Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Rob Osborn]

55 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Is all science motivated by Satan? 

Absolutely not. But certain aspects, particularly secularism, which pervades the sciences, definitely are the very works of Satan.

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Now certainly you aren't trying to say that God is outside of science or physics...?

God works within the laws of physics, within the laws of truth. He isn't supernatural in the sense we can't explain his works. His very works are the very things we see and measure.

No, I’m saying that science refuses to acknowledge God, just as you did. That “refusal” of course is a figurative, since science has no more will to choose and assert its attributes than a hammer. No strawmen allowed!

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, I’m saying that science refuses to acknowledge God, just as you did. That “refusal” of course is a figurative, since science has no more will to choose and assert its attributes than a hammer. No strawmen allowed!

Ridiculous fallacy. If scientific inquiry points to an intelligent causation, it cannot be blind to that possibility. So then, on the topic of the origins of life, why does it do just that?

[Guest]

@Traveler,

It was a joke...

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The most logical explanation is that life arose on this planet from life itself. And not just one lifeform but a myriad of different kinds of life forms. And, logic also points to the conditions leading up to being able to support life on this planet were a deliberate and planned out series of actions by an intelligent agent/process. In fact, the complexity of everything really does denote there must be a God. This last sentence is where science shys away. Why? Because it refuses to acknowledge God. It's entirely motivated by Satan. It really is, it's the work of Satan. Satan seeks to remove God from all things. Intelligent Design theory is rejected by scientific bodies entirely, and solely, on the premise that it allows for the possibility of an intelligent Creator. That's what troubles me.

There are two measurements in science that are believed to demonstrate intelligence.  I say this with some authority because I am a scientist and I make my living as a consultant in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.   The first measurement that demonstrates intelligence is the ability to learn and modify behavior (this is the primary method to measure the intelligent quotient of living organisms.   The second measurement of intelligence is order.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one of the defining attributes of G-d is "Intelligence".    Since we are both Latter-day Saints; I am sure this is not a point of concern.  

You are spot on that life as it exists on earth supports an intelligence process.  I have found little or no resistance to this notion of order and therefor indication of intelligence among the scientists I deal with.  Where there is resistance and denial of possible G-d is the G-d defined by Traditional Christians in the Trinitarian Creeds and they young earth (6,000 year old earth).   Having personally been involved in such discussions - I must admit that I, for the most part, agree with the notions and evidence of science - that the Trinitarian G-d and that our earth and solar system is no older than 6,000 years.  

I, with some sorrow, cannot honestly give witness that the Trinitarian and young earth creationists G-d is logically the only answer for a G-d to have created our universe.  In fact, I find by carefully studying the arguments and evidence presented by science since Galileo is proof of order and intelligence that the Trinitarians and young earth creationists openly declare to be contrary to their G-d - I agree more with science than I do the Trinitarians and young earth creationists.

 

The Traveler 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Of course not,  Alanis could have been your grandmother.

JUST IN: Mormongator has been found to be the son of one of Alanis Morissette's love children.

And she could have been your great-great-great granddaughter. 😉

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

And she could have been your great-great-great granddaughter. 😉

OH! BURN!!!

Hey, buddy, I earned every one of these gray hairs on my head.  All two of them.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The Traveler 

You had made the confused reaction to my post about good and evil matter and energy post.

So, I felt I had to let you know that post was a joke.

Now you've made the confused reaction to that post.

I hope this clarifies it.

It just isn't funny if you have to explain it.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hey, buddy, I earned every one of these gray hairs on my head.  All two of them.

dupe 

Edited November 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Hey, buddy, I earned every one of these gray hairs on my head.  All two of them.

I'm adopted, and I met my biological mother at age 26. I'd like to say we had this deep, introspective and heartwarming talk-but the first thing I asked her was "Does baldness run in our family?" Thankfully, it doesn't. 

The joys of being shallow

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

I'm adopted, and I met my biological mother at age 26. I'd like to say we had this deep, introspective and heartwarming talk-but the first thing I asked her was "Does baldness run in our family?" Thankfully, it doesn't. 

The joys of being shallow

Ain't it wonderful?  With Christmas coming up, we're supposed to find gifts that somewhat reflect the people we're giving them to as well as the person who's giving them.  I think I'll get you a saucer (as in the dish).  It's very shallow.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Carborendum said:

Ain't it wonderful?  With Christmas coming up, we're supposed to find gifts that somewhat reflect the people we're giving them to as well as the person who's giving them.  I think I'll get you a saucer (as in the dish).  It's very shallow.

"I am open. There's just nothing there!'"-Jerry Seinfeld 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm currently reading Endless Forms Most Beautiful, a book presenting the stuff we're learning about how complex forms start from a single cell.  We've always known how one cell splits into two identical cells, then four, then eight, etc, but we've always wondered how this million bunch of cells know how to turn into a rib, an the next million bunch do the same, but the 9th million somehow know there are enough ribs and they go form something else.   The exciting and growing field of study seems to go hand in hand with everything we think we know about evolution.  

A thing that stands out in this book, at least for me, is the smug pedestal on which the book places it's theories and scientific knowledge.  The pedestal from which it tosses phrases of triumphant crowing about how this stuff finally and utterly kills any creationist thought a rational person might have entertained at one time.  I see the same triumphant crowing coming from both sides of the debate.  It seems like it just must be personal.  Whatever else this book is teaching me, it's deepening my understanding of how the scientific can deify science and what is currently considered proven truth.  It's more than just "we think it's this way and here's why".  It's more like "cracking these majestic secrets have finally made it possible to pull ourselves out of the dark ages of superstition and witchery."   I wish it wasn't that way.  Y'all don't have to be hatin' the other side just because you're getting a leg up.

 

There is a little problem in that few understand that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is at odds with the G-d defined by Traditional Christians and the Trinitarian Creed that Jesus told Joseph Smith was an abomination.  This belief has made us enemies of almost all other Christians and is not understood well enough by most scientist to have warranted  consideration.  And so it is on one hand we want to argue that we are Christians but then on the other hand we want to argue that we are not Traditional Christians - which confuses just about everybody - including some of our own that cannot seem to figure out whose side we are on.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 15, 2018 by Traveler

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

And so it is on one hand we want to argue that we are Christians but then on the other hand we want to argue that we are not Traditional Christians - which confuses just about everybody - including some of our own that cannot seem to figure out whose side we are on.

In Sunday School we were discussing the change in policy regarding the use of the complete name of the Church.  One man said,"We need to remember that the term 'Mormon' was used first as an epithet.  It was an insult.  I know of no other group in history that simply adopted an insult as their own monikker."

I responded,"Well, Christians did it.  And Yankees did it.  I'll bet there are others.  I don't think we're the first."

Why are Christians called Christians?  Originally because of the epithet.  But later, that is simply what they were known as.  The Scriptures both ancient and modern tell us that the term that followers of Christ are to be called is "saints". 

Would it make sense to start telling people that we are NOT Christians?  "No, I'm not a Christian.  I'm a saint, because I follow Jesus Christ."  I'm not sure how people would take that.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Ridiculous fallacy. If scientific inquiry points to an intelligent causation, it cannot be blind to that possibility. So then, on the topic of the origins of life, why does it do just that?

It is “ridiculous” to switch the goalposts from “science” to “certain aspects” of science to “scientific inquiry.”

So to help you establish some self-control in this conversation, answer this question: what sciences do you personally use in your everyday life, and why?

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

In Sunday School we were discussing the change in policy regarding the use of the complete name of the Church.  One man said,"We need to remember that the term 'Mormon' was used first as an epithet.  It was an insult.  I know of no other group in history that simply adopted an insult as their own monikker."

I responded,"Well, Christians did it.  And Yankees did it.  I'll bet there are others.  I don't think we're the first."

Why are Christians called Christians?  Originally because of the epithet.  But later, that is simply what they were known as.  The Scriptures both ancient and modern tell us that the term that followers of Christ are to be called is "saints". 

Would it make sense to start telling people that we are NOT Christians?  "No, I'm not a Christian.  I'm a saint, because I follow Jesus Christ."  I'm not sure how people would take that.

As President Nelson explained, it is not about that, but that we are simply obligated to use the name the Lord said the Church should be called. In that same Section 115, He refers to the members as "saints," but does not command its use. 3 Nephi 27 offers a precedent as to the reasons, while He refering to the saints as "this people."

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

As President Nelson explained, it is not about that, but that we are simply obligated to use the name the Lord said the Church should be called. In that same Section 115, He refers to the members as "saints," but does not command its use. 3 Nephi 27 offers a precedent as to the reasons, while He refering to the saints as "this people."

Context.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Context.

Please help me understand this reply. Thank you.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

There are two measurements in science that are believed to demonstrate intelligence.  I say this with some authority because I am a scientist and I make my living as a consultant in industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.   The first measurement that demonstrates intelligence is the ability to learn and modify behavior (this is the primary method to measure the intelligent quotient of living organisms.   The second measurement of intelligence is order.  In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints one of the defining attributes of G-d is "Intelligence".    Since we are both Latter-day Saints; I am sure this is not a point of concern.  

You are spot on that life as it exists on earth supports an intelligence process.  I have found little or no resistance to this notion of order and therefor indication of intelligence among the scientists I deal with.  Where there is resistance and denial of possible G-d is the G-d defined by Traditional Christians in the Trinitarian Creeds and they young earth (6,000 year old earth).   Having personally been involved in such discussions - I must admit that I, for the most part, agree with the notions and evidence of science - that the Trinitarian G-d and that our earth and solar system is no older than 6,000 years.  

I, with some sorrow, cannot honestly give witness that the Trinitarian and young earth creationists G-d is logically the only answer for a G-d to have created our universe.  In fact, I find by carefully studying the arguments and evidence presented by science since Galileo is proof of order and intelligence that the Trinitarians and young earth creationists openly declare to be contrary to their G-d - I agree more with science than I do the Trinitarians and young earth creationists.

 

The Traveler 

But I'm not talking about "creationism". I'm talking about intelligent design. The real and furrent argument isn't whether some supernatural entity poofed things into existence but rather if there was an intelligent cause and/or process of how and/or why life came into existence. On the one side you have evolution who does not believe such a notion as an intelligent causation for life, that it was done outside of an intelligent cause, and on the other you have a the argument that because life shows no sign it came about outside of an intelligent cause therefore all that remains is there must be an intelligent cause.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

As President Nelson explained, it is not about that, but that we are simply obligated to use the name the Lord said the Church should be called. In that same Section 115, He refers to the members as "saints," but does not command its use. 3 Nephi 27 offers a precedent as to the reasons, while He refering to the saints as "this people."

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Please help me understand this reply. Thank you.

Your quote of Pres. Nelson was correct, as was the explanation.  My response to Traveler was not about that. 

So, I believed your use of this quote (as correct as it was) did not really fit into the exchange I was having with Traveler.  Therefore, it seemed out of context.

He (traveler) was saying how it is a contradiction to say we are Christian, but we are not "traditional Christians".  It is confusing.  I came from a different place and arrived at the same point with a different conclusion -- namely, "Given this other information, what would you expect us to do instead?  This other option doesn't seem to make sense to others either."

Edited November 15, 2018 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is “ridiculous” to switch the goalposts from “science” to “certain aspects” of science to “scientific inquiry.”

So to help you establish some self-control in this conversation, answer this question: what sciences do you personally use in your everyday life, and why?

 

Everything is in context. We all use "science"  in different contexts to mean different things. I believe we all know what I originally asked.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please help me understand this reply. Thank you.

To use a succinct algebraic abstraction:

Traveler came from A to B.  I came from C to B.  And I had hoped to discuss B with Traveler.

You came from C to D.  I completely agree with what you said about D.  But I don't see how that adds to the discussion about B.

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Your quote of Pres. Nelson was correct, as was the explanation.  My response to Traveler was not about that. 

So, I believed your use of this quote (as correct as it was) did not really fit into the exchange I was having with Traveler.  Therefore, it seemed out of context.

He (traveler) was saying how it is a contradiction to say we are Christian, but we are not "traditional Christians".  It is confusing.  I came from a different place and arrived at the same point with a different conclusion -- namely, "Given this other information, what would you expect us to do instead?  This other option doesn't seem to make sense to others either."

OK thank you!

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Everything is in context. We all use "science"  in different contexts to mean different things. I believe we all know what I originally asked.

What did you originally ask?

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Ridiculous fallacy. If scientific inquiry points to an intelligent causation, it cannot be blind to that possibility. So then, on the topic of the origins of life, why does it do just that?

 

34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What did you originally ask?

See my above quote. We both know, in that context, of what I was asking. I asked why, if scientific inquiry (scientific process), leads to the logic of intelligent causation, why does it reject intelligent causation? The answer, it appears, is that this "intelligent causation" might include the possibility that there being a God (an intelligent cause) and as such must thus be rejected wholly and outright.

Edited November 15, 2018 by Rob Osborn