Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

longview

Limited
  • Posts

    2,264
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by longview

  1. So you agree it is symbolic; Not literal. Now we're getting somewhere. Science among its many shortcoming doesn't deal in the symbolic.

    Clay and dust are both symbolic and literal. It is a convenient term to refer to the incredible complexity of the human body. It is also a reference to the creative process God used for forming Adam and Eve's bodies:

    Gen 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

     

    I was a computer programmer for 30 years.  Symbolism is important in programming.  It enables more effective design work, top down structuring and segmentation.  We can put symbols on parts that can't be worked on till much later or if there are too many unknowns we will defer until we have a chance to consult with the clients.

     

    Does the fact that 2+2=4 is an accurate statement make it an emotional statement to you? Does the fact that you don't look exactly like either of your parents is an accurate statement make it an emotional statement to you?  If those do I'll put on my social Worker hat and we'll have a nice long talk. I charge $75 for a 45 minute hour.

     

    NO! Facts are just facts. The theory behind those facts is subject to interpretation. IE; Numbers Theory explains how we arrive at the fact that 2+2=4.

    There are hard sciences and there are soft sciences. Evolution is a soft science because there are too many unknowns, even the facts and evidences have multiple possible interpretations.

     

    Evolution is not random.

    I watched the video and generally agree with their conceptions.  It does NOT change my understanding that evolution truly is a random process (just as life in the ecosystem have unpredictable events).  BUT there still remains the challenge: PLEASE give one credible documentation of inter-species transition in the fossil record.

     

    If you want to know what I believe ask me. Believe me I'm the foremost expert on what I believe. Grudunza for all his other fine qualities isn't me. So please respond to what I say to me.

     

    I've never claimed to be arbiter of who can participate on this message board. All I have asked is that whomever participates knows what they are talking about when they make claims about any subject. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

     

    If you don't accept the evidence of speciation. Then I don't know of anything that I can point to as evidence of anything. If spread to the general population of a society such willful ignorance can lead to only only place. Living in caves afraid of things that go bump in the night.

    There is a great deal of interplay between participants that color the group. Usually I respond directly to individuals but I will also address the pack in general.

    You make such silly and emotional statements. I am disappointed that you have not responded to important points such as reuse of fragments of dead planets or whether God is able to speak the word to bring about the creation, etc.

  2. We don't like the Theory of Evolution, the only reason we believe it is because of the scientific evidence.

    Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper that challenges Evolution? Not from an Evangelical website please.

     

    The reason why Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution is because the evidence.

    On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy, how do you interpret that fact?

    This is my point that I keep repeating but you seem unable to grasp.  It is not a matter of "believing" but of continual questioning.  That is the disposition of the true scientist.  That should also be your disposition.

     

    Facts, evidences, observations.  Some if not all are SUBJECT to differing possible interpretations.  I ask why would God use the process of macro evolution when He has a more direct power of inviting the various intelligences to participate with His creative works.  Even the very dust respond to His words.  Evolution requires brute force and endless tinkering.  If there are endless generations of the Gods, why repeat the whole mess of evolution over and over again with each new creation?   Make sense?

     

    As far as peer reviews, I do not have the expertise to dig up particular viewpoints.  As I have already discussed with you, there is a tremendous amount of fear in academic circles due to intolerant radical professors that have the power to ruin the careers of any that would dare question or propose new perspectives.  For a starting point, see:

     

    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?type=aca

  3. . . .  

    Science doesn't claim we're made out of clay, and to accurate neither does the Bible. The Bible claims we were made of of dust. Chemically we are closer to dirty water than dust.

    "Clay" is symbolic or representative of our physical mortal condition. See:

    Mosiah 3:5

    5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

     

    Exactly where have I claimed Evolution is brilliant? Yes! Evolution is the best scientific explanation of how life changed once it got here. Please point out exactly where I have not used accurate scientific words to describe Evolution.

    You said in post # 60: "Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of Evolution." You say in this post that evolution is "accurate". You are being emotional when you use the terms "fact" and "accurate". That is unscientific. Will you acknowledge that some "facts" can be subject to a range of possible interpretations?

     

    Evolution is anything but random.

    Evolution is the very definition of random. I am shocked that you would imply that evolution is "deliberate". Evolution is defined to be an "aggregation" of living things that fight for survival where the "winners" live long enough to pass on successful genes. The strongest or smartest creature don't always prevail. Sometimes they meet up with very unexpected events, such as lightning bolt out of the sky or a meteor strike, etc.

     

    God is omniscience and omnipotent. There is nothing too arduous for him.

    And God is not stupid, either. He would not use "brute force" or endless tinkering when He can simply say the word and the elements obey His commands.

     

    So God destroyed life on other planets, carefully arraigned it here on this planet to make it just look like life evolved here. Doesn't that make God the great deceiver?

     

    I have already responded to Grudunza on this concept. Perhaps you missed it or forgot?

     

    There is no last word on any science. Only demagogs and religionists claim to have the last word on anything. If you are comfortable in your ignorance the last place I want you is in science, let alone teaching science.

    Heaven forbid if you should be the arbiter of who gets to participate in the discussion. Careful, you sound dangerously close to being like a radical university professor that will brook no dissent.  Why would you state that I am ignorant or that I would be comfortable with it?  Now you are being very emotional.  That is FACT.

     

    That is incorrect that we know less than 1% of the past. We have less than a thimbles worth of knowledge in the vast oceans of our ignorance. However what we do know we do know. Evolution is one of the things we do know.

     

    As I have demonstrated you know so little about Evolution it is probably best you say nothing about it.

    Sorry. I am not persuaded that you have "demonstrated" anything meaningful except to say that micro evolution happens. I am still unsatisfied with your response on fossil records showing conclusively the fact of interspecies transitions.

  4. If we are and were spirit beings put into physical bodies, how does that refute evolution?

    Evolution cannot give rise to spirit entities or beings.

     

    Physical bodies were provided for us, quite brilliantly through evolution.

    I don't consider evolution to be the best method for forming the "clay tabernacles" for our spirits to reside in. There is nothing "brilliant" about the process of evolution.  You and TSS and MFT have a disconcerting habit of using overly emotional terminology such as brilliance, truth, and other unwarranted and unscientific words when applying them to the precepts and philosophies and speculations of men.

     

    My body is no less sacred to me for having been part of that process. And this version of my body is going back to the earth to be repurposed, anyway, so why should I be so precious about where the materials for it came from and how they came together?

    Our spirit bodies and our mortal bodies and our eventual resurrected bodies were made in the IMAGE of our Father, our Creator, our God. Not from some random evolutionary process.  The Scriptures testify that the very dust responds to the commands of God. If that is the case, then we can consider evolution to be WAY too arduous a process for creating the physical bodies for Adam and Eve and their children. As I stated earlier in another thread and copied earlier in this thread:

     

    longview, on 05 Jun 2014 - 9:29 PM, said:

    . . .

    There is no last word in any theories, there are many more unknowns that there are "facts", those facts are subject to multiple interpretations, lots of extrapolating and conjecturing and speculating. How do we know if earth was not cobbled together with fragments of other dead planets?

    Here is a thought. If there has been "uncountable" generations of the Gods. Each with their planets in their creation process, maybe going thru an evolutionary phase, then made into Terrestrial state, then falling to the Telestial. Would every planet have gone through the evolutionary process? Or maybe only one planet needed to be the "seed" for all other planets. It sounds like an extremely tiresome chore, numbing to the brain and very time consuming. And to repeat the whole thing every generation?

    I think it makes far more sense for the Priesthood which contains the ordinances for various offices, creative templates, rules and regulations, and all kinds of databases for required Godly knowledge. We know from the scriptures that the very dust responds to the commands of God. Surely it would be a simple matter for God the say the "word" and dust would leap to form the "clay tabernacles" for occupancy by spirit beings. Yeah, I know, it sounds magical, not scientific. But should you not agree that all science is a subset of the truths of God?

     

     

    Should we assume that all that is observable and learnable about our planet is false and a trick?

    Absolutely NOT. My MAIN point that I keep emphasizing repeatedly in many threads on this board is that we know LESS than 1% of what transpired in past ages. We do NOT know what the different conditions were like in different time periods. We KNOW from scriptures that earth was in the Terrestrial State before the Fall and will again be in the Terrestrial State during the Millennium.  There are too many unknowns and too many questions.  Don't set your hearts on fanciful imaginations of men.  Keep a cool disposition when it comes to the philosophies of men.

     

    Evolution certainly appears, by all rational observance and discovery and testing, to be the truth of how existence of species grew and developed on Earth.

    It cannot be the "truth" when evolutionary theory is SIMPLY the "best fit" for the data we have on hand from the fossil layers. More than 90% is made up for by conjecturing, extrapolating, speculation. You can be certain that today's "best fit" will be modified with new discoveries on a continuous basis. Even the supposed "facts" themselves can be subject to a whole range of different possible interpretations. There is no "last word" in the soft sciences. There is NO "settled science".

     

    Our theology is better suited to embrace and adapt with the truth of acquired knowledge, whatever that may be, than many others. The acquired knowledge we have (which we are taught to seek after) overwhelmingly points to evolution as being valid.

    There is nothing overwhelming about the theory of evolution. We can agree that our efforts to learn more about what is represented in the fossil layers are worthwhile. But there is nothing "valid" about the current status of theories of evolution.  It is mainly just speculation.

     

    At this point, I feel we are required to adapt our understanding of our theology to that, not the other way around. Our theology doesn't need to change, and it's not invalidated. Our understanding of it changes, and that's a good thing.

    It is better for us to search the scriptures, stretch ourselves to better understand the revealed word of God, sincere ponderings in our personal revelatory process, and continued prayers. We certainly should not adapt our understanding of theology to the whims and fancy of men. But God did command us to study all aspects of the world we live in. I agree that our understandings of science and the things in the world as well as our understandings of things theological and spiritual, BOTH can IMPROVE.  Both are necessary for eternal progression.

     

    We need to remain teachable. There could be important things about this process that we may need to know and use in the world-building of the eternities. I think it's a brilliant way for worlds to be populated with variety and resilience and prioritization and adaptation.

    I agree about being teachable.  But evolution most likely will be a minor consideration, IMHO.  God is involved in all aspects of the functionings of this world.

     

    Evolution isn't the boogeyman, though that's how many view it, and with the same kind of irrational fear for what they think it must represent, which is often a phantom or false representation. It just is, so we can either accept it or pretend somehow it's not real, which increasingly becomes silly.

    Not many. I would say most would consider evolutionary speculations to be NOT so solid. There is nothing "irrational" about questioning evolutionary speculations, the "global warming scam", many of the social sciences and other soft sciences. Remember. There is no "settled science".

  5. Do you even know what sophistry is?

     

    A Teleological argument is an argument from design. "It looks complex. So God must have done it" That argument is premised on several unsupported assumptions. That the object is so complex that no one will ever understand it. That God exists. That your God is the only God. That just your idea's about your God are the only accurate ones.

     

    I have absolutely no problem with the Spiritual side. Evolution doesn't concern itself with spiritual entities and beings.

     

    "Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

    Galileo

    Are you being sophisticated?

  6. Sure, you can have faith that God

    1. Made the evidences for a Global Flood disappear.

    According to your rules and dictates? Why do you get to set the premise from the frameworks of current day "science" ? It is wrong of you demand "evidence" that meets your "approval". As a lay scientist, you should humbly acknowledge that there are a LOT more unknowns than there are "facts". And those "facts" are subject to any number of possible interpretations.

     

    2. Created Evidences against a Global Flood, such as "The ordering of the strata in the earth's crust" (Dr. Salisbury)

    A silly statement. Nobody has more than 1% knowledge of things that have transpired. Or of different conditions that existed in different times. Or of the kinds of powers or processes that God utilized. No need for you or anybody to put such "carnal" limitations on the Almighty or the amazing powers in the Priesthood.

     

    But Elder Oaks taught,

     

    "I am grateful to know that there are two methods of gaining knowledge — the scientific method and the spiritual method"

    http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/witnesses-of-god

     

    I completely agree with Elder Oaks. But it is very foolish to place too high of confidence in the works of men. Fuzziness in theory of evolution? Very high. Fuzziness in electrical/electronic sciences? Very low.

     

    So you can believe in a Global Flood but reject Science.

    Or you can accept Science.

    This is a very low level reasoning process. A false dichotomy.

     

    You can't have it both ways.

    So silly.

  7. The apparent "sophistry" of the term Teleology does not impress me.  It seems to have more to do with the traditions and musings of various peoples throughout history, not of logic or fallacies.

     

    A "teleological" argument or explanation is one that explains the cause of things or events in terms of the aims, intentions, ends or "designs" (Greek τέλη [telē]; Latin fines).[4] (The word "design" in these discussions is used in the sense of a "pre-arranged purpose".[5]) Intelligence is implied in any being with plans and designs, and when "intelligent design" is proposed as a cause for anything, this means that something can not have happened purely by chance or "dumb luck".

    What is the point of your link? To divert people from serious consideration of the spiritual side? To obscure that evolution is incapable of giving rise to spiritual entities and beings?

  8. Important point in the link is that the pre-existence, spirit of man (spirit beings who were children of God prior to creation of the earth) completely refute the concept of the origin of mankind through evolution.  A point I have made in another thread:
     

    . . .
     
    There is no last word in any theories, there are many more unknowns that there are "facts", those facts are subject to multiple interpretations, lots of extrapolating and conjecturing and speculating.  How do we know if earth was not cobbled together with fragments of other dead planets?
     
    Here is a thought.  If there has been "uncountable" generations of the Gods.  Each with their planets in their creation process, maybe going thru an evolutionary phase, then made into Terrestrial state, then falling to the Telestial.  Would every planet have gone through the evolutionary process?  Or maybe only one planet needed to be the "seed" for all other planets.  It sounds like an extremely tiresome chore, numbing to the brain and very time consuming.  And to repeat the whole thing every generation?
     
    I think it makes far more sense for the Priesthood which contains the ordinances for various offices, creative templates, rules and regulations, and all kinds of databases for required Godly knowledge.  We know from the scriptures that the very dust responds to the commands of God.  Surely it would be a simple matter for God the say the "word" and dust would leap to form the "clay tabernacles" for occupancy by spirit beings.  Yeah, I know, it sounds magical, not scientific.  But should you not agree that all science is a subset of the truths of God?

  9. You asked; Do you have an example where "common sense" was not helpful in biological or evolutionary research?

    Some found common sense in the ideas of Lamarck. Now-a-days not so much.

    I don't get it.  You think external stimulus or the creature's effort will somehow effect a "reprogramming" of the internal DNA be considered "common sense"?  NO way in "heck".   Just very wacky.  Again, why waste time on this link?

     

    Can you or MormonFreeThinker or anyone else come up with a current day, straight forward, eminently reasonable example of "common sense" that was proved not to be valid in biology?

  10. The Theory of Evolution is the most successful theory in science, there are more evidences for Evolution than there are for the theory of the solar system. 

    You keep saying this. This is an irrational statement. There are thousands of scientific theories far more successful than evolution, such as gravitation, electrical, mathematics, etc. Evolution is 90% guesswork, projection, speculation, and extrapolation.

  11. No I don't for a variety of reasons. We Humans have just as many vertebra in our necks as a Giraffe. Life really doesn't start over from scratch each time a new species comes into being. It simply modifies the structures in succeeding generations needed for that species to best survive in that environment. The sperm and egg don't care. Just as long as the resulting cell survives long enough to reproduce its mission is complete.

     

    What a relief!   Then why did you add this link to http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lamarckism ?  Why did you have me waste my time reading this crackpot theory of Lamarckism?  What was the point?

  12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

     

    The thing is that surprises are part and parcel of any science.  LePlace surprised Newton; Einstein surprised LePlace; Quantum Mechanics surprised Einstein; and not one of them overturned the Theory of Gravity. If you disagree with the Theory of Evolution go prove it wrong. Go find a modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. It should be real easy if the conspiracy theorists like David Horowitz  are right.

    I read the link.  Seems to have something to do with "use and disuse inheritance".  It provided the giraffe as an example:

     

    Giraffes stretching their necks to reach leaves high in trees (especially Acacias), strengthen and gradually lengthen their necks. These giraffes have offspring with slightly longer necks (also known as "soft inheritance").

    Do you believe this is a viable example of micro-evolution?

    In order for the giraffe to be able to pass on this so-called "improved capability", somehow its DNA would have to become "aware" of this effort. AND somehow the DNA would have to change or "add" the "programming subroutine" within the genetic strands. AND somehow all the cells in the giraffe's body would have to be alerted or simultaneously updated so that the sperm or the egg would have this capability available for the moment of conception. BEHOLD a new CREATURE arises ! ! !   (flash over to Dr. Frankenstein screaming maniacally:   It's alive!  It's ALIVE ! ! !)

  13. "I gave you David Horowitz and Adrian Vance"

     

    It is extremely easy to make up conspiracy theories, but I will check the websites later, but like most conspiracy theory websites, they never have real evidence.

    David Horowotz has an excellent organization complete with history of various radocal movements, review and assessments of academic freedom in universities, and many other important issues.

  14. Very nice, Alex Jones is a war veteran and he fights immorality too, but all the stuff he says is just not true. 

    Anyways, Horowitz is not a climate scientist, and the topic is Evolution. 

    Just because Horowitz fights immorality, doesn't mean that his arguments are right. 

     

    Faithful Mormon biologists believe in Evolution (and talked about it in their testimony) because the evidence is strong, not because their parents taught them to believe in Evolution. 

    You are doing another typical squirting off into a different tangent.   I gave you David Horowitz and Adrian Vance to satisfy your demand for a CFR concerning the prevalence of professorial intolerance in today's universities.  Which was also a response to your repeated demand for somebody to name a LDS doctor who did not believe evolution is a "fact".

  15. The FrontPage Magazine is a political think tank, it is not nonpartisan, that is against the rules here, so I request that your comment gets deleted immediately.  

     

    Andrew Klavan is a political commentator, not a climate scientist, that is against the rules. 

     

    Linking to websites that have a political motives proves nothing, and again, that is against the rules here. 

    Next time make sure you link to a respected nonpartisan website. 

     

    and your websites have no more credibility than the anti-AIDSMedicine documentary called "House of Numbers"

    It is extremely sad that there are many AIDS deniers now. That is what happens when you reject the scientific community. 

     

     

    "House of Numbers" is an example of how extremely easy it is to make people reject obvious facts. 

    You should review the amazing life of David Horowitz.  He understands the motivation of the whole range of socialists, communists, statists, totalitarians.  His is an educational foundation for the purpose of fighting immorality, despotism, tyranny.  He is not pushing for one party over another because all parties are guilty of satanic impulses.  And he does call out the perpetrators on all sides.  So it is not just a demo vs repub thing.  Therefore not that political.

  16. You keep making this statement.  It is not very meaningful.  It takes a major effort to survey a large group of people.  If such a survey was taken, some members would want to retain their anonymity or make statements that would not put their careers at risk.  Most universities are radicalized to the extent that professors will not tolerate dissent among their ranks.  This is true for fields of evolution, sociology, "global warming scam", and various "soft" sciences.

    CFR

     

    I can quote you two different authors. Both have extensive knowledge of conditions in academia. One a former radical communist turned conservative by the name of David Horowitz. He maintains an great website called frontpagemag.com. Another is Adrian Vance who is very adept in many technical and scientific fields. His website adrianvance.blogspot.com. Here are a few examples:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/truthrevolt-org/andrew-klavan-the-fake-crisis-of-global-warming/

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/sara-dogan/defending-indoctrination-as-academic-freedom/

    http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2014/02/99-phds-letter-to-un-sec-general.html?q=professor

    http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2010/10/lewis-letter.html?q=professor

     

    Don't tell me you got that information from the silly documentary called Expelled.

    I assure you I did not. What is this one about?

     

    There is another documentary that claims that AIDS is a scam, they say the same thing, they say "there is no last word in any theories" 

    No last word, but don't deny the evidences because the consequences can be serious.

    I suppose a few fringe elements believe that. But why do you slime me with their craziness? Just because I say evolution does not have the last word? Careful, you are hyperventilating.

  17. but you cannot name a Mormon PhD Biologists, Paleontologists, Geneticists, that agrees with you. 

     

    You keep making this statement.  It is not very meaningful.  It takes a major effort to survey a large group of people.  If such a survey was taken, some members would want to retain their anonymity or make statements that would not put their careers at risk.  Most universities are radicalized to the extent that professors will not tolerate dissent among their ranks.  This is true for fields of evolution, sociology, "global warming scam", and various "soft" sciences.

     

    There is no last word in any theories, there are many more unknowns that there are "facts", those facts are subject to multiple interpretations, lots of extrapolating and conjecturing and speculating.  How do we know if earth was not cobbled together with fragments of other dead planets?

     

    Here is a thought.  If there has been "uncountable" generations of the Gods.  Each with their planets in their creation process, maybe going thru an evolutionary phase, then made into Terrestrial state, then falling to the Telestial.  Would every planet have gone through the evolutionary process?  Or maybe only one planet needed to be the "seed" for all other planets.  It sounds like an extremely tiresome chore, numbing to the brain and very time consuming.  And to repeat the whole thing every generation?

     

    I think it makes far more sense for the Priesthood which contains the ordinances for various offices, creative templates, rules and regulations, and all kinds of databases for required Godly knowledge.  We know from the scriptures that the very dust responds to the commands of God.  Surely it would be a simple matter for God the say the "word" and dust would leap to form the "clay tabernacles" for occupancy by spirit beings.  Yeah, I know, it sounds magical, not scientific.  But should you not agree that all science is a subset of the truths of God?

  18. Are there other alternatives to the theory of the solar system? 

     

    Yes, there are some materials in Mormon literature that indicate that God has the power to move a planet from place to place.  This may have happened multiple times.  When the Fall took place, it may have been moved from a "Terrestrial Environment" to a "Telestial Environment".  Another when the earth enters the "Millennium".  Consider the scriptures predicting the heavens "rolling up" or "the stars falling".

  19. Undoubtedly there are a very few that do not accept evolution as the best answer for how life changed over time on our planet. Whether God was involved or not is a different question unanswerable from science. Individual scientist are free to believe or not believe as is their choice.

     

    Micro and Macro Evolution are exactly the same thing. Without going really deep into the science.

    We can easily accept the occurrence of Natural Selection (micro evolution) in the present world. However, those light and dark moths have the genes for BOTH traits. Therefore they can gradually shift back and forth depending on conditions. This not the same thing as inter species transition (macro evolution). I am still waiting for someone to provide a good non-ambiguous reference documenting the rise of a new specie in fossil layers.

    It says: "Most living vertebrates are jawed vertebrates (gnathostomes), and the living jawless vertebrates (cyclostomes), hagfishes and lampreys, provide scarce information about the profound reorganization of the vertebrate skull during the evolutionary origin of jaws."

     

    It says: "The conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas."

     

    Whether life came from some primordial soup, from space, or God doesn't effect the evidence for evolution.

    There is support and confidence in observable Natural Selection (micro evolution). But very little for macro (giving rise to new species). The facts of the amazing properties and capabilities of cell function place an enormous burden on many fields of evolution. My contention all along throughout this thread (and a few others) is that there is a huge amount of unknowns, that theories are very dependent on extrapolations, speculations, projections, guessworks, etc, etc, etc.  I am more inclined to believe that God will later reveal truth that is totally outside earth's many puny frames of reference.  I am 'speculating' that Dark Matter/Dark Energy may be God's more 'permenant' environment, that the 'coarse' matter that we are familiar with may actually have a limited existence.

     

    D&C 88:37
    • Doctrine and Covenants

     36 All kingdoms have a law given;

     37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

     38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

  20. A geophysicist is not an expert in Biology, Biology - "The study of living organisms" 

    and not an expert in Paleontology, Paleontology - "The branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants."

    Don't be so hasty. Surely there are scientists that are knowledgeable in multiple disciplines. You should not rule out any that are PhDs in more than one field. Geophysicist provide cross reference between geological processes with fossil layers. A whole array of inter-disciplinary correlations. Which I am sure you would agree with.

     

    I am sure there are some Mormon scientists that don't believe in Evolution, but probably no Mormon PhD Biologists or Paleontologist denies Evolution.

    I can name many Mormon PhD Biologists, Genetics, and Paleontologists that believe in Evolution.

     

    For example

     

    Dr. Ugo A. Perego (PhD in Genetics)

    Dr. Perego wrote “Mitochondrial DNA: a female perspective in recent human origin and evolution” (in Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities, 2010);

     

    Dr. T. Heath Ogden (PhD in Biology)

    He wrote, "all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification"

    http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden

     

    Dr. Wade E. Miller (PhD In Paleontology) contributed to a paper in a Evolutionary Biology Journal

    http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/evolutionary-biology/dinosaur-tracks-and-traces

    Dr. Ogden: I state that “I accept evolution based on the body of evidence that supports it.” This is reasonable to me. He seems to be saying that there might be other evidence that could give a whole new perspective on the creative process. He is right in not to rule out possible alternatives.

  21. The scriptures tell us that all of us are made from the dust of the earth. Now for the logic- In LDS theology, God must have a wife in order for the "seed" of the body to go on eternally. We also believe that sexual relations and procreation extends beyond death and resurrected beings have this blessing if properly married for all eternity. The scriptures inform us that the lineage of man traces back to God himself, Adam being the literal son of God. God made Adam in his own image using the very seed from his body to create him. As such, we all are of divine heritage, all having the very seed of deity within each one of us. We also thus become His heirs in eternity. Besides that, the promise that the seeds continue is literally defined as the seeds of the physical body. We are created in the very image of God. This means that just as we have reproductive organs so does God. Just as we can procreate and make man in our image, so too can God do the same. Why would God thus use a process to create man in his own image with the seed of God within him in any other way than what we know to be scientifically true?

    Sounds like you are treading close to the Adam/God theory.  Some things Brigham Young said, I have to put on the shelf.

     

    Question:  Do you believe Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God in the FLESH?

     

    If yes, then how can you believe that Adam was begotten from God?

     

    If no, then you see the contradiction.

  22. There are still many unanswered questions, but all Mormon PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists agree that Evolution is a fact, because there are "smoking guns"

    I am curious about this issue. However I am not a expert researcher nor do I have the ability nor the time to dig out this kind of information. It would require an extensive survey. Do you have a reference to some surveys?

    But I seriously doubt your absolutist claim of "ALL". Do you believe some of them are open to the possibility of the earth being cobbled together with fragments from other dead planets or if it was formed out gaseous clouds? What if God could show you a completely different scenario? I am still waiting for your documented, unabiguous reference to a "smoking gun".

     

    Please name me one Mormon PhD Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that doesn't believe in Evolution.

    Not sure how to do this. I tried searching on mormonscholarstestify.org and found one that was/is a geophysicist by the name of Jeffery Wynn. But that page contains his testimony without going into his opinions of the creation process.

     

    "But none that distinctly shows new features in one creature that it did not have" 

     

    My challenge first, name me one Mormon PhD Biologist that doesn't believe in Evolution. 

    Even Young Earth Creationists (like AnswersinGenesis) agree that Evolution happens. 

    They believe that "the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances"

    I am sure that most would accept the concept of "Natural Selection" (or micro evolution). Your reference pointed to a general site. Could you please do us a favor and provide the specific names and profession of particular individuals and their beliefs. I can't read your mind.

     

    How about Jawless Fish to Jawed Vertebrate? Shuyu, Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates.

    Sounds very interesting. Please provide specific references. Thanks.

     

    "DNA science is still in its infancy."

    If DNA science is useless, why did the church say "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America"

    Again, please provide specific references.

     

    With DNA evidence scientists can know who you are related to, and can identify a person 

    So DNA science is only useful for the things you like, Cherry Picking.

    Why are you arguing? We both know that in courts of law, the evidence of DNA in particular cases are stated as a percentage of probability within a population. In other words, not absolute. There is still much more to learn about mapping of the genome and continued development of tools for examining parts.

     

    Plenty of questions to be asked, such as: Does God use DNA as a programming tool? How did the RNA within the cell develop its ability to convey "messages" between the DNA strand and the amino acid manufacturing sites? Is it even conceivable that evolution could bring this about?   Which came first?   The amazing cell or some other soupy entity?  So many questions, so far, no "smoking gun", the science is definitely not "settled".

  23. Well Mormon PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists see it, because they understand it, because they studied that for years.  If it is only speculation, why do faithful LDS Biologists believe it?

    We can be certain that there is a whole range of opinions among scientists. We would expect most if not all to be honest about there being a whole lot more questions to be answered than so-called "facts" which are in turn still subject a whole range of multiple interpretations.

     

    Many micro-evolution steps = Macro-Evolution.

    Yes, I have known this for decades and this has been brought up multiple times on this board. But the challenge still remains: "Where is the best and most unambiguous example of an inter-species 'transition' (such as a winged creature arising from non-winged)?"

     

    Retroviruses,  Pseudogenes, mitochondrial DNA, Chromosomal Fusion prove that Evolution did happen.

    All in beginning stages of inquiry. You are jumping the gun on wether there is 'proof', there is still a tremendous amount of projecting and speculating and extrapolating.

     

    With DNA evidence scientists can know who you are related to. With DNA evidence, they can identify a person. 

    DNA evidence is powerful, and it tells us that humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

    Sure it is powerful. I love science. An honest investigator would agree there is a huge amount of unknowns to be studied. DNA science is still in its infancy.

  24. The reason why all LDS palentologists believe in Evolution, is because there are many transitional fossils in the fossil record. 

    Do you expect a crocoduck? 

     

    Here is the evidence 

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

     

    There are "smoking guns" that prove Evolution, that is why all LDS PhD biologists believe it. 

    I read the link.  It appears to mostly a long series of micro evolution.  But none that distinctly shows new features in one creature that it did not have (such as wings).  I have yet to see a "smoking gun".  It is obvious that a whole lot of speculating is going on.

×
×
  • Create New...