Do you believe in organic evolution?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

You don't ask good questions, and as demonstrated above, don't construct good sentences to make your points, so it's really hard to tell what "we both know, in that context." I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your "answer."

But people (as you are doing) draw or reject the conclusions of the science, which is only a tool serving a practical purpose, and there are also different (and often competing) scientific approaches. It's like preferring one type of hammer for a certain job over another. There are applications of organic evolution that you enjoy on a personal level every day.

[Rob Osborn]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You don't ask good questions, and as demonstrated above, don't construct good sentences to make your points, so it's really hard to tell what "we both know, in that context." I'm not sure what you are trying to say with your "answer."

But people (as you are doing) draw or reject the conclusions of the science, which is only a tool serving a practical purpose, and there are also different (and often competing) scientific approaches. It's like preferring one type of hammer for a certain job over another. There are applications of organic evolution that you enjoy on a personal level every day.

In context though, we arent talking about genetic or mutative differences. We are discussing the actual origin of life and where our race came from.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

In context though, we arent talking about genetic or mutative differences. We are discussing the actual origin of life and where our race came from.

The discussion is whether one believes in organic evolution, doesn't, or doesn't care; not about the actual origin of life and where our race came from. It is pretty clear that everyone who has posted here believes the fundamental figurative and literal teachings of our faith.

Do you have a link that you can refer me to that discusses more clearly what you were trying to say about scientific inquiry / process and the logic of intelligent causation, and its rejection vis-a-vis organic evolution?

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

In context though, we arent talking about genetic or mutative differences. We are discussing the actual origin of life and where our race came from.

The reality is that neither science nor religion have any good ideas that can be replicated to demonstrate the origins of life.   Plus we have already been over the notion that all life begins at the cellular level and that there is no evidence to indicate that any cell did not come from an already existing cell.   The fact that all life springs from the same process of cellular regeneration is a fundamental principle of organic evolution.

Intelligent design was not taught by any religion 200 years ago.  And since there is no new revelation from G-d that commands anyone to believe that the new concept of intelligent design is anything less of a fabrication than the worst of any scientific speculation on such matters.   

But the Latter-day Saints have unique opportunity to seek revelation because of the gift of the Holy Ghost.  And it does appear to me that the parameters of understanding the creation is a science G-d intends for man to understand is somewhat unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  -  I personally am not 100% aligned with science or the intelligent design creationists.  But I do tend towards the evolving notions of science over the fabrications of religionists trying to justify false doctrines that were separated from truth during the Great Apostasy.  

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The discussion is whether one believes in organic evolution, doesn't, or doesn't care; not about the actual origin of life and where our race came from. It is pretty clear that everyone who has posted here believes the fundamental figurative and literal teachings of our faith.

Do you have a link that you can refer me to that discusses more clearly what you were trying to say about scientific inquiry / process and the logic of intelligent causation, and its rejection vis-a-vis organic evolution?

Do a search on intelligent design vs. evolution. And, we are discussing the origin of life and where man came from.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The reality is that neither science nor religion have any good ideas that can be replicated to demonstrate the origins of life.   Plus we have already been over the notion that all life begins at the cellular level and that there is no evidence to indicate that any cell did not come from an already existing cell.   The fact that all life springs from the same process of cellular regeneration is a fundamental principle of organic evolution.

Intelligent design was not taught by any religion 200 years ago.  And since there is no new revelation from G-d that commands anyone to believe that the new concept of intelligent design is anything less of a fabrication than the worst of any scientific speculation on such matters.   

But the Latter-day Saints have unique opportunity to seek revelation because of the gift of the Holy Ghost.  And it does appear to me that the parameters of understanding the creation is a science G-d intends for man to understand is somewhat unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  -  I personally am not 100% aligned with science or the intelligent design creationists.  But I do tend towards the evolving notions of science over the fabrications of religionists trying to justify false doctrines that were separated from truth during the Great Apostasy.  

 

The Traveler

Evolutionary theory includes the evolution of life from nonlife substance. Thus, it also includes the evolution of how cells came to be to begin with.

The principles and foundations of ID theory are manifest in teachings throughout scripture. The whole creation story is ID theory in motion.

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Evolutionary theory includes the evolution of life from nonlife substance. Thus, it also includes the evolution of how cells came to be to begin with.

I believe ID creation theory purports the same - what is your point here?  But I believe that ID also purports each species or kind was created separately and from nothing - if I am wrong about this please correct me and provide a link.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the creation was organization from pre-existing stuff not a creation from nothing - which I understand to be more inline with evolution theory than ID theory.

Quote

The principles and foundations of ID theory are manifest in teachings throughout scripture. The whole creation story is ID theory in motion.

I can accept that there may be some elements and notions of ID theory that correspond by coincidence to  certain or some elements of revelation to explain the creation epoch revelation which has as primary purpose to explain the plan of salvation as provided in scripture and temple revelation (I also believe that there are flaws that have surfaced in the scripture accounts that have been corrected in the temple explanation) - so I am concerned with the assumption that there is a perfect one to one conformable mapping between the ID and what G-d intends to be understood through restoration revelation.    I believe ID to be a stretch or overreach and thus exactly why the official statements of the first presidency and entire quorum of the twelve has not embraced ID Theory.

I thought to add that I believe that there are some misconceptions with some notions purported in evolution theory - it is just that I do not think ID theorists understand either the science of evolution nor the spiritual intent of revelation.  If ID theorists understood the scriptures they would embrace modern revelation of the nature and attributes of G-d - rather than the false creeds of trinitarians. 

 

The Traveler

Edited November 16, 2018 by Traveler

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Do a search on intelligent design vs. evolution. And, we are discussing the origin of life and where man came from.

Not good enough; I' asking you specifically for a source which informs your position on "intelligent design vs. [organic--can you be consistent?] evolution" since it appears you are drawing off a particular source. Provide the source you think represents what you are trying to say about the "logic of intelligent causation." (CFR) If you are claiming you came upon this conclusion/opinion independently, you aren't explaining or selling it very well. You seem to be abusing this tool of science as much as someone who uses it to reject God.

Who on this thread is saying the origin of life and where man came from is not from God, anyway?

 

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe ID creation theory purports the same - what is your point here?  But I believe that ID also purports each species or kind was created separately and from nothing - if I am wrong about this please correct me and provide a link.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the creation was organization from pre-existing stuff not a creation from nothing - which I understand to be more inline with evolution theory than ID theory.

I can accept that there may be some elements and notions of ID theory that correspond by coincidence to  certain or some elements of revelation to explain the creation epoch revelation which has as primary purpose to explain the plan of salvation as provided in scripture and temple revelation (I also believe that there are flaws that have surfaced in the scripture accounts that have been corrected in the temple explanation) - so I am concerned with the assumption that there is a perfect one to one conformable mapping between the ID and what G-d intends to be understood through restoration revelation.    I believe ID to be a stretch or overreach and thus exactly why the official statements of the first presidency and entire quorum of the twelve has not embraced ID Theory.

I thought to add that I believe that there are some misconceptions with some notions purported in evolution theory - it is just that I do not think ID theorists understand either the science of evolution nor the spiritual intent of revelation.  If ID theorists understood the scriptures they would embrace modern revelation of the nature and attributes of G-d - rather than the false creeds of trinitarians. 

 

The Traveler

I think you are thinking ID theory is creationism. It is not. ID theory states that intelligent information such as seen in a cell did not arise on it's own from random mutations. If intelligent information is always preceded by an intelligent design or intelligent cause then it aligns with our religious beliefs in there being a Creator, who is intelligent, who caused life on this planet to begin. ID theory does not propose how or when this occurred, only that it did occur.

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

[Rob Osborn]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not good enough; I' asking you specifically for a source which informs your position on "intelligent design vs. [organic--can you be consistent?] evolution" since it appears you are drawing off a particular source. Provide the source you think represents what you are trying to say about the "logic of intelligent causation." (CFR) If you are claiming you came upon this conclusion/opinion independently, you aren't explaining or selling it very well. You seem to be abusing this tool of science as much as someone who uses it to reject God.

Who on this thread is saying the origin of life and where man came from is not from God, anyway?

 

In case you didn't know, Darwinian evolution does not include the Creator. I get tired of people having this theistic evolutionary view. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with God.

Try this link on where to begin understanding ID

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

In case you didn't know, Darwinian evolution does not include the Creator. I get tired of people having this theistic evolutionary view. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with God.

Try this link on where to begin understanding ID

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

Of course it doesn't include the Creator.  Darwin established a principle in his lifelong scientific pursuit that he will not touch on any theory he can't physically prove... that includes "The Creator".  Darwin's scientific discoveries that is a work developed through a lifetime and beyond would not have been possible if he remained bound by the Anglican Church or Christianity in general's view of ex nihilo creation - a belief that is, as God has declared to Joseph Smith, Jr., apostate.  How Joseph Smith's restoration of the teachings of creation that rejects ex nihilo could have influenced Darwin's work would forever be a mystery to us because... well, there is no historical evidence that Darwin was ever approached by LDS missionaries on the matter.

And this is what frustrates me.  The reason that there is this unnecessary conflict between Science and Religion is because Religious people whose beliefs are apostate is quick to dismiss carefully studied scientific observations that has been useful in its application and at the same time Scientists have to reject apostate beliefs Religious people push that contradicts physical evidence.  We, LDS members, should know better than to join the arguments between apostates and atheists.

 

Edited November 16, 2018 by anatess2

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

In case you didn't know, Darwinian evolution does not include the Creator. I get tired of people having this theistic evolutionary view. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with God.

Try this link on where to begin understanding ID

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

I case you didn't know, a hammer does not include the Creator.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

In case you didn't know, Darwinian evolution does not include the Creator. I get tired of people having this theistic evolutionary view. Darwinian evolution is not compatible with God.

Try this link on where to begin understanding ID

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

What do you know about the "Center for Science and Culture" - and do you agree with the "Wedge Document"? as proof of Scientific Intent?  One last question - Do you have an opinion on why the vast majority of people (in essence all) with blue eyes come from ancestry that lived above 45th parallel for many many generations? 

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Of course it doesn't include the Creator.  Darwin established a principle in his lifelong scientific pursuit that he will not touch on any theory he can't physically prove... that includes "The Creator".  Darwin's scientific discoveries that is a work developed through a lifetime and beyond would not have been possible if he remained bound by the Anglican Church or Christianity in general's view of ex nihilo creation - a belief that is, as God has declared to Joseph Smith, Jr., apostate.  How Joseph Smith's restoration of the teachings of creation that rejects ex nihilo could have influenced Darwin's work would forever be a mystery to us because... well, there is no historical evidence that Darwin was ever approached by LDS missionaries on the matter.

And this is what frustrates me.  The reason that there is this unnecessary conflict between Science and Religion is because Religious people whose beliefs are apostate is quick to dismiss carefully studied scientific observations that has been useful in its application and at the same time Scientists have to reject apostate beliefs Religious people push that contradicts physical evidence.  We, LDS members, should know better than to join the arguments between apostates and atheists.

 

Hum...I don't know where you get this idea about creation ex-nihilo. Perhaps some creationists think that. I'm not a creationists and neither is ID creationism. As far as I can tell, Darwin came to doubt the Creator, so it's not fair to say he sided with LDS and other Christian beliefs. Darwinian evolution is atheism. 

There isn't any carefully studied scientific observations that give credibility to Darwinian evolutionary tbeory from a common ancestor. And that's what frustrates me. Darwinian evolution is at odds with LDS beliefs regarding mankind's origins.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I case you didn't know, a hammer does not include the Creator.

And we don't exist, nothing exists, without the Creator.

[anatess2]

19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...I don't know where you get this idea about creation ex-nihilo. Perhaps some creationists think that. I'm not a creationists and neither is ID creationism. As far as I can tell, Darwin came to doubt the Creator, so it's not fair to say he sided with LDS and other Christian beliefs. Darwinian evolution is atheism. 

There isn't any carefully studied scientific observations that give credibility to Darwinian evolutionary tbeory from a common ancestor. And that's what frustrates me. Darwinian evolution is at odds with LDS beliefs regarding mankind's origins.

If you study the work of Darwin from the perspective of Darwin himself, you will realize that his misgivings with religion is his Church's attack on his discoveries because it is a heresy against Church beliefs which, in those days (before the LDS Church became more than this handful of polygamists in Utah) taught Creation ex nihilo.  The only way Darwin could go anywhere with his scientific observations is if he completely distances himself from religion to his wife's disappointment.  The extreme conflict between the Anglican Church's ex-nihilo teaching from his scientific discoveries caused him to believe - although this belief is something separate from his science - that there can't possibly be a God as defined by the Anglican Church.

Darwin's theory is well beyond his initial theory of "universal creator" or "common ancestor".  Darwin died in the late 1800's.  His science (which developed from scientific discoveries before him) did not stop at his death.  Science does not answer the "Creator" nor the "Ancestor" question no matter how much Religious folks accuse that they do simply by the fact that Science does not deal with things unprovable.  Where ID fails is the leap between their science to the Divine in their attempts to scientifically explain matters of faith.

Edited November 16, 2018 by anatess2

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And we don't exist, nothing exists, without the Creator.

Including scientific theories, just tools.

Come to think of it, this is how the devil exists: where are you going with this? No false doctrine allowed!

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What do you know about the "Center for Science and Culture" - and do you agree with the "Wedge Document"? as proof of Scientific Intent?  One last question - Do you have an opinion on why the vast majority of people (in essence all) with blue eyes come from ancestry that lived above 45th parallel for many many generations? 

 

The Traveler

https://www.discovery.org/a/2101/

I know about it. Do I believe in the Creator? Yes. Do I believe the Creator is a reason Western society is so advanced? Yes. These are common LDS beliefs.

I don't really care about people with blue eyes. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the theory that we evolved from a common ancestor.

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you study the work of Darwin from the perspective of Darwin himself, you will realize that his misgivings with religion is his Church's attack on his discoveries because it is a heresy against Church beliefs which, in those days (before the LDS Church became more than this handful of polygamists in Utah) taught Creation ex nihilo.  The only way Darwin could go anywhere with his scientific observations is if he completely distances himself from religion to his wife's disappointment.  The extreme conflict between the Anglican Church's ex-nihilo teaching from his scientific discoveries caused him to believe - although this belief is something separate from his science - that there can't possibly be a God as defined by the Anglican Church.

Darwin's theory is well beyond his initial theory of "universal creator" or "common ancestor".  Darwin died in the late 1800's.  His science (which developed from scientific discoveries before him) did not stop at his death.  Science does not answer the "Creator" nor the "Ancestor" question no matter how much Religious folks accuse that they do simply by the fact that Science does not deal with things unprovable.  Where ID fails is the leap between their science to the Divine in their attempts to scientifically explain matters of faith.

People imagine all kinds of theories on Darwin. The truth of it ishe came to reject God because he championed secularistic beliefs.

You think it's a matter of faith to believe intelligence only comes from intelligence preceding it? Scientific evidence proves otherwise. And, in no instance, not even one single time, have scientists been able to document intelligence arising from a nonintelligent source. Talk about failing...

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Including scientific theories, just tools.

Come to think of it, this is how the devil exists: where are you going with this? No false doctrine allowed!

🙄😂😂

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

https://www.discovery.org/a/2101/

I know about it. Do I believe in the Creator? Yes. Do I believe the Creator is a reason Western society is so advanced? Yes. These are common LDS beliefs.

I don't really care about people with blue eyes. I'm not sure it has anything to do with the theory that we evolved from a common ancestor.

It appears to me that you are making several assumptions that are incorrect - for example that Western society is more advanced than all other societies - especially considering societies such as the City of Enoch.

The Center for Science and Culture is not Scientific - this is why I asked if you were familiar about the "Wedge Document".   You have claimed to be knowledgeable and educated - So I wondered why you think the Wedge Document is Scientific?  I would compare the Wedge Document as being scientific to someone claiming to be a Christian that intends to prove Jesus never was physically born or died on the cross.   The Center for Science and Culture is not interested in science but as expressed in the Wedge Document - has as it soul purpose - to put forward a pre-determined social political agenda - and to ignore any evidence or Science that does not favor their pre-determined conclusions and agenda.   The proper term for such publications is perpetrating propaganda - not the discovery of truth.  As a side note - I have yet to meet any scientist that would not love to disprove any popular scientific notion.  I do not believe that the Center for Science and Culture has anyone connected that is willing to publish anything contrary to the agenda of the Wedge Document.

All this leads up to why I asked about people with blue eyes - which demonstrates evolution by "natural selection" in humans.  But by your own admission - not caring - leads me to expect that you really do not understand what constitutes science - or evolution by natural selection.

But here is a thought and question for you - Do you believe that the earth was created before the sun and that there were trees on earth providing fruit before the sun ever gave any light for earth?

One thing I will say and that is that I do not believe there exist anything in scientific observation that can be proven to be random.  And for the record my objection to the Center for Science and Culture is not so much their conclusion but the methods used to achieve their conclusion.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 16, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

58 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It appears to me that you are making several assumptions that are incorrect - for example that Western society is more advanced than all other societies - especially considering societies such as the City of Enoch.

The Center for Science and Culture is not Scientific - this is why I asked if you were familiar about the "Wedge Document".   You have claimed to be knowledgeable and educated - So I wondered why you think the Wedge Document is Scientific?  I would compare the Wedge Document as being scientific to someone claiming to be a Christian that intends to prove Jesus never was physically born or died on the cross.   The Center for Science and Culture is not interested in science but as expressed in the Wedge Document - has as it soul purpose - to put forward a pre-determined social political agenda - and to ignore any evidence or Science that does not favor their pre-determined conclusions and agenda.   The proper term for such publications is perpetrating propaganda - not the discovery of truth.  As a side note - I have yet to meet any scientist that would not love to disprove any popular scientific notion.  I do not believe that the Center for Science and Culture has anyone connected that is willing to publish anything contrary to the agenda of the Wedge Document.

All this leads up to why I asked about people with blue eyes - which demonstrates evolution by "natural selection" in humans.  But by your own admission - not caring - leads me to expect that you really do not understand what constitutes science - or evolution by natural selection.

But here is a thought and question for you - Do you believe that the earth was created before the sun and that there were trees on earth providing fruit before the sun ever gave any light for earth?

One thing I will say and that is that I do not believe there exist anything in scientific observation that can be proven to be random.  And for the record my objection to the Center for Science and Culture is not so much their conclusion but the methods used to achieve their conclusion.

 

The Traveler

Well, apparently we disagree with what ID theory is. We both are making incorrect assumptions. Let's move on, no sense in back and forth with either side not willing to acknowledge what the other side really believes. Sufficeth to say, better to just move on.

As for the earth in it's creation, it's my belief the trees were planted and started to grow on the seventh day after God caused it to rain.

[Traveler]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, apparently we disagree with what ID theory is. We both are making incorrect assumptions. Let's move on, no sense in back and forth with either side not willing to acknowledge what the other side really believes. Sufficeth to say, better to just move on.

As for the earth in it's creation, it's my belief the trees were planted and started to grow on the seventh day after God caused it to rain.

What is this?  Truth or error.

Quote

Genesis 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed isin itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

What is this?  Truth or error.

 

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;
            6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. (Moses 3:5-6)

According to scripture, there was no growth because there was no rain until the seventh day. No birds, no creatures, no man, no plant life until the seventh day.

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

People imagine all kinds of theories on Darwin. The truth of it ishe came to reject God because he championed secularistic beliefs.

You think it's a matter of faith to believe intelligence only comes from intelligence preceding it? Scientific evidence proves otherwise. And, in no instance, not even one single time, have scientists been able to document intelligence arising from a nonintelligent source. Talk about failing...

You should study Darwin as a person.  The Christian leadership treated him as a leper even as his observations hung on a universal creator because his scientific observations diverged from the Church’s Creationist teachings which is the same reason those same Christian leadership to this day reject Mormons as Christians.  Darwin’s observations is compatible with Joseph Smith’s restored gospel as well as the Catholic Church’s adjusted stance on science after they realized their error in excommunicating Galileo.

For me, personally, watching apostate churches reject scientific discovery as “secularly godless” is funny.

Edited November 17, 2018 by anatess2