that in scripture said, “Prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.” That is what Christians (disciples of Christ) should be doing – they should be the world’s best – not worse – scientists.   It may surprise you – but I if one will accept evolution as possible and that the principles of engineering (physics) are valid I can prove that G-d most likely exists and is the most possible, probable and plausible reason that our universe exists.  The only resistance to this evidence and logic that I have experienced has come from the religious community.  Go figure????

 

The Traveler

Hum...strange how you think that way and I think the opposite. Its the reason both sides cant agree.

The greatest hindrence to finding the truth of ID is the atheist approach of modern intellectualism in the fields of biology, geology, etc. Go figure???

Edited March 3, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Traveler]

27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...strange how you think that way and I think the opposite. Its the reason both sides cant agree.

The greatest hindrence to finding the truth of ID is the atheist approach of modern intellectualism in the fields of biology, geology, etc. Go figure???

 

I do not pretend to speak for anyone else but for me one of the greatest hindrence for accepting Intilligent Design is the idea that G-d created this earth 6,000 years ago from nothing.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I do not pretend to speak for anyone else but for me one of the greatest hindrence for accepting Intilligent Design is the idea that G-d created this earth 6,000 years ago from nothing.

 

The Traveler

@Traveler-Does ID demand that? I don't know much about it. 

[Guest Godless]

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The greatest hindrence to finding the truth of ID is the atheist approach of modern intellectualism in the fields of biology, geology, etc. Go figure???

I think the greatest hindrance to ID theory is the assumption that a divine hand must be directly involved in the creation process. I'm obviously no theist, but if I were, I'd prefer to believe in a god that is capable of setting the laws of nature in motion without any further direct involvement once the mechanisms are in place. That, to me, is a far more impressive deity than one who needs to directly will his creation into existence outside of the normal scientific parameters (established by him, presumably) of the universe. I just can't shake the feeling that ID supporters are trapping their god in a box when they downplay the complexity of natural laws and forces. I may not agree with the theists who believe that the laws of nature were written by a deity, but that doesn't mean that such a belief is incompatible with my own atheistic worldview. And ultimately, I find that idea of God to be far more powerful than the restrictive nature of a god who must circumvent natural laws in order to create something.

[Traveler]

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Traveler-Does ID demand that? I don't know much about it. 

 

Intelligent Design is an official concept developed by creationists as a pseudo-scientific argument against astrological and biological evolutionists.  Just like creationism it is a term that is intent to replace scientific claims that seem to counter the interpretation of scripture that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, from nothing.  It is my understanding that some ID and creationists are willing to accept that a creation “day” may not be the same as a current 24-hour period.  But that the sequence is exactly as explained in the Bible.  This is why I often ask those that tout ID or creationism if they really believe the order of creation for days 3 and 4 are as explained in the Bible.  That the trees and grass of earth were created to produce seeds and fruit without a sun?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

59 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I do not pretend to speak for anyone else but for me one of the greatest hindrence for accepting Intilligent Design is the idea that G-d created this earth 6,000 years ago from nothing.

 

The Traveler

Just goes to show your ignorance. That belief has nothing to do with ID theory.

[Guest MormonGator]

27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Intelligent Design is an official concept developed by creationists as a pseudo-scientific argument against astrological and biological evolutionists.  Just like creationism it is a term that is intent to replace scientific claims that seem to counter the interpretation of scripture that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, from nothing.  It is my understanding that some ID and creationists are willing to accept that a creation “day” may not be the same as a current 24-hour period.  But that the sequence is exactly as explained in the Bible.  This is why I often ask those that tout ID or creationism if they really believe the order of creation for days 3 and 4 are as explained in the Bible.  That the trees and grass of earth were created to produce seeds and fruit without a sun?

 

The Traveler

Eh, there are some people that think the world is flat too. Outside of internet forums (and even inside of them) they aren't taken very seriously. I wouldn't worry about it my friend. Don't let it bother you. 

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Intelligent Design is an official concept developed by creationists as a pseudo-scientific argument against astrological and biological evolutionists.  Just like creationism it is a term that is intent to replace scientific claims that seem to counter the interpretation of scripture that the earth was created 6,000 years ago, from nothing.  It is my understanding that some ID and creationists are willing to accept that a creation “day” may not be the same as a current 24-hour period.  But that the sequence is exactly as explained in the Bible.  This is why I often ask those that tout ID or creationism if they really believe the order of creation for days 3 and 4 are as explained in the Bible.  That the trees and grass of earth were created to produce seeds and fruit without a sun?

 

The Traveler

Evolution is atheism. Now what?

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, there are some people that think the world is flat too. Outside of internet forums (and even inside of them) they aren't taken very seriously. I wouldn't worry about it my friend. Don't let it bother you. 

Theres even some who think life evolved from a pond of primordial soup. Dont take them very seriously though.

[Rob Osborn]

41 minutes ago, Godless said:

I think the greatest hindrance to ID theory is the assumption that a divine hand must be directly involved in the creation process. I'm obviously no theist, but if I were, I'd prefer to believe in a god that is capable of setting the laws of nature in motion without any further direct involvement once the mechanisms are in place. That, to me, is a far more impressive deity than one who needs to directly will his creation into existence outside of the normal scientific parameters (established by him, presumably) of the universe. I just can't shake the feeling that ID supporters are trapping their god in a box when they downplay the complexity of natural laws and forces. I may not agree with the theists who believe that the laws of nature were written by a deity, but that doesn't mean that such a belief is incompatible with my own atheistic worldview. And ultimately, I find that idea of God to be far more powerful than the restrictive nature of a god who must circumvent natural laws in order to create something.

Sounds like you believe in atheism. Oh wait, your name implies such. Nevermind.

[Traveler]

58 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Just goes to show your ignorance. That belief has nothing to do with ID theory.

From Wikipedia under the topic of Intelligent design: 

Quote

the first publication of the term intelligent design in its present use as an alternative term for creationism was in Of Pandas and People

Contrary to your theory creationism (young earth) is very much involved in ID and the use of the term.  I concede that the term “Intelligent Design” can be used by anybody to mean whatever they want but the ID movement at its onset was and is today an effort to legally connect creationism (which includes young earth theology) to the term “Intelligent Design” and to be taught as alternate scientific “theory” to evolution and the Big Bang as viable scientific theories in public schools.

ID can mean whatever you want in you various posts – but if you intend to teach ID  curriculum as a teacher officially in schools you are required by law to teach  young earth theology.

 

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Eh, there are some people that think the world is flat too. Outside of internet forums (and even inside of them) they aren't taken very seriously. I wouldn't worry about it my friend. Don't let it bother you. 

The difference here is that there are no significant variations of flat earth theory. Some inconsistencies, perhaps, but all versions of it are equally ridiculous. 

ID theory, on the other hand, ranges from young-earth creationists to borderline evolutionists who are basically using ID to fill the gaps (God of the Gaps, anyone?) in our current understanding of biological evolution. The people on the latter end of the ID spectrum actually accept a great deal of the science involved in evolutionary theory. The problem is that they use sketchy "science" to try to explain aspects of evolution that either haven't been adequately explained or that don't make sense to them. 

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolution is atheism. Now what?

The overwhelming number of theists, both on this board and in the scientific community at large, who accept evolutionary theory would seem to make this statement untrue, and that's great news for scientific progress. There used to be a time when religious consensus wasn't nearly as accommodating to scientific advancement as it is now. I believe that time is commonly called "the dark ages". If you want to put your faith in shaky science because it better fits your worldview, so be it. But to suggest that evolutionary theory is an enemy of religion is blatantly and demonstrably false.  

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Sounds like you believe in atheism. Oh wait, your name implies such. Nevermind.

So I'm not allowed to speculate on the nature of an ideal god? I believed in God for 2/3 of my life, all while accepting evolutionary theory. The fact that I no longer believe in God stems from purely ideological causes, not scientific ones. Evolution didn't lead me away from the church. If you want to use my worldview to discredit my arguments, you're going to have to try harder than that. And if my worldview is truly the root of your bias against evolutionary theory (and it seems increasingly obvious that this is the case), then you're going to have to stop pretending that your objections to evolution are rooted in science.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Godless

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Godless said:

The difference here is that there are no significant variations of flat earth theory. Some inconsistencies, perhaps, but all versions of it are equally ridiculous. 

ID theory, on the other hand, ranges from young-earth creationists to borderline evolutionists who are basically using ID to fill the gaps (God of the Gaps, anyone?) in our current understanding of biological evolution. The people on the latter end of the ID spectrum actually accept a great deal of the science involved in evolutionary theory. The problem is that they use sketchy "science" to try to explain aspects of evolution that either haven't been adequately explained or that don't make sense to them. 

 

We agree bro. I'm NOT a creationist.