Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Traveler]

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And yet, nothing you say has any bearing whatsoever on showing anything empirical about Darwinian evolution. Most of what you say actually bolsters Intelligent Design theory.

 

I am under the impression that you do not know what Darwinian evolution is (as per Darwin’s book “Origin of Species”) or who concocted the term “Intelligent Design” and what their purpose is.

As a scientist working in the field of industrial artificial intelligence – it is generally accepted in scientific circles that complexity is indicative of intelligence.  Many atheists I encounter in my profession recognize intelligence as a force in our universe but reject the “Traditional” notions of G-d (and the doctrines of the young earth and intelligent design theories arising from religious circles) as being inconsistent  with the intelligence they find manifested in the complexity of our universe.   Rather than deal with the ignorance of traditional religion (product of the “Dark Ages”) that insist that if science does not accept their notion of G-d they are going to hell – they just accept the label of such obviously ridiculous religionists and call themselves atheists to be done with the nonsense and ignorant arrogances of such hatful vindictive minds that think everyone that disagrees with them belongs in hell.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

50 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And yet, nothing you say has any bearing whatsoever on showing anything empirical about Darwinian evolution. Most of what you say actually bolsters Intelligent Design theory.

 

Genetically engineering a living replace organ has no bearing on showing anything empirical to support biological evolution?  I wrote my honest response to this but thought in light of what is being said – it does not matter.  Yet – I will do my best to answer and respond in a manner to encourage enlightenment, understanding and learning of truth.  What you are demanding as false and a deception – and impossible – is being done and accomplished by those you refuse to recognize as contributing to the library of truth and accomplishment.  What have you done to advanced medicine? Or engineering?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

And yet, nothing you say has any bearing whatsoever on showing anything empirical about Darwinian evolution. Most of what you say actually bolsters Intelligent Design theory.

 

Claiming that genetically engineering a living replacement organ has no bearing on showing anything empirical to support biological evolution?  I wrote my initial response to this but thought in light of what is being said – it does not increase understanding.  Yet – I will do my best to answer and respond in a manner to encourage enlightenment, understanding and learning of truth. 

There is a vast difference in the purported theory of intelligent design and the divine light of truth or intelligence as understood within LDS theology.   I can show empirical evidence that evolution is not random and that because of evolved complexity that there are definite cases of evolution that demonstrate intelligence in the resultant complexity.  But this is very different than the theory of “Intelligent Design” – perhaps not as different than the theory Darwinian Evolution is as different as the theory that man evolved from monkeys and apes.

For those less informed; Darwinian Evolution purports genetic deviation in reproduction and that there will be survival of the elements more fit to survive and reproduce and that genetic deviations with disadvantages will be eliminated.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Genetically engineering a living replace organ has no bearing on showing anything empirical to support biological evolution?  I wrote my honest response to this but thought in light of what is being said – it does not matter.  Yet – I will do my best to answer and respond in a manner to encourage enlightenment, understanding and learning of truth.  What you are demanding as false and a deception – and impossible – is being done and accomplished by those you refuse to recognize as contributing to the library of truth and accomplishment.  What have you done to advanced medicine? Or engineering?

 

The Traveler

What we see being done in labs is the process of intelligently manipulating or engineering of biologic matetial. Thats inteligent design, not Darwinian evolution.

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Claiming that genetically engineering a living replacement organ has no bearing on showing anything empirical to support biological evolution?  I wrote my initial response to this but thought in light of what is being said – it does not increase understanding.  Yet – I will do my best to answer and respond in a manner to encourage enlightenment, understanding and learning of truth. 

There is a vast difference in the purported theory of intelligent design and the divine light of truth or intelligence as understood within LDS theology.   I can show empirical evidence that evolution is not random and that because of evolved complexity that there are definite cases of evolution that demonstrate intelligence in the resultant complexity.  But this is very different than the theory of “Intelligent Design” – perhaps not as different than the theory Darwinian Evolution is as different as the theory that man evolved from monkeys and apes.

For those less informed; Darwinian Evolution purports genetic deviation in reproduction and that there will be survival of the elements more fit to survive and reproduce and that genetic deviations with disadvantages will be eliminated.

 

The Traveler

Darwinian evolution purports more than that though. It postulates that all complex species themselves present in tge world today are the product of very simple organisms that slowly evolved from billions of years ago.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I am under the impression that you do not know what Darwinian evolution is (as per Darwin’s book “Origin of Species”) or who concocted the term “Intelligent Design” and what their purpose is.

As a scientist working in the field of industrial artificial intelligence – it is generally accepted in scientific circles that complexity is indicative of intelligence.  Many atheists I encounter in my profession recognize intelligence as a force in our universe but reject the “Traditional” notions of G-d (and the doctrines of the young earth and intelligent design theories arising from religious circles) as being inconsistent  with the intelligence they find manifested in the complexity of our universe.   Rather than deal with the ignorance of traditional religion (product of the “Dark Ages”) that insist that if science does not accept their notion of G-d they are going to hell – they just accept the label of such obviously ridiculous religionists and call themselves atheists to be done with the nonsense and ignorant arrogances of such hatful vindictive minds that think everyone that disagrees with them belongs in hell.

 

The Traveler

Btw, artificial intelligence will never evolve or be produced to be like real intelligence. The problem with atheists is that at some point they have to conclude that through a series of nonintelligent chemical reactions that true intlligence and life arose. Its a proven empirical fact that true intelligence cannot come from a nonbiologic source.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Just because a professor at BYU accepts something does not make it true. Some of the biggest closet Atheists wrap themselves in the BYU robes of the false priesthood.

Right, but if they taught something that strongly disagreed with church teachings (Like how wonderful gay marriage is or how to brew your own ale, etc) it would be immediately quashed. Evolution hasn't been quashed. Ergo, the church obviously doesn't have that big a problem with it. 

[Traveler]

59 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

What we see being done in labs is the process of intelligently manipulating or engineering of biologic matetial. Thats inteligent design, not Darwinian evolution.

You do realize that the think tank the came up with the notion of intelligent design are the same group that pronounced that you are not a Christian - assuming that you are LDS.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

55 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Darwinian evolution purports more than that though. It postulates that all complex species themselves present in tge world today are the product of very simple organisms that slowly evolved from billions of years ago.

Do you have a reference where Darwin purported what you say?  You are referring to a postulate - which is not Darwinian evolution but an extension based on the idea that any new species can be demonstrated to possess genetics that can be explained through mutation of a previous species.  Though this has not been proven the cycles and progressions of life form give that as a possibility.  But even if we assume that such progressions are possible that does not demonstrate such could happen without some form in intelligent interference.  As I posted earlier - I can prove that statistical probabilities do not conform to observed complexities.  Intelligent design specifically rejects the idea of intelligent evolution but that G-d created each and every species from nothing that existed before.  You are mistaking when you purport that genetic engineering is intelligent design - such is a disconnect from reality and trying to manipulate elements of evolution into the religious theory of intelligent design that purports that intelligent design means evolution - including intelligent evolution - does not exist and is not related at all to the "Christian" concept of creation given in scripture.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Btw, artificial intelligence will never evolve or be produced to be like real intelligence. The problem with atheists is that at some point they have to conclude that through a series of nonintelligent chemical reactions that true intlligence and life arose. Its a proven empirical fact that true intelligence cannot come from a nonbiologic source.

I personally demonstrated (in my work) that artificial intelligence was capable of operating fewer and slower automated fork lifts to move more loads to needed destinations than faster and more in numbers - human intelligently operated fork lifts.  What we are currently facing is the probability that it is possible that there are intelligence which can exist that is greater than human intelligence.  It is my understanding that you oppose any and all possibilities in evolution as a realistic possibility void on any empirical evidence - even a possibility utilized and invented by G-d in the first place.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

You do realize that the think tank the came up with the notion of intelligent design are the same group that pronounced that you are not a Christian - assuming that you are LDS.

 

The Traveler

Well, that's not technically correct. What's your war here?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Do you have a reference where Darwin purported what you say?  You are referring to a postulate - which is not Darwinian evolution but an extension based on the idea that any new species can be demonstrated to possess genetics that can be explained through mutation of a previous species.  Though this has not been proven the cycles and progressions of life form give that as a possibility.  But even if we assume that such progressions are possible that does not demonstrate such could happen without some form in intelligent interference.  As I posted earlier - I can prove that statistical probabilities do not conform to observed complexities.  Intelligent design specifically rejects the idea of intelligent evolution but that G-d created each and every species from nothing that existed before.  You are mistaking when you purport that genetic engineering is intelligent design - such is a disconnect from reality and trying to manipulate elements of evolution into the religious theory of intelligent design that purports that intelligent design means evolution - including intelligent evolution - does not exist and is not related at all to the "Christian" concept of creation given in scripture.

 

The Traveler

You clearly don't know what Intelligent Design theory is do you?

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I personally demonstrated (in my work) that artificial intelligence was capable of operating fewer and slower automated fork lifts to move more loads to needed destinations than faster and more in numbers - human intelligently operated fork lifts.  What we are currently facing is the probability that it is possible that there are intelligence which can exist that is greater than human intelligence.  It is my understanding that you oppose any and all possibilities in evolution as a realistic possibility void on any empirical evidence - even a possibility utilized and invented by G-d in the first place.

 

The Traveler

Of course automation in robotics and circuit boards can compute and carry out precision tasks better and faster than humans. That's not the debate. No computer uses real intelligence to compute, just a program that only does what humans program it to do. True intelligence that biologic entities possess will never be duplicated in machinery.  No machine/computer will ever be able to, on it's own, be able to come up with new and novel intelligence like we can.

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You clearly don't know what Intelligent Design theory is do you?

I know that "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific term nor is it used in any scientific documentation (journals or white paper) except to reverence religious cultism propaganda.  I am also very confident that I know much more about Intelligent Design than you know about Darwinian Evolution.  I have read several blogs and articles on intelligent design - some written by and for the "religious" organizations that claim to have created the notion.   When I do research - I attempt to study from the source as much as possible.  Have you read Darwin's "Origin of Species"?  It appears to me that your understanding both of Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution comes mostly from religious fundamentalists and cult dogma and propaganda easily found on the internet - it is my impression that you have never read a scientific journal or scientific white paper (not to be confused with business, political or even religious white paper).   I could be wrong but I am not sure you even know what they are or the purpose for which they are written.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I know that "Intelligent Design" is not a scientific term nor is it used in any scientific documentation (journals or white paper) except to reverence religious cultism propaganda.  I am also very confident that I know much more about Intelligent Design than you know about Darwinian Evolution.  I have read several blogs and articles on intelligent design - some written by and for the "religious" organizations that claim to have created the notion.   When I do research - I attempt to study from the source as much as possible.  Have you read Darwin's "Origin of Species"?  It appears to me that your understanding both of Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution comes mostly from religious fundamentalists and cult dogma and propaganda easily found on the internet - it is my impression that you have never read a scientific journal or scientific white paper (not to be confused with business, political or even religious white paper).   I could be wrong but I am not sure you even know what they are or the purpose for which they are written.

 

The Traveler

Your arrogance is astounding.

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Btw, artificial intelligence will never evolve or be produced to be like real intelligence. The problem with atheists is that at some point they have to conclude that through a series of nonintelligent chemical reactions that true intlligence and life arose. Its a proven empirical fact that true intelligence cannot come from a nonbiologic source.

You do not believe G-d could create artificial intelligence? from a non-biological source?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Your arrogance is astounding.

Your misdirection from and avoidance of simple questions are amazing.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 7, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You do not believe G-d could create artificial intelligence? from a non-biological source?

 

The Traveler

True intelligence or "design" only comes from a true intelligent source. That is the very definition of ID theory.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Your misdirection from and avoidance of simple questions are amazing.

 

The Traveler

Well, you assume too much and in the process reflect a type of narcissism that quells further dialogue.

[Traveler]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Well, you assume too much and in the process reflect a type of narcissism that quells further dialogue.

It would be much more effective and actual proof to answer the questions - It is much more narcissistic to refuse to answers questions and divert dialogue.  I have honestly attempted to answer every question you have asked - even referencing my research on topics I am trying to discuss with you.  But your responses to my questions are not answers to questions but accusations or arrogance and narcissism.  But It would seem to me that refusal to answer questions and divert dialogue is far more arrogant and narcissistic.

So shall we try again - have you ever read Darwin's "Origin of Species"?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, Traveler said:

It would be much more effective and actual proof to answer the questions - It is much more narcissistic to refuse to answers questions and divert dialogue.  I have honestly attempted to answer every question you have asked - even referencing my research on topics I am trying to discuss with you.  But your responses to my questions are not answers to questions but accusations or arrogance and narcissism.  But It would seem to me that refusal to answer questions and divert dialogue is far more arrogant and narcissistic.

So shall we try again - have you ever read Darwin's "Origin of Species"?

 

The Traveler

Yes, a long time ago

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, a long time ago

Thank you - may I ask exactly what it was you disagreed with?  I thought to add - there are "things" that I disagree with and I can tell you exactly and preciously what they are.  It has also been several years since I read "Origin of Species".

 

The Traveler

Edited August 7, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Thank you - may I ask exactly what it was you disagreed with?

 

The Traveler

That small changes over time lead to bigger changes from species to species- specifically common descent.

[Rob Osborn]

Just so everyone reading knows, ID theory actually does not try to refute evolution, there are evolutionists who believe in ID. It's not to refute evolution but rather some of the theories as to how that happens such as natural selection.

[Traveler]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

That small changes over time lead to bigger changes from species to species- specifically common descent.

Interesting - we are actually very close to that which I disagree - Do you disagree about small changes or that small changes over time can lead to bigger changes (BTW) I think Pres Uchtdorf gave a talk about small errors in navigation resulting in big changes - not only not reaching a desired destination but even life ending problems.

Actually Darwin suggested that new or different life comes from existing life .

 

The Traveler

Edited August 7, 2018 by Traveler