Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Man, The lineal and literal offspring of deity


Rob Osborn

Recommended Posts

I agree here, that Intelligent Design at it's core is not there to discredit evolution as much as it it there to add a creator to the evolution picture. This is why the evolutionists that dismiss ID as "another creationism" are ignorant fools that fail to impartially look at the critique of there claims.

No, most of them are not "ignorant fools," but positivists and philosophical materialists, wedded to a world view in which the material, empirical universe accessible to our senses is all that exists, in an absolute and final sense.

This is why I am not an ID guy (I was a few year back) but a creationist, I use the Bible as my source of truth.

Keep in mind Guy, that the Church has never taken, and does not now take any formal doctrinal position on the biological development of human's bodies, or of organic life on earth in general. There is no official doctrine or teaching on the matter, so you are "on your own" doctrinally, with your own personal views.

The Bible is not a "source of truth" for the scientific study of the cosmos, and does not claim to be. It tells us, without doubt, that there is a creator, and that the cosmos is in so sense the product of purely blind, unimaginably fortuitous random chance events that just happened to produce our earth and us. It tells us, as well, that the cosmos and all created things within it are part of a great teleology, or purposeful plan and design that spans the cosmos itself and transcends time.

That, however, is for all intents, where the scriptures leave us, as to things scientific. It spends no time or effort on any of the details, or mechanics, of creation, but only general patterns and background.

Why the emphasis on the Bible? What about the other 3 standard works?

Link to comment
Keep in mind Guy, that the Church has never taken, and does not now take any formal doctrinal position on the biological development of human's bodies, or of organic life on earth in general. There is no official doctrine or teaching on the matter, so you are "on your own" doctrinally, with your own personal views.

When did I state I was professing the views of the Church?

There is not need to deflect, and that is all this is.

Why the emphasis on the Bible? What about the other 3 standard works?

Once again major deflection, the Standard Works are not addition or subtractions to the Holy Bible they are all built upon the Holy Bible and all tell the same eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. So your point it moot.

Please find me the verse in the BoM, D&C, or PoGP that supports the idea that man evolved and wasn't made from the dust of the ground like we are told in Genesis 2:7

Link to comment

No, I through the best guess of men under the bus, and I don't call there mockery science. Science is knowledge and knowledge comes from God, these foolish incorrect theories are not science its politics.

You can't pick and choose your facts based on which ones confirm your religious interpretations.

Link to comment

Really! Have you found that common ancestor or a transitional form, if not stop lying cause there is no physical evidence for evolution only rhetoric and assumptions.

Many transitional form pre-homo sapien common ancestors have been found. Many. But what I specifically had in mind was this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_%28human%29

All members of Hominidae except humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[3][4]

Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

The evidence for this includes:

* The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[5][6]

* The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[7]

* The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[8]

Some argue that chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [8]

Chromosome2_merge.png

Link to comment

Many transitional form pre-homo sapien common ancestors have been found. Many. But what I specifically had in mind was this:

http://en.wikipedia....e_2_%28human%29

Well you need to show these things cause I look over the this stuff on at least a monthly basis and I have yet to find any vetted discovery of a transitional form, there are many that claim to find them and they all have criticism and there are several out there that have been flat out proven fraudulent even though there are still taught as legitimate.

Also talking about chromosomes does nothing here I want evidence not theoretic explanations, unless you got actual evidence stop lying to people and saying you have proof of something that you don't have proof for.

There is no verifiable transitional forms found to date, if there would be no creationists left except the loons at that theme park in the midwest creation world I think it is (I really don't know the name but it is funny).

But still there is a small but firm minority of scholars out that across the academic spectrum that continue to raise important questions about the theory of evolution and feel that it is ultimately unreliable and incorrect.

So please stop the ingenuous and false rhetoric, present the evidence!

Link to comment

Obiwan:

I am well aware of the Temple drama and nothing in Evolution contradicts it.

So, you're saying we ARE descended from "Apes"?

I didn't know "after his own kind" meant jumped evolution from ape to man?

Otherwise, that evolutionary "theory" would be false and contrary to LDS Theology.

We "evolved" but within our own "sphere", we didn't jump species and become a whole new one.

Link to comment

Well you need to show these things cause I look over the this stuff on at least a monthly basis and I have yet to find any vetted discovery of a transitional form, there are many that claim to find them and they all have criticism and there are several out there that have been flat out proven fraudulent even though there are still taught as legitimate.

Also talking about chromosomes does nothing here I want evidence not theoretic explanations, unless you got actual evidence stop lying to people and saying you have proof of something that you don't have proof for.

There is no verifiable transitional forms found to date, if there would be no creationists left except the loons at that theme park in the midwest creation world I think it is (I really don't know the name but it is funny).

But still there is a small but firm minority of scholars out that across the academic spectrum that continue to raise important questions about the theory of evolution and feel that it is ultimately unreliable and incorrect.

So please stop the ingenuous and false rhetoric, present the evidence!

It's clear that you won't accept any amount of evidence that conflicts with your bias. It's a fact that our chromosome two is a fusion of two ape chromosomes. You don't like that fact, so you pretend it doesn't exist. I understand.

There are also many, many verified transitional forms. You can cover your eyes with your hands and plug your ears, but that won't make them go away.

Link to comment

So, you're saying we ARE descended from "Apes"?

I didn't know "after his own kind" meant jumped evolution from ape to man?

Otherwise, that evolutionary "theory" would be false and contrary to LDS Theology.

We "evolved" but within our own "sphere", we didn't jump species and become a whole new one.

Technically, we are a kind of ape.

Link to comment

It's clear that you won't accept any amount of evidence that conflicts with your bias. It's a fact that our chromosome two is a fusion of two ape chromosomes. You don't like that fact, so you pretend it doesn't exist. I understand.

There are also many, many verified transitional forms. You can cover your eyes with your hands and plug your ears, but that won't make them go away.

What is all that supposed to prove?

ALL LIFE has characteristics, chromosome's, DNA, etc. that are the same or like other species. That doesn't somehow mean we are "descended" from that specie. In fact, while I can't remember at the moment, I remember when I was studying all this stuff that there is a species which looks nothing like man, I think it was water environment based, which is almost or just as close genetically speaking to man as Apes are. Clearly we didn't "descend" from that creature. Thus, I believe what the scriptures state, and all of science seems to support, that man is a separate evolutionary being from other beings.

Link to comment

Really! Have you found that common ancestor or a transitional form, if not stop lying cause there is no physical evidence for evolution only rhetoric and assumptions.

No name calling or accusations. Don't do it again.

Link to comment

It's clear that you won't accept any amount of evidence that conflicts with your bias. It's a fact that our chromosome two is a fusion of two ape chromosomes. You don't like that fact, so you pretend it doesn't exist. I understand.

There are also many, many verified transitional forms. You can cover your eyes with your hands and plug your ears, but that won't make them go away.

It is a fact, that cannot prove we are descended from them correlation is not cause, just because things appear similar doesn't mean one caused the other. One has to accept that without conclusive supporting evidence (such as a verified transitional being) that it is unscientific and flat out wrong to claim something is fact. You have not accounted for every possible explanation so without corroborating evidence your statement is still falsehood presented as truth because of your bias.

Like I have stated again and again, if you want to convince people show the evidence, show the transitional forms and/or common ancestor!

Link to comment

I'm joining this discussion late. However, I am concerned that a number of posters have stated that evolution is a fact. It is not.

I work as a scientist and can confirm that evolution has never been observed and is therefore not an observable fact. It is therefore a belief. It may be that a person believes in it because of the weight of evidence, or because of the interpretation of that evidence; but in pure scientific terms it is not a proven fact and is therefore not a fact (scientifically).

My own view is that evolutionary theory is riddled with errors or with unjustified assumptions and anyone who puts their faith in it will reap disppointment by and by.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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