Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Adam And The Apes


Recommended Posts

Genesis 2:19-20 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:
and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;" ... (KJV

 

Now how many animals were there? Was there a Lhama ? a Koala bear?  Did Adam have a book of names?

Link to comment

Genesis 2:19-20 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:

and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;" ... (KJV

 

Now how many animals were there? Was there a Lhama ? a Koala bear?  Did Adam have a book of names?

That is exactly on point, and is precisely what I was saying.

 

What you are missing is that we are ALL Adam- which means "mankind", and yes, we are still giving out names.

The process will never be over.

 

ADAM
adam.jpg
GENDER: Masculine
OTHER SCRIPTS: Адам (Russian, Ukrainian, Serbian, Macedonian), אָדָם (Hebrew), آدم (Arabic), ადამ (Georgian), Αδαμ (Ancient Greek)
PRONOUNCED: A-dəm (English), a-DAWN (French), AH-dahm (German, Polish), AH:-dahm (Dutch), ah-DAHM (Russian)   [key]
Meaning & History

This is the Hebrew word for "man". It could be ultimately derived from Hebrew אדם ('adam) meaning "to be red", referring to the ruddy colour of human skin, or from Akkadian adamu meaning "to make". According to Genesis in the Old Testament Adam was created from the earth by God (there is a word play on Hebrew אֲדָמָה ('adamah) "earth"). He and Eve were supposedly the first humans, living happily in the Garden of Eden until Adam ate a forbidden fruit given to him by Eve.

 

 

http://www.behindthename.com/name/adam

Link to comment

Whatever Darwin's personal beliefs about "Free Will" they are irrelevant to evolution.

Just do a google search...

 you'll find many articles such as this: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/free-will-and-biology/

 

 

Actually birds do put on weight(get fat) before migrating to where more food is available. IE; Humming Birds

See http://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/humm/pig_out_migra_prep.html

 

No Einstein would have done just about as well as the Aboriginal child.

 

I don't know what you mean by that. Please clarify.

 

 

  That is why there are many things about ourselves that science cannot describe - we can do things, not because we were taught about them, or because we inherited info, but 100% from our own eternal mind/intelligence/spirit. 

 

That is purely a religious belief. IE; If you can't count past the whole number 10 it is highly unlikely you'll understand the concept of Pi.

"react" - describes an interaction between two objects,

"act" - describes the behavior of a single object.

To "act" (rather than react) means you do something - not because of the influence of something else, but of your own free will. 

Some things we learn, other things come from our spirit.  I dont think our true personality is "learned" from others for example, or come purely from environment.  Nomotetic approaches argue that personality is constant, and inherited, while idiographic arguments show personalities can change... Nature vs. Nurture arguments will never be put to rest, as neither explanation fully encompasses who we are, or why we act as we do. 

 

Edited by changed
Link to comment

Just do a google search...

 you'll find many articles such as this: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/free-will-and-biology/

 

 

"react" - describes an interaction between two objects,

"act" - describes the behavior of a single object.

To "act" (rather than react) means you do something - not because of the influence of something else, but of your own free will. 

Some things we learn, other things come from our spirit.  I dont think our true personality is "learned" from others for example, or come purely from environment.  Nomotetic approaches argue that personality is constant, and inherited, while idiographic arguments show personalities can change... Nature vs. Nurture arguments will never be put to rest, as neither explanation fully encompasses who we are, or why we act as we do. 

 

 

Free will is irrelevant to evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

 

You first two definitions are fine. The third one not so much. Humans react to stimuli. No stimuli, no actions any type.  Free Will is a philosophical proposition. IE; You are free to jump off a high cliff. The laws of gravity say that the fall is fine, it's that sudden stop that hurts.

 

"Spirit" is a purely theological concept.

 

I've never argued for a nature vs nurture dichotomy. It is a combination of the two. 

Link to comment

Free will is irrelevant to evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

 

You first two definitions are fine. The third one not so much. Humans react to stimuli. No stimuli, no actions any type.  Free Will is a philosophical proposition. IE; You are free to jump off a high cliff. The laws of gravity say that the fall is fine, it's that sudden stop that hurts.

 

"Spirit" is a purely theological concept.

 

I've never argued for a nature vs nurture dichotomy. It is a combination of the two. 

Humans do more than react to stimuli - that's the point of free will, we can do more than just react - we can act.  Our ability to act is why no one can ever predict 100% of our actions, or calculate what we will do based on the natural laws - this puts part of us (just part of us) outside of the ability of science to understand.  Science can understand interactions and reactions, but cannot predict proactive self-caused behaviors, science only understands "other-caused" behaviors.  

... it's more than just a combination of the two - there are at least 3 things to balance: environment (nurture), physically inherited traits (nature), and spiritual traits (supernatural). If science wants to understand behaviors of living organisms, they will have to embrace causes outside of the incomplete  nature/nurture dichotomy.  

Edited by changed
Link to comment

Humans do more than react to stimuli - that's the point of free will, we can do more than just react - we can act.  Our ability to act is why no one can ever predict 100% of our actions, or calculate what we will do based on the natural laws - this puts part of us (just part of us) outside of the ability of science to understand.  Science can understand interactions and reactions, but cannot predict proactive self-caused behaviors, science only understands "other-caused" behaviors.  

... it's more than just a combination of the two - there are at least 3 things to balance: environment (nurture), physically inherited traits (nature), and spiritual traits (supernatural). If science wants to understand behaviors of living organisms, they will have to embrace causes outside of the incomplete  nature/nurture dichotomy.  

 

That is all we can do. Whether it is a bad case of gas, or something received from God. It is all stimuli. The reason we can not be 100% sure of our predictions is that we don't know 100% of the stimuli or are 100% sure of a persons idiosyncratic reaction to it. But we do get pretty close. IE; I successfully predicted that each one of my sons would touch a hot stove when they were young. Each one did. Though I certainly never told them to touch it. Given the propensity of people to explore their environment, and hot objects. It is almost axiomatic to say that at some point in our lives we too will touch a hot object. As we say in the Church. We can choose our actions, what we can't choose is the results of those choices.

 

Science by definition can not impute any Supernatural object(being) or force, and still call it science. I've got a pretty good grasp of the psychology of humans behaviors. I have absolutely no problem with God/Spirit/Supernatural. However I can not tell someone that God/Spirit/Supernatural made them do it, and have them accept me as the professional Social Worker that I am. Of necessity I am limited to just nature and nurture most often in varying degrees of applicability.

Link to comment

That is all we can do. Whether it is a bad case of gas, or something received from God. It is all stimuli. The reason we can not be 100% sure of our predictions is that we don't know 100% of the stimuli or are 100% sure of a persons idiosyncratic reaction to it. But we do get pretty close. IE; I successfully predicted that each one of my sons would touch a hot stove when they were young. Each one did. Though I certainly never told them to touch it. Given the propensity of people to explore their environment, and hot objects. It is almost axiomatic to say that at some point in our lives we too will touch a hot object. As we say in the Church. We can choose our actions, what we can't choose is the results of those choices.

 

Science by definition can not impute any Supernatural object(being) or force, and still call it science. I've got a pretty good grasp of the psychology of humans behaviors. I have absolutely no problem with God/Spirit/Supernatural. However I can not tell someone that God/Spirit/Supernatural made them do it, and have them accept me as the professional Social Worker that I am. Of necessity I am limited to just nature and nurture most often in varying degrees of applicability.

I don't think we would have the ability to create something new if we were confined to just reacting to stimuli / repeating what we learned from our environment, or relying on nurture.  I'm a teacher, and find myself having to take spirituality out of what I do too, which is frustrating.... I guess it's priestcraft to get paid for preaching, so God's lessons cannot come from a professional. 

Link to comment

I don't think we would have the ability to create something new if we were confined to just reacting to stimuli / repeating what we learned from our environment, or relying on nurture.  I'm a teacher, and find myself having to take spirituality out of what I do too, which is frustrating.... I guess it's priestcraft to get paid for preaching, so God's lessons cannot come from a professional. 

 

You conflating stimuli with new ideas. They somewhat overlap but are not exactly the same thing. Learning is a building process. We take what is known and add to it as new information becomes available to us. Progress is made when we take what is known and combine it in new and hopefully interesting ways. If it isn't in our environment. We won't/can't learn anything about it. The environment is far more than just the class room. It is from simple chemicals, to the whole of the universe.

 

My mother was an elementary school teacher, my wife is a Special Ed teacher, and I was a sub teacher for a few years until I was employed at a more well paying job as a Social Worker.

 

You sound as any good school teacher does. That being said there is absolutely no scientific evidence for Spirit. I don't do Priestcraft, I do get paid for my professional opinion, and assume you do too.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Link to comment

You conflating stimuli with new ideas. They somewhat overlap but are not exactly the same thing. Learning is a building process. We take what is known and add to it as new information becomes available to us. Progress is made when we take what is known and combine it in new and hopefully interesting ways. If it isn't in our environment. We won't/can't learn anything about it. The environment is far more than just the class room. It is from simple chemicals, to the whole of the universe.

 

My mother was an elementary school teacher, my wife is a Special Ed teacher, and I was a sub teacher for a few years until I was employed at a more well paying job as a Social Worker.

 

You sound as any good school teacher does. That being said there is absolutely no scientific evidence for Spirit. I don't do Priestcraft, I do get paid for my professional opinion, and assume you do too.

Hold up a minute. How do we know there isn't any scientific evidence for Spirit? Perhaps we have been looking at it or detecting it for years and have yet to make the connections? There is some indirect evidence for these kinds of things seeing results from near death experiences, studies done on healing, etc. I evenn once read a scientific study on how plants react to thoughts. It appears at least indirectly that there is a type of energy or matter that has been personally observed by millions that can't be explained with known laws. In reality these observations cant be dismissed. There is something more there we just havent been able to identify it "yet" even though we have detected its effect. This is similar to ellectron theory is it not= we test its effect even though we dont actually have a way to see it.

Link to comment

It's certainly accurate to say that there's no scientific evidence for spirit, but yeah, we may not have the means of detecting it, currently.

Isn't dark matter something like 80% of the universe, and we don't really know what it is? I'm not saying that dark matter is spirit, but just as an example of something that we know exists, scientifically, but don't really have a handle on.

I think that D&C 131:7 intimates that we may yet "discover" spirit, scientifically, though probably not in a way or time that science would define it as such.

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes."

Link to comment

There is no OBJECTIVE evidence.

 

I have plenty of evidence.  It's all subjective and felt in my heart

Link to comment

Hold up a minute. How do we know there isn't any scientific evidence for Spirit? Perhaps we have been looking at it or detecting it for years and have yet to make the connections? There is some indirect evidence for these kinds of things seeing results from near death experiences, studies done on healing, etc. I evenn once read a scientific study on how plants react to thoughts. It appears at least indirectly that there is a type of energy or matter that has been personally observed by millions that can't be explained with known laws. In reality these observations cant be dismissed. There is something more there we just havent been able to identify it "yet" even though we have detected its effect. This is similar to ellectron theory is it not= we test its effect even though we dont actually have a way to see it.

 

There simply isn't any scientific evidence for any Spirit.

 

I never said it doesn't exist. If something can't be detected, measured, and substantiated that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just have no scientific way of confirming it.

 

So far there has been no confirming scientific evidence for any NDE that hasn't been positively identified as the simple chemical reaction of the dying brain.

What we do know from the experiments on "faith Healing" is that is a psychosomatic effect. IOW Where the patient must be aware of the prayer.

As to plants. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_human_emotions_or_moods_affect_the_growth_of_plants

 

We'll never be able to see bacteria with the unaided human eye. Let alone the electron. People just don't have that good of vision. So we must of necessity measure them by other more indirect means. We develop sophisticate theories and test them till they either fall apart or they remain theories. That is why I keep telling you to dig up the bones. IE; No one seriously doubts the Germ Theory of disease. Just as no one seriously doubts the Atomic Theory of Matter. We don't doubt Newton was correct as far as medium scale objects are concerned. We launched probes to outside our solar system using Newton's ideas. We have a different understanding large scale objects using Einstein's ideas. More recently we added Quantum Mechanics to the very small scale objects.

Link to comment

There simply isn't any scientific evidence for any Spirit.

 

I never said it doesn't exist. If something can't be detected, measured, and substantiated that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We just have no scientific way of confirming it.

 

So far there has been no confirming scientific evidence for any NDE that hasn't been positively identified as the simple chemical reaction of the dying brain.

What we do know from the experiments on "faith Healing" is that is a psychosomatic effect. IOW Where the patient must be aware of the prayer.

As to plants. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_human_emotions_or_moods_affect_the_growth_of_plants

 

We'll never be able to see bacteria with the unaided human eye. Let alone the electron. People just don't have that good of vision. So we must of necessity measure them by other more indirect means. We develop sophisticate theories and test them till they either fall apart or they remain theories. That is why I keep telling you to dig up the bones. IE; No one seriously doubts the Germ Theory of disease. Just as no one seriously doubts the Atomic Theory of Matter. We don't doubt Newton was correct as far as medium scale objects are concerned. We launched probes to outside our solar system using Newton's ideas. We have a different understanding large scale objects using Einstein's ideas. More recently we added Quantum Mechanics to the very small scale objects.

I am starting to believe you are an atheist. Anything involving the spiritual or God in any level of science and you deny God.

Link to comment

Genesis 2:19-20 "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them:

and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;" ... (KJV

 

Now how many animals were there? Was there a Lhama ? a Koala bear?  Did Adam have a book of names?

We do not know how long Adam was in the Garden, and knowing something's true name is considered by some fantasy writers is to gain power, even we guard our new names.

Link to comment

I am starting to believe you are an atheist. Anything involving the spiritual or God in any level of science and you deny God.

Uh no. Science is a methodology, a way of studying data. There is no data available to study in regards to spirits; therefore it cannot be proven or disproven through science. 

Link to comment

Uh no. Science is a methodology, a way of studying data. There is no data available to study in regards to spirits; therefore it cannot be proven or disproven through science.

There will come a time when all things will be revealed and we shall find all things, including the mechanics of the spiritual, will be scientific. God works within the bounds of science. No miracle, blessing, etc, is done outside of scientific means. We are just to feeble in our understanding and technology to adequately find these truths out right now. As we push farther into God given revelation and inspiration these truths will be made known and we will find that God is a man of true science and all he does is based upon the laws thereof.

Link to comment

There will come a time when all things will be revealed and we shall find all things, including the mechanics of the spiritual, will be scientific. God works within the bounds of science. No miracle, blessing, etc, is done outside of scientific means. We are just to feeble in our understanding and technology to adequately find these truths out right now. As we push farther into God given revelation and inspiration these truths will be made known and we will find that God is a man of true science and all he does is based upon the laws thereof.

Rather, all observable things can be examined using the scientific method. Things we can observe (evolution for example) can be tested and proven. Things we cannot yet observe (spirits, quantum filaments, God) cannot yet be examined. The more we discover through the scientific method, the closer we get to understanding the workings of God. 

Link to comment

Rather, all observable things can be examined using the scientific method. Things we can observe (evolution for example) can be tested and proven. Things we cannot yet observe (spirits, quantum filaments, God) cannot yet be examined. The more we discover through the scientific method, the closer we get to understanding the workings of God.

Let me make a slight but needed clarification, other wise I agree with you. Darwins theory of evolution from common descent has not been tested and proven true which makes evolution only truly observable and testable within species from a purely "naturalistic" stanpoint.

Link to comment

Let me make a slight but needed clarification, other wise I agree with you. Darwins theory of evolution from common descent has not been tested and proven true which makes evolution only truly observable and testable within species from a purely "naturalistic" stanpoint.

Well, that would require a time machine to produce absolute proof, but emergence of new species has been observed. But since this theory has nothing to do with my salvation, and nothing to do with church teachings, it is the best theory going and has no more an affect on the power of God than does gravity or electricity. We observe it in the records, we see it in nature, it works and is the best explanation we have available. Much better than saying God did it with magic. I say he did it with evolution. What an amazing creation - forming life that can evolve into us. Amazing. 

Link to comment

Well, that would require a time machine to produce absolute proof, but emergence of new species has been observed. But since this theory has nothing to do with my salvation, and nothing to do with church teachings, it is the best theory going and has no more an affect on the power of God than does gravity or electricity. We observe it in the records, we see it in nature, it works and is the best explanation we have available. Much better than saying God did it with magic. I say he did it with evolution. What an amazing creation - forming life that can evolve into us. Amazing.

Well, thats novel- "it is the best theory going" even though we have no real proof....

Completely godless.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...