Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Traveler]

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

Can you provide a source?  Are you saying that ID theory has never attempted to refute evolution?  For the record I believe in evolution as a method and process created by G-d and given to his children to study and replicate.   That G-d wants us to know him and his methods.  Also for the record - almost without exception the atheists I have encountered - do not reject the notion of G-d (intelligent creator) as much as they reject the Traditional Christian G-d (Trinity Creed) that they were taught as a child.  BTW this is why I asked for your source of ID - just in case it comes from someone in the Traditional Christian sector that is attempting to validate their concept of the Trinity and young Earth.

BTW - adding something.  I also do not believe that random exist - Even in quantum physics - and I believe I can prove it.  That all things are ordered and result from order.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 7, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

26 minutes ago, Traveler said:

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

There's no disagreement over small changes, that's readily witnessed. It's that those small changes can lead to very big changes. We have no evidence of that nor working viable hypothesis how that is possible. All we have are ideas that so far haven't panned out.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There's no disagreement over small changes, that's readily witnessed. It's that those small changes can lead to very big changes. We have no evidence of that nor working viable hypothesis how that is possible. All we have are ideas that so far haven't panned out.

Do you disagree in general that small changes will become (evolve into) big changes over time?  As Pres Uchtdorf suggested or is it that you think evolution takes a different path from everything else?  For example can a little sin become a big obstacle over time very difficult to repent of.  What do you think of the idea of Satan beginning with a flaxen cord that becomes (evolves) chains over time?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Do you disagree in general that small changes will become (evolve into) big changes over time?  As Pres Uchtdorf suggested or is it that you think evolution takes a different path from everything else?  For example can a little sin become a big obstacle over time very difficult to repent of.  What do you think of the idea of Satan beginning with a flaxen cord that becomes (evolves) chains over time?

 

The Traveler

These things are not similar at all. Evolution and sin are not the same mechanisms or law or lack thereof. 

 

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

These things are not similar at all. Evolution and sin are not the same mechanisms or law or lack thereof. 

 

Trying to understand you thinking - is flying a commercial jet and sin the same mechanism or law or lack thereof?    How do you determine when little things do not, over time, morph into much bigger things?  Other than evolution - do you have any other examples where this does not occur?

BTW - Thank you very much for answering questions - I find this exchange most helpful.  and I am impressed with your answering.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Trying to understand you thinking - is flying a commercial jet and sin the same mechanism or law or lack thereof?    How do you determine when little things do not, over time, morph into much bigger things?  Other than evolution - do you have any other examples where this does not occur?

BTW - Thank you very much for answering questions - I find this exchange most helpful.  and I am impressed with your answering.

 

The Traveler

I dont see how other things apply in this. Darwinian evolution proposes change- new and valuable information and intelligence from a somewhat chaotic random process of selection of gene varriance coupled with mutations/ copy errors. I can fully see where these can and do lead to upper limits where reproduction still can take place but the reality of it doesnt follow to come to the conclusions evolutionists want or look for. For instance we can breed dogs through selection to get a new breed or a desired quality such as size and color of fur. But there are known limits to this. We cant just keep breeding bigger and bigger dogs until they become the size of elephants. There are upper limits to these changes to where change no longer proceeds. Attempts to accelerate change such as with the fly experiments havent shown to be beneficial either. All it has shown is that less desirable traits come from mutations and no new intelligent information is produced.

You should know, working with AI that its impossible for a computer program to come up with new intelligent information on its own. The element of design in AI allows programmers only to produce what they design but the design itself has no ability to create something more intelligent than what itself can do. So too it is with DNA. DNA is like a book. That book cannot rewrite itself to create new information that is both a design and more intelligent. The mechanism thus proposed is that through copy errors somehow those errors lead to more and complex intelligent designs for the protein builders to create new biologic parts that are more beneficial. Computer simulations however do not prove this is possible. In fact it shows the opposite. You should know this.

[john4truth]

On 8/3/2018 at 11:57 AM, john4truth said:

I suggest we know less than 1% of the full truth. We are only given what we need in this dispensation. Everything thing else is a wild guess. It is ok to think about what we will never know but don't waste too much time guessing

I just don't believe in spontaneous generation. That's the issue that matters. Most of way we think we know is a guess. Is the world flat with 4 corners. Disbelief was once blasphemy. We are just guessing in this life. Doctors in recent history thought high blood pressure was good.

[Traveler]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 12:33 PM, Rob Osborn said:

I dont see how other things apply in this. Darwinian evolution proposes change- new and valuable information and intelligence from a somewhat chaotic random process of selection of gene varriance coupled with mutations/ copy errors. I can fully see where these can and do lead to upper limits where reproduction still can take place but the reality of it doesnt follow to come to the conclusions evolutionists want or look for. For instance we can breed dogs through selection to get a new breed or a desired quality such as size and color of fur. But there are known limits to this. We cant just keep breeding bigger and bigger dogs until they become the size of elephants. There are upper limits to these changes to where change no longer proceeds. Attempts to accelerate change such as with the fly experiments havent shown to be beneficial either. All it has shown is that less desirable traits come from mutations and no new intelligent information is produced.

You should know, working with AI that its impossible for a computer program to come up with new intelligent information on its own. The element of design in AI allows programmers only to produce what they design but the design itself has no ability to create something more intelligent than what itself can do. So too it is with DNA. DNA is like a book. That book cannot rewrite itself to create new information that is both a design and more intelligent. The mechanism thus proposed is that through copy errors somehow those errors lead to more and complex intelligent designs for the protein builders to create new biologic parts that are more beneficial. Computer simulations however do not prove this is possible. In fact it shows the opposite. You should know this.

Intelligence in the scientific community is defined as the ability to learn and modify behavior.  I personally like this definition as I see that it can apply within the religious community as well.  For example I think this applies to Jesus and when we lived among us - being able to learn from the things he suffered.  I also believe that the scientific definition of intelligence applies to repentance - making repentance an act of intelligence.  Currently AI is as capable of modifying behavior based on learning ability - about the level of insects.   Will AI ever have the ability to problem solve to rival human ability?  There are many theories about what is now called "Singularity".   The problem is - that when some determine that something cannot be - and then someone or something does it - what happens to the idea that it was impossible?  I do not know the answer to all things but I know the answer to this one - when we consider what is possible we should consider much more than just what we think was the limit of what has been done in the past history of humans.

But I will give you some insight into how I approach such things - I wonder if it is possible that G-d could do such a thing?  What do you think is the limit of AI for G-d?  I honestly do not think that we, while in our fallen state, currently have access to enough light and intelligence to pretend to know.  So for me it becomes a matter of faith.  I believe G-d is very capable of doing many things (including AI) that you and others claim is impossible.  It is my thinking that when we consider what is possible - we should use G-d as our example rather than mankind in a fallen state.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Intelligence in the scientific community is defined as the ability to learn and modify behavior.  I personally like this definition as I see that it can apply within the religious community as well.  For example I think this applies to Jesus and when we lived among us - being able to learn from the things he suffered.  I also believe that the scientific definition of intelligence applies to repentance - making repentance an act of intelligence.  Currently AI is as capable of modifying behavior based on learning ability - about the level of insects.   Will AI ever have the ability to problem solve to rival human ability?  There are many theories about what is now called "Singularity".   The problem is - that when some determine that something cannot be - and then someone or something does it - what happens to the idea that it was impossible?  I do not know the answer to all things but I know the answer to this one - when we consider what is possible we should consider much more than just what we think was the limit of what has been done in the past history of humans.

But I will give you some insight into how I approach such things - I wonder if it is possible that G-d could do such a thing?  What do you think is the limit of AI for G-d?  I honestly do not think that we, while in our fallen state, currently have access to enough light and intelligence to pretend to know.  So for me it becomes a matter of faith.  I believe G-d is very capable of doing many things (including AI) that you and others claim is impossible.  It is my thinking that when we consider what is possible - we should use G-d as our example rather than mankind in a fallen state.

 

The Traveler

God has laws. There are both things that act and are acted upon. We see the works of God all around us- his laws. We do not see AI having real intelligence. Intelligence is not merely computation as we see in AI. Computer programming will always be something that is acted upon. It does what we tell it exactly to do and nothing more, that's the law. It has no feeling, no self awareness, no senses, etc. And it will always be that way, that's the law.

 

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, john4truth said:

I just don't believe in spontaneous generation. That's the issue that matters. Most of way we think we know is a guess. Is the world flat with 4 corners. Disbelief was once blasphemy. We are just guessing in this life. Doctors in recent history thought high blood pressure was good.

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

[Traveler]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

God has laws. There are both things that act and are acted upon. We see the works of God all around us- his laws. We do not see AI having real intelligence. Intelligence is not merely computation as we see in AI. Computer programming will always be something that is acted upon. It does what we tell it exactly to do and nothing more, that's the law. It has no feeling, no self awareness, no senses, etc. And it will always be that way, that's the law.

 

Perhaps – but can you consider that a Liahona or a Urim Thummim possibly operate on principles of AI or display intelligence – or in other words, the light of truth?

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, 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

So much to discuss. There are different ways we are using the word "random" here. It is true that the the particle physics and even microbiologic workings level there is no randomness- the laws of science are at work. But thats not how we are using random here. We are using random in the manner in which choices are made or circumstance comes together. If I was to spray water randomly on a crowd it means I have no design or intention beforehand as to exactly which droplets are going to fall on which people. In the breeding of life this is often how it takes place. Life finds a mate, sometimes ouof convienience, circumstance or by design. But, not all perameters are known which makes the result rather random. Animal life do not breed according to some long term design in mind. And, even if there is some design or desire in mind the many generations to create that change has its limits. Scientists wish or hope for some leap of faith to bridge these large gaps between species of similarity. It always thus cracks me up to read their opinions on how dinosaurs evolved into birds. To go from limbs to wings and feathers is mind baffling. Dinosaurs climbing and jumping out of trees where only the survivors breed doesnt turn arms with claws into wings with feathers.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps – but can you consider that a Liahona or a Urim Thummim possibly operate on principles of AI or display intelligence – or in other words, the light of truth?

 

The Traveler

We both define true intelligence differently. I'm using it in the context of it thinking, being self aware, having feelings and senses and making choices and actions based off that ability.

[Rob Osborn]

Intelligent design is defined in opposition to Darwinian evolutionary processes. Whereas Darwinian evolution requires copy errors and mutations as it's driving force to create new intelligent information, intelligent design on the other hand requires a pre-existing intelligent design in place in order to create new intelligent information. As for religion, or the world and even universe for that matter, all things denote there is a God, or in other words- all things denote there is an intelligent designer. The reality is that all truth in nature, anywhere for that matter, all lead to proving God as an intelligent designer/creator and all existence is solely because of his intelligent designs in bringing to pass the creation. Without God and his actions and designs none of what we see is possible.

Science scoffs at the idea that there is a God behind the cause of the existence of the universe and life within it. They demand a godless explanation for everything. I'm sorry but that isn't possible. If we are truly in search of the truth then we will only find it by recognizing and placing God back into the equation. It's just not possible that our planet evolved on its own to form and support life without God and actual intelligent decisions and actions on His part to bring that about. Lab tests have proven beyond any doubt that intelligent life cannot arise on its own through chemical interactions with matter. There must be a code or blueprint in place already for life to build and reproduce. This isn't a chicken/egg mystery. This is using ones brain to acknowledge that life only comes first from an intelligent life source preceding it. There must be a blueprint (intelligent design) in place first. This is where science gets it sooooo wrong! They will not acknowledge an intelligent design preceding life because to do so is admitting that maybe it denotes a God. Heaven forbid! And so they work endlessly to try to figure out how the first blueprint was made that could replicate life. It's completely absurd! 

[Traveler]

51 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We both define true intelligence differently. I'm using it in the context of it thinking, being self aware, having feelings and senses and making choices and actions based off that ability.

Okay - I agree - we have been discussing intelligence assuming different definitions.   I presented the Scientific definition - that I personally often employ.  I also included a reference to "The Light of Truth" which defines intelligence in LDS scripture.  I do not mind using your definition but that would eliminate most of my in-laws, almost all politicians, some of the bosses  I have had to work for and half of the professors I encountered in college.  Oh and also a very few severely handicapped individuals or someone in a coma from a serious injury or just someone that is asleep.   -  and that is just from the thinking aspect of things.  I am not completely up to date on the latest on self awareness but the last I checked there were still arguments among so-call experts if that is innate or learned capability. 

My statements about a  Liahona and a Urim Thummim was an effort to broaden your concepts a little concerning what AI may be capable of.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

So much to discuss. There are different ways we are using the word "random" here. It is true that the the particle physics and even microbiologic workings level there is no randomness- the laws of science are at work. But thats not how we are using random here. We are using random in the manner in which choices are made or circumstance comes together. If I was to spray water randomly on a crowd it means I have no design or intention beforehand as to exactly which droplets are going to fall on which people. In the breeding of life this is often how it takes place. Life finds a mate, sometimes ouof convienience, circumstance or by design. But, not all perameters are known which makes the result rather random. Animal life do not breed according to some long term design in mind. And, even if there is some design or desire in mind the many generations to create that change has its limits. Scientists wish or hope for some leap of faith to bridge these large gaps between species of similarity. It always thus cracks me up to read their opinions on how dinosaurs evolved into birds. To go from limbs to wings and feathers is mind baffling. Dinosaurs climbing and jumping out of trees where only the survivors breed doesnt turn arms with claws into wings with feathers.

I agree - in essence what most try to pass off as random is not actually random.  Also if G-d wanted to make birds from dinosaurs - that he would not break natural laws to do so.

 

The Traveler

[person0]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Also if G-d wanted to make birds from dinosaurs - that he would not break natural laws to do so.

I have not been paying attention to the previous conversation, but If you would kindly explain what you mean by this statement, I would appreciate it, because I think I might disagree with your interpretation of 'natural laws'.

[Traveler]

50 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Intelligent design is defined in opposition to Darwinian evolutionary processes. Whereas Darwinian evolution requires copy errors and mutations as it's driving force to create new intelligent information, intelligent design on the other hand requires a pre-existing intelligent design in place in order to create new intelligent information. As for religion, or the world and even universe for that matter, all things denote there is a God, or in other words- all things denote there is an intelligent designer. The reality is that all truth in nature, anywhere for that matter, all lead to proving God as an intelligent designer/creator and all existence is solely because of his intelligent designs in bringing to pass the creation. Without God and his actions and designs none of what we see is possible.

Science scoffs at the idea that there is a God behind the cause of the existence of the universe and life within it. They demand a godless explanation for everything. I'm sorry but that isn't possible. If we are truly in search of the truth then we will only find it by recognizing and placing God back into the equation. It's just not possible that our planet evolved on its own to form and support life without God and actual intelligent decisions and actions on His part to bring that about. Lab tests have proven beyond any doubt that intelligent life cannot arise on its own through chemical interactions with matter. There must be a code or blueprint in place already for life to build and reproduce. This isn't a chicken/egg mystery. This is using ones brain to acknowledge that life only comes first from an intelligent life source preceding it. There must be a blueprint (intelligent design) in place first. This is where science gets it sooooo wrong! They will not acknowledge an intelligent design preceding life because to do so is admitting that maybe it denotes a God. Heaven forbid! And so they work endlessly to try to figure out how the first blueprint was made that could replicate life. It's completely absurd! 

This is exactly why I am not excited about accepting Intelligent Design. Because it was created - not because of searching for truth but rather oppose something that others have concluded from their research.  I would be excited it such was adopted based on empirical evidence void of subjective opinions - especially opinions that do not support a pre determine conclusion. 

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

3 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have not been paying attention to the previous conversation, but If you would kindly explain what you mean by this statement, I would appreciate it, because I think I might disagree with your interpretation of 'natural laws'.

Laws that are isotropic - that work the same regardless of who or what employs them.

 

The Traveler

[person0]

18 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Laws that are isotropic - that work the same regardless of who or what employs them.

 

The Traveler

The fact that God command's something and it obeys his command, that is natural law.  There is no such thing as something that can be done outside of natural laws.  The way we experience those laws in mortality may differ, but even all miracles are a product of natural law.  If what you are saying is not in agreement with this notion, then it appears we are in disagreement with one another on this.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, person0 said:

The fact that God command's something and it obeys his command, that is natural law.  There is no such thing as something that can be done outside of natural laws.  The way we experience those laws in mortality may differ, but even all miracles are a product of natural law.  If what you are saying is not in agreement with this notion, then it appears we are in disagreement with one another on this.

There is a law upon which all things are predicated - the results (blessings) are based on obedience to the principles that are defined in the law.  Thus when we receive, even blessing (any result), it is through obedience to the laws upon which desired results or blessings are predicated.    I do not believe that G-d can or does ever command inconsistent to the principles upon which any law is predicated.   Thus there is no difference between what G-d command and what is law.  An yet it appears that the laws of eternity (natural laws) are independent of G-d and so must be obeyed by G-d or else he would cease to be G-d.

Thus I believe that the power of G-d is in his obedience to law - having a perfect understanding of the law and all the principles by which eternal laws are governed.  I do not believe that the power of G-d allows him to decree law inconsistent to the principles by which eternal laws are governed.  I am thinking if G-d has power to declare law outside of principles - he would have done so to prevent Christ from suffering for sins and declared such as unnecessary.  And to attempt to alter eternal law by decree is one of the flaws of Satan and why he is evil.

 

The Traveler

[person0]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

There is a law upon which all things are predicated - the results (blessings) are based on obedience to the principles that are defined in the law.  Thus when we receive, even blessing (any result), it is through obedience to the laws upon which desired results or blessings are predicated.    I do not believe that G-d can or does ever command inconsistent to the principles upon which any law is predicated.   Thus there is no difference between what G-d command and what is law.  An yet it appears that the laws of eternity (natural laws) are independent of G-d and so must be obeyed by G-d or else he would cease to be G-d.

Thus I believe that the power of G-d is in his obedience to law - having a perfect understanding of the law and all the principles by which eternal laws are governed.  I do not believe that the power of G-d allows him to decree law inconsistent to the principles by which eternal laws are governed.  I am thinking if G-d has power to declare law outside of principles - he would have done so to prevent Christ from suffering for sins and declared such as unnecessary.  And to attempt to alter eternal law by decree is one of the flaws of Satan and why he is evil.

 

The Traveler

Sounds to me like we agree completely on this.

[askandanswer]

Certainly  i believe in organic evolution. See for yourself. Compare the organ in the Tabernacle with the organ in the Conference Centre- definitive proof of organ ic evolution 

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

This is exactly why I am not excited about accepting Intelligent Design. Because it was created - not because of searching for truth but rather oppose something that others have concluded from their research.  I would be excited it such was adopted based on empirical evidence void of subjective opinions - especially opinions that do not support a pre determine conclusion. 

 

The Traveler

This is really the Crux of where we disagree and I think it's one side not seeing the other. It's ironic that you say ID has no empirical evidence when in fact it's entire argument is based off of empirical evidence. In fact, computer programming is the very definition of an intelligence creating a program or design and then watching that program work according to its design. Without the design beforehand there is no purpose or function. That's ID theory in action. So too it is with DNA. DNA encodes within it the very enigma of life. It encodes not only what it's design is overall but also encodes how to duplicate itself, including repairing, and encodes builder proteins. Analogous to this is like having a master blueprint for a construction site of a shopping mall where not only are the plans laid out with a supply list of materials needed but also instructions are included for the proper worker training and where exactly those workers will be stationed and when their part is needed at the precise time. On top of that, the blueprint also shows how to repair mistakes in construction when they appear and dispose of waste and treat graffiti problems. Oh, and all that is just in one small cleared field. Times that by thirty trillion and you start to understand that the amount of exchanged intelligent operations happening in one second of development in the human body surpasses all of the world's super computers computing ability. Now, here's something to think about- scientists have been working tirelessly to create the scenario for just a simple amino acid chain to form naturally into protein in hopes that life may jumpstart. After decades they still haven't been able to create a single simple intelligent protein. And yet, our bodies create trillions of these things like it's nothing. Why? Because our body contains the necessary intelligent design, or blueprint, to perform this task. The empirical evidence is clear- life cannot exist without there first being a blueprint to begin with. And yet science will continue to slog away trying to somehow prove the empirical truth against them is wrong. It's entirely baffling!

[Traveler]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is really the Crux of where we disagree and I think it's one side not seeing the other. It's ironic that you say ID has no empirical evidence when in fact it's entire argument is based off of empirical evidence. In fact, computer programming is the very definition of an intelligence creating a program or design and then watching that program work according to its design. Without the design beforehand there is no purpose or function. That's ID theory in action. So too it is with DNA. DNA encodes within it the very enigma of life. It encodes not only what it's design is overall but also encodes how to duplicate itself, including repairing, and encodes builder proteins. Analogous to this is like having a master blueprint for a construction site of a shopping mall where not only are the plans laid out with a supply list of materials needed but also instructions are included for the proper worker training and where exactly those workers will be stationed and when their part is needed at the precise time. On top of that, the blueprint also shows how to repair mistakes in construction when they appear and dispose of waste and treat graffiti problems. Oh, and all that is just in one small cleared field. Times that by thirty trillion and you start to understand that the amount of exchanged intelligent operations happening in one second of development in the human body surpasses all of the world's super computers computing ability. Now, here's something to think about- scientists have been working tirelessly to create the scenario for just a simple amino acid chain to form naturally into protein in hopes that life may jumpstart. After decades they still haven't been able to create a single simple intelligent protein. And yet, our bodies create trillions of these things like it's nothing. Why? Because our body contains the necessary intelligent design, or blueprint, to perform this task. The empirical evidence is clear- life cannot exist without there first being a blueprint to begin with. And yet science will continue to slog away trying to somehow prove the empirical truth against them is wrong. It's entirely baffling!

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