Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I think you have missed the point.  If someone has their mind made up and has pre-determined the conclusions - they will never find and empirical evidence to change anything they have all ready concluded.  There is a saying that to a hammer - everything in the world looks like a nail.  You mentioned DNA.  Our understanding of DNA did not come from an individual or bunch of people studying scriptures.  But let me make another point.  In the 60's there was a book written titled "Colossus".  The plot was that a super computer was built in Carl's Bad Caverns (because in that era computers had to be cooled).  The computer gained control of the USA infrastructure and military.  This is not just ironic because the military had commissioned 3 super computers to be built with the latest and greatest tech.  They were called "Lebra Scopes".  Short story - your little smart phone has more computing power than the Colossus computer and what the top computer scientists of that time even believed possible.

But back to your proof - if the backers of Intelligent Design are so much more cleaver than scientists - why don't you guys do anything with your great knowledge and cure something like cancer - or at least a certain kind of cancer.  Why not advance technology that in some way will help and assist mankind.  Another story - My grandfather went blind in his reclining hears.  Come to find out his blindness was genetic.  Myself and 4 of my siblings have the same aging trait caused by macular or retina detachments.  Just 10 years ago there was no known cure but Science has discovered a cure - I will not go blind nor will any of my siblings.

Science is advancing every aspect of our lives.  Improving food production and distribution.  Foods grown today are more nutritious.   Science has opened the door to feed the world by being able to preserve food much longer that previously thought possible.  The sad thing is the greed (something religion has known about for thousands of years and has not solved any better than scientist can produce a simple amino acid chain in what the last 60 years?).  If you are going to use such arguments against science as being wrong - the same arguments show religion to be much more lacking in solving problems.

But I believe such arguments are black holes that suck in knowledge or whatever else (like Charity) and let nothing escape.  The reason Science has not done some things is because there is something missing from their knowledge base.  It does not help or demonstrate anything to point out when something is missing - unless you know what is missing and can prove it by doing something science cannot. 

Contrary to popular belief - few atheists in the scientific community do not believe in a cosmic intelligence - in almost all cases it is just that they do not believe that the religious community know more about such things than they do.  It has been my experience that such atheists often think they know and understand more about cosmic intelligence that does religious community.  Think about this - Outside of the restoration (beginning with Joseph Smith - something the religious community has vehemently opposed) - What has the religious community done for mankind in say the last 2000 years?  Is your answer - that they have come up with the theory of Intelligent Design?

 

The Traveler

Whether Darwinian evolution is true or false, it has no bearing whatsoever on the advancement in the sciences. We can't say Darwin's work has had any impact whatsoever on advancements in technology and medicine. So then, we are both in the same boat.

Evolutionary scientists aren't very smart in my book. I have a hard time trying to fathom why they would waste do much time on theories that have no proof. I guess if there is an award for completely proving something wrong then good job to them. Just not sure how many more nails the coffin needs. Advancement in medicine and technology comes from help from the other side coupled with the creation of our being in whom we are patterned after God himself. The greatest advances in technology and medicine is due to greater religious freedom.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Whether Darwinian evolution is true or false, it has no bearing whatsoever on the advancement in the sciences. We can't say Darwin's work has had any impact whatsoever on advancements in technology and medicine. So then, we are both in the same boat.

Evolutionary scientists aren't very smart in my book. I have a hard time trying to fathom why they would waste do much time on theories that have no proof. I guess if there is an award for completely proving something wrong then good job to them. Just not sure how many more nails the coffin needs. Advancement in medicine and technology comes from help from the other side coupled with the creation of our being in whom we are patterned after God himself. The greatest advances in technology and medicine is due to greater religious freedom.

 

I guess I am not surprised that you are unaware of any impact whatsoever from evolutionary scientist and their research - especially since you do not find them to be very smart.  I, on the other hand, have discovered hundreds of advancements in knowledge and technology from studies - included a study funded by the church (to which you belong and perhaps even pay tithing) and used such tithing funds to pay to those stupid evolutionary scientist to continue their research.  I personally attended a open public event sponsored by the church and held in Salt Lake City, with general authorities in attendance where some of the finding were presented and made available to the world.  I am personally pleased that our church has determined divine approval in such research and happy to offer my support.

 

The Traveler

 

 

Edited August 11, 2018 by Traveler

[john4truth]

On 8/9/2018 at 11:27 AM, Traveler said:

Spontaneous generation is a strange term and I am not sure what it means.  One of the principles of science is the isotropic nature of things and events.  This means that anything that is or has happened can be made to be or happen again.  In essence – that by duplicating what happened before we can repeat the same results.  Thus if we attempt to do a thing and the result is different it is because there is a parameter missing that was present initially when the result occurred that we are trying to duplicate.

Often among my colleagues in science they speak of random occurrences.   My response to that – is that assuming anything to be random is far more ridiculous than a divine creator.  I can even prove that even in quantum physics there are no random events.  In short the proof is that to be random – there is no order and quantum physics is very ordered – just not in preconceived ways.

Thus – whenever we encounter order then there must be something to have created the order – This, by definition, is intelligence.  Since life is an order – and I would purport a very rare and unique order – the logical conclusion is that there must be some intelligence to create the order.  Otherwise there must be compelling evidence that there was no intelligence to assume so – the logical conclusion is to assume that intelligence caused that order – unless like I said – there is compelling evidence to refute it.

Darwin assumed that part of the intelligence to order evolution was what he called survival of the fittest.  The religious community of the mid-19th century completely rejected this notion claiming if true it would disprove G-d.  Darwin previous to this religious response considered himself to be religious.  But this was not the first rift between science and the traditional Christian religious community.  It happened before when Galileo claimed that the sun was the center of our solar system and that the earth revolved around the sun.  Galileo also considered himself religious but the religious community rejected his notion on the grounds that it would disprove G-d.

There has accumulated such a preponderance  of evidence of natural selection in the extinction of most species that there is within the religious community an effort to encapsulate Darwin’s notions within a concept they call “Intelligent Design”.  It is not that I reject such as being possible as that I see such arguments as an effort to justify previously notions of G-d.  I personally believe that the Traditional Christian notions of G-d are the result of a Great Apostasy.   And that as long as the notions of that Apostasy remain present that there will always be a “flaw” in what is envisioned to be truth.  Some think (perhaps @Rob Osborn) I am more in line with Intelligent Design than I am with Darwin’s evolution as survival of the fittest.   --  Perhaps – but I prefer to think of “Intelligent Design” as an evolution within the traditional Christian religious community as an intelligent effort to become more fit to survive – and not as an idea that has forever been embedded in Traditional Christian thinking.

 

The Traveler

I too am an intelligent design person. Spontaneous Generation is the first thing learned in science. This would be the belief life can come from non life. Life comes only from life.

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, john4truth said:

I too am an intelligent design person. Spontaneous Generation is the first thing learned in science. This would be the belief life can come from non life. Life comes only from life.

 

Spontaneous generation is not the first thing I learned in science - and I believe that there is growing support of life on earth - not coming from spontaneous generation but rather was seeded elsewhere and brought to earth with the abundance of water that is also not indigenous to the inner part of our solar system where our earth resides.  It would seem that life in our solar system may have come from our Oort Cloud region - that we use to think was the most lifeless part of our solar system.  The main reason I bring this up is to demonstrate the propensity and willingness within the scientific community to completely change direction from previous thinking and look where ever the evidence indicates possible.

Thank you for your input.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I guess I am not surprised that you are unaware of any impact whatsoever from evolutionary scientist and their research - especially since you do not find them to be very smart.  I, on the other hand, have discovered hundreds of advancements in knowledge and technology from studies - included a study funded by the church (to which you belong and perhaps even pay tithing) and used such tithing funds to pay to those stupid evolutionary scientist to continue their research.  I personally attended a open public event sponsored by the church and held in Salt Lake City, with general authorities in attendance where some of the finding were presented and made available to the world.  I am personally pleased that our church has determined divine approval in such research and happy to offer my support.

 

The Traveler

 

 

Darwinian evolution as it pertains specifically with the idea of common descent doesn't impact technology or medicine one way or the other. Whether it's true or false has had no bearing whatsoever on advancements in medicine and technology. That's my point.

[NeedleinA]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

 I personally attended a open public event sponsored by the church and held in Salt Lake City, with general authorities in attendance where some of the finding were presented and made available to the world.

@Traveler do you know of a link related to this event, I'd like to read/learn more about it? Thanks

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

@Traveler do you know of a link related to this event, I'd like to read/learn more about it? Thanks

I am sure you can find several - the event was called Roots Tech (2018) and was sponsored by Ancestry and the LDS Church.  One of the main offerings by Ancestry is DNA testing that has been advanced and is now helping to locate living relatives that have also been tested (and how closely they are related by DNA)  In other words using organic evolution technology to find common ancestors (despite the vehement denials by @Rob Osborn that such tech exists).  The denial that this technology is beneficial in other ways is so ludicrous and unfounded - I do not know how to answer - If someone wants to believe something bad enough - nothing will suffice.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am sure you can find several - the event was called Roots Tech (2018) and was sponsored by Ancestry and the LDS Church.  One of the main offerings by Ancestry is DNA testing that has been advanced and is now helping to locate living relatives that have also been tested (and how closely they are related by DNA)  In other words using organic evolution technology to find common ancestors (despite the vehement denials by @Rob Osborn that such tech exists).  The denial that this technology is beneficial in other ways is so ludicrous and unfounded - I do not know how to answer - If someone wants to believe something bad enough - nothing will suffice.

 

The Traveler

That's not organic evolution technology. Show me just one instance where we can thank Darwinian theory regarding common descent for advancing technology. None exists!

[john4truth]

On 8/12/2018 at 2:06 PM, Rob Osborn said:

That's not organic evolution technology. Show me just one instance where we can thank Darwinian theory regarding common descent for advancing technology. None exists!

A theory is an opinion often little more than a guess. I think we have no idea. We cannot say no or yes and doubt we will know in this life

 

Edited August 14, 2018 by john4truth
Sp

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, john4truth said:

A theory is an opinion often little more than a guess. I think we have no idea. We cannot say no or yes and doubt we will know in this life

 

A theory, according to science is more than just a guess. Although, Darwinian theory of common descent is just a guess.

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

A theory, according to science is more than just a guess. Although, Darwinian theory of common descent is just a guess.

But not as far fetched as the guess that there is not and cannot be common descent.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But not as far fetched as the guess that there is not and cannot be common descent.

 

The Traveler

Hum...evidence versus guessing...the evidence is strikingly against evolution from a common ancestor. Species show an uncanny ability to remain the same. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever of evolution from a common ancestor- it's all guesswork.

[jerome1232]

I find organic costs too much for nothing. I like to get my evolution with a heavy dose of lab assisted gmo to steer it along. Usually it's in aisle C14 or thereabouts.

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...evidence versus guessing...the evidence is strikingly against evolution from a common ancestor. Species show an uncanny ability to remain the same. In fact, there's no evidence whatsoever of evolution from a common ancestor- it's all guesswork.

Okay - explain to me why there are humans (thought not many) with Neanderthal DNA.  Also, are you saying that the scientific term "species" is a tightly coupled mapping to understanding the ancient Hebrew term translated as "Kind".

 

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Okay - explain to me why there are humans (thought not many) with Neanderthal DNA. 

Is that why the men in my family have so much body hair? 😯

[Rob Osborn]

16 hours ago, Traveler said:

Okay - explain to me why there are humans (thought not many) with Neanderthal DNA.  Also, are you saying that the scientific term "species" is a tightly coupled mapping to understanding the ancient Hebrew term translated as "Kind".

 

The Traveler

The debate rages over just what or who the Neanderthals really were. Were they a lower order of species or really our species with some very slight different physical characteristics due to genetically isolated societies? It's all guesswork, like I said.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The debate rages over just what or who the Neanderthals really were. Were they a lower order of species or really our species with some very slight different physical characteristics due to genetically isolated societies? It's all guesswork, like I said.

 

I am trying to understand your posts (both this on and many others in the past)  - You are of the opinion that DNA variations over time can or cannot approach a different species at least to the point that there is doubt or question?  I thought you said earlier that there was absolutely no evidence that this was possible or has ever taken place.  You appear to now be saying that there is evidence that the line separating species in evolving DNA has enough evidence to create raging debate?  Can we at least agree that if there is debate (and especially debate that rages) that there must be at least some evidence to support both possibilities?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

 

I am trying to understand your posts (both this on and many others in the past)  - You are of the opinion that DNA variations over time can or cannot approach a different species at least to the point that there is doubt or question?  I thought you said earlier that there was absolutely no evidence that this was possible or has ever taken place.  You appear to now be saying that there is evidence that the line separating species in evolving DNA has enough evidence to create raging debate?  Can we at least agree that if there is debate (and especially debate that rages) that there must be at least some evidence to support both possibilities?

 

The Traveler

For me there's no debate. Neanderthals were as much human as a white Caucasian with an Asian- that's the difference I am talking about. It's the science side, in their guesswork that think they were vastly different. And yet, there is no evidence of such.

[Traveler]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

For me there's no debate. Neanderthals were as much human as a white Caucasian with an Asian- that's the difference I am talking about. It's the science side, in their guesswork that think they were vastly different. And yet, there is no evidence of such.

So your claim is that DNA cannot or should not be used to isolate a species?  Is this ever or just when you do not like the results?  I thought to make a joke here but I do not believe you would find it very funny.

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

Yay page 6!  Looks exactly like all the other page 6 discussions on evolution I've seen over the last 3 decades.  The scientifically-minded are growing increasingly frustrated in their attempts to get the evolutionists to respond to simpler and simpler examples of how science works.  The evolutionists have been saying "darwinian evolution is a theory not a fact" since page one, and are growing increasingly frustrated at anyone's seeming inability to just admit it.

You know what I would like to see before I die?  A creationist with an advanced degree in something like Biotechnology, or environmental biology.  You know, something with "molecular" or "cellular" in the title that deals with wet stuff in petri dishes.  I'm not sure if any exist.  I mean, religious faith survived learning that the earth wasn't center of the universe.  It survived the telescope, and modern germ theory, and the propagation of safe birth control.  Mormons especially thrive in their faith when getting advanced degrees - as the Mormon Scholars Testify website attests. 

My going theory about why we can't find any creationists with any of those advanced degrees, is that their beliefs crash into scientific thoughts, and only one can win.  The creationist must abandon creationism (or morph it into Intelligent Design).  Or the creationist must abandon their pursuit of scientific thought in order to preserve their beliefs.

My two cents - scientific ignorance is not a Christian virtue. Give me my creationist with an advanced degree as an arguing buddy.

[Rob Osborn]

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

So your claim is that DNA cannot or should not be used to isolate a species?  Is this ever or just when you do not like the results?  I thought to make a joke here but I do not believe you would find it very funny.

 

The Traveler

What results? There are no conclusive results regarding the Neanderthals.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

A creationist with an advanced degree in something like Biotechnology, or environmental biology. 

It's rare to see that, just like it's rare to see someone with a Ph.D in Physics who believes that gravity is "just a theory" and so she jumps off bridges for fun in her spare time. 

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's rare to see that, just like it's rare to see someone with a Ph.D in Physics who believes that gravity is "just a theory" and so she jumps off bridges for fun in her spare time. 

Almost as rare as the female physics PhD.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Vort

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The debate rages over just what or who the Neanderthals really were. Were they a lower order of species

There is a raging debate on whether Neanderthals were "a lower order of species"?

Methinks you haven't the slightest clue about either Neanderthals or the nature of debate between real anthropologists.

[zil]

23 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

wet stuff in petri dishes

I can't get you an advanced degree (not a real one, anyway), but I might could get you some agar in a petri dish.  Then you can add your own wet stuff and put it out in the sun and watch the bacteria that was in your wet stuff grow.

ETA: It might be a crime to ship you one with the wet stuff already growing.

Edited August 16, 2018 by zil