Question For The Atheist.

[bookofmormontruth]

What? Try reading Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or Simon Conway Morris for "faithless" accounts of evolution.

They believe men came directly from apes or what I stated earlier with micro and macro?

Regardless, I will stick with what Joseph F. Smith stated that we are the "direct and lineal offspring of Deity". And, yes anything less is faithless which you can't deny has become a religion to the masses.

But you're speaking as if a new species suddenly emerges out of nowhere, as if an ape gives birth to a human. No one claims that.

I said that? Not at all. A day, a thousand or million years - didn't happen.

[Hughes]

If you mean that we can't live long enough to observe if species branch off and mutate into other species, then you're technically correct. If you are saying there is no evidence, you are gravely mistaken.

And it depends what you mean by theory. If you are using it as a synonym for hypothesis, I'm afraid that it is way past the hypothesis stage. Scientists speak of Darwinian theory as an explanation of the group of facts. That's what a scientific theory is.

Right. The theory extrapolates into the past, beyond what we can observe. Science is based on observation. As far as the evidence, yes again there is evidence, which also can be interpreted within different models as well, supporting a different conclusion.

So you are saying that because we won't live long enough to observe the changes, then it is not possible? Well that's silly, unless you think the earth is not much older than the average human lifespan.

YOU need to show us what would stop the changes from accumulating. It's sort of like saying that because you can't add 2 together enough times to equal one trillion on paper, then it must not be possible.

Don't believe the myth that speciation has never been observed in a lab. It has, multiple times. In fact, a dog all the sudden becoming a cat in our lifespan would be evidence for divine creation- not evolution.

Not being testable is only a fact, based on it not being observable.

You think that I need to show you what stops changes from accumulating? It's simple. Genetics, as in the huge bias toward stasis, which is observed everyday. What is even more amazing is the claim that the diversity we observe comes from common ancestors or even better, from primordial slime. None of which is supported by observable genetics. Darwin's largest mistake was thinking that smaller organisms were simpler, and larger organisms were more complex. In light of microbiology, we know that all life is equally complex.

Furthermore, you can prove common ancestry very easily by simply analyzing the genome of different species. If the fact that we share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees doesn't convince you, then explain why we contain the same viral DNA sequences with them, except for the ones that happened since the divergence? What more could you ask for?

One doesn't prove common ancestry by pointing to similarities, either physical or genetic. In essence, this "proof" is for those who already assume we evolved. Sure it fits as "evidence" for that model. However, it also fits as evidence for other models as well. For example:

If there's a designer, then it's logical that the designer made many creatures to be similar to each other, especially given the fact that we all live on the same planet with the same atmosphere.

[bookofmormontruth]

I am still waiting for the mechanism that prevents the small changes into becoming large changes.

Try reading what I have said then you won't have to "Add Reply" a meaningless post.

[bookofmormontruth]

I am still waiting for the mechanism that prevents the small changes into becoming large changes.

I find it also laughable that you would say that dinosaurs to birds is a smaller change than apes to humans. Dinosaurs and birds share a much older common ancestor than chimpanzees (and other apes) and hominids do.

As someone who worked as a professional magician for several years, I now am wondering which magic school you went to.

I wouldn't admit that in public.

Good job. You went back and read what I said and then edited your meaningless post to another meaningless post.

I also went to comedian school, you are welcome.

[WalkerW]

Right. The theory extrapolates into the past, beyond what we can observe. Science is based on observation. As far as the evidence, yes again there is evidence, which also can be interpreted within different models as well, supporting a different conclusion.

You've just demolished the sciences and the power of scientific explanation by restricting scientific theories to the present.

[Eldwynn]

Not being testable is only a fact, based on it not being observable.

You think that I need to show you what stops changes from accumulating? It's simple. Genetics, as in the huge bias toward stasis, which is observed everyday. What is even more amazing is the claim that the diversity we observe comes from common ancestors or even better, from primordial slime. None of which is supported by observable genetics. Darwin's largest mistake was thinking that smaller organisms were simpler, and larger organisms were more complex. In light of microbiology, we know that all life is equally complex.

Oh that's funny, considering everyday in the lab I select different organisms for different traits using evolutionary biology every day. I keep telling my bacteria plasmid that it's not supposed to change when I add an antibiotic, but it just doesn't listen to you.

So you are saying that bacteria and humans are equally complex? Then why are their genomes carrying so much less information than ours? I am assuming you meant a genetic definition of complexity.

One doesn't prove common ancestry by pointing to similarities, either physical or genetic. In essence, this "proof" is for those who already assume we evolved. Sure it fits as "evidence" for that model. However, it also fits as evidence for other models as well. For example:

If there's a designer, then it's logical that the designer made many creatures to be similar to each other, especially given the fact that we all live on the same planet with the same atmosphere.

Oh so this intelligent designer used the same DNA viruses and left them as artifacts to confuse us. What a wonderful father

[Hughes]

You've just demolished the sciences and the power of scientific explanation by restricting scientific theories to the present.

? By saying that there are different models that the evidence fits into? Or by stating that science rests on observation?

[Eldwynn]

? By saying that there are different models that the evidence fits into? Or by stating that science rests on observation?

By saying that you have to directly be able to observe something.

Did you directly observe Joseph Smith? Presumably you believed he lived at one point. Why?

Uh oh, here we go.

Many scientific disciplines use what we can currently observe to accurately predict what happened before. Cosmology, Physics, Biology, I can't think of any science that doesn't.

It's amazing your computer monitor works at all, since the mathematics (imaginary numbers) can not be directly observed.

[WalkerW]

They believe men came directly from apes

What do you even mean by this? As I said in post #23:

The problem is assuming that we "came from apes" rather than share a common ancestor with apes.

I often hear people say that they're not descended from monkeys...Well, they're right, they're not descended from monkeys...The essential idea of common ancestry is that ultimately all living things on this planet share common ancestors if we go far enough back into the past...We share a common ancestor with all primate species. This means that we're related, by having a single ancestor somewhere in the past, to monkeys, gorillas, chimpanzees, and so forth. But the idea of common ancestry goes way deeper than simply saying we're related to monkeys. We're in fact related to all mammals. You go farther back, we are related to all vertebrates. And, ultimately, we are related, if you go far enough back, to every living thing on this planet. The almost universal nature of the genetic code, the fact that all life depends upon DNA, all of these things are evidence of this commonality of ancestry, if we go far enough back in time. (Ken Miller, "In Defense of Evolution," NOVA, Interview by Joe McMaster, April 19, 2007)

Speaking of Ardi, Donald Johanson (founding director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University; discoverer of Lucy) stated, "I think it's very important to say that this supports the long held idea that we did not evolve from things that look like modern apes." (Carolyn Johnson, "Scientists Announce Discovery of Earliest Prehuman Skeleton," The Boston Globe, Oct. 1, 2009; emphasis mine)

"Once again, humans are not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys...No animal gives birth to an instant new species, or at least not one as different from itself as a man is from a monkey, or even a chimpanzee. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work." (Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2009)

or what I stated earlier with micro and macro?

As I stated before, "But you're speaking as if a new species suddenly emerges out of nowhere, as if an ape gives birth to a human. No one claims that."

All three are Christians.

Regardless, I will stick with what Joseph F. Smith stated that we are the "direct and lineal offspring of Deity".

What does the evolution of the physical body have to do with the procreation of the spirit? Even Gerard Schroeder (a MIT-trained physicist, critic of evolution, and Orthodox Jew) points out in his book The Science of God that evolution would be "no threat to Torah." Why? He explains that "the Bible explicitly states that the body of mankind was formed from the dust of the ground...The Bible also explicitly states that the bodies of animals were formed from the same material as Adam...Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh and neshama...All animals, humans included, share this...infusion of the nefesh, the soul of animal life...There is a further creation, one in which lower animals did not share...That creation marks the soul of humankind, the neshama." In other words, what makes us who we are in theological terms is being "offspring of Deity," not the temporal stuff we are made out of. Evolution doesn't address the spirit, but the physical body.

And, yes anything less is faithless

Tell that to Henry B. Eyring's father. I don't think you are in a position to determine what scientific theories count as that of the "faithless" and that of the faithful.

I said that?

Not explicitly. Hence, I said, "But you're speaking as if..."

[Hughes]

Oh that's funny, considering everyday in the lab I select different organisms for different traits using evolutionary biology every day. I keep telling my bacteria plasmid that it's not supposed to change when I add an antibiotic, but it just doesn't listen to you.

Selecting traits can only go so far. Why do antibiotics work at all? Because it pushes organisms to it's limits of variability. Why would you assume that if it was designed by a designer, that it wouldn't contain a built in ability to vary and adapt?

So you are saying that bacteria and humans are equally complex? Then why are their genomes carrying so much less information than ours? I am assuming you meant a genetic definition of complexity.

If we are all speaking English, and you look at a first grade book and compare it to a college level book. One has more information than the other, but quantity isn't complexity. Both use English rules and syntax equally.

All organisms are based on DNA molecules, even single cells varieties. Darwin assumed the single celled creatures were "simple" and would change easily. This is a huge error in thinking.

By the way, how long does DNA in blood for example, supposed to survive? 10K years? 1 millions years?

Oh so this intelligent designer used the same DNA viruses and left them as artifacts to confuse us. What a wonderful father

Why would you assume an intelligent designer would set out to confuse you?

[Hughes]

By saying that you have to directly be able to observe something.

Did you directly observe Joseph Smith? Presumably you believed he lived at one point. Why?

Uh oh, here we go.

Many scientific disciplines use what we can currently observe to accurately predict what happened before. Cosmology, Physics, Biology, I can't think of any science that doesn't.

It's amazing your computer monitor works at all, since the mathematics (imaginary numbers) can not be directly observed.

What I said was that science is based on observation. You disagree?

I understand that it extrapolates and creates models to try and explain data (evidence) we find about the past.

My only point in the beginning, was the fact that evolutionary theory (macro) is not testable. It's a scientific model, just as the intelligent design is a model.

Your bias toward the evolutionary model doesn't make it have more validity. It's still just a model, and the central basis of the model is still untestable, that genetic mutation leads to accumulated changes, that explains all the diversity of life.

[WalkerW]

And, yes anything less is faithless

Better let David O. McKay know too:

Although McKay never made a public statement affirming his acceptance of biological evolution, he was sympathetic to that viewpoint. The closest he came to a public affirmation was his address in 1946 at the funeral of May Anderson...

Among the generalizations of science, evolution holds foremost place. It claims: "Man is a creature of development; that he has come up through uncounted ages from an origin that is lowly." Why this vast expenditure of time and pain and blood? Why should he come so far if he is destined to go no farther? A creature which has traveled such distances, and fought such battles and won such victories deserves, one is compelled to say, to conquer death and rob the grave of its victory. Darwin said..."Believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far more perfect creature than he is now, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued, slow progress. To those who fully admit the immortality of the human soul, the destruction of our world will not appear so dreadful."

In private, McKay was even more direct. In meeting with Sterling McMurrin at a time when McMurrin's church membership was in peril, McKay brought up the subject of evolution. "I would like to know just what it is that a man must be required to believe to be a member of this Church. Or, what it is that he is not permitted to believe, and remain a member of this Church. I would like to know just what that is. Is it evolution? I hope not, because I believe in evolution." (Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright, David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, University of Utah Press, 2005: 46)

[Chris Smith]

Regardless, I will stick with what Joseph F. Smith stated that we are the "direct and lineal offspring of Deity".

I don't suppose Joseph F. Smith also said anything about God being an RNA-based single-celled microorganism who enjoys a good nutrient soak in amino-acid-rich primordial soup?

[WalkerW]

I don't suppose Joseph F. Smith also said anything about God being an RNA-based single-celled microorganism who enjoys a good nutrient soak in amino-acid-rich primordial soup?

How'd you know?!?

[bookofmormontruth]

What does the evolution of the physical body have to do with the procreation of the spirit? Even Gerard Schroeder (a MIT-trained physicist, critic of evolution, and Orthodox Jew) points out in his book The Science of God that evolution would be "no threat to Torah." Why? He explains that "the Bible explicitly states that the body of mankind was formed from the dust of the ground...The Bible also explicitly states that the bodies of animals were formed from the same material as Adam...Hebrew has two words for soul, nefesh and neshama...All animals, humans included, share this...infusion of the nefesh, the soul of animal life...There is a further creation, one in which lower animals did not share...That creation marks the soul of humankind, the neshama." In other words, what makes us who we are in theological terms is being "offspring of Deity," not the temporal stuff we are made out of. Evolution doesn't address the spirit, but the physical body.

Great thoughts and I have not ruled out this possibly completely.

At this time, I just don't believe it. And I know with that admission, I better hand out some "chill pills" for it almost feels I am somehow attacking a religion.

Tell that to Henry B. Eyring's father. I don't think you are in a position to determine what scientific theories count as that of the "faithless" and that of the faithful.

So I took the position of Joseph F. Smith and you took the position of Henry Eyring. I hope that is okay with you.

The faithless as in no faith in God. Specifically, atheists flocking to their religion of evolution. Why are you implying I am calling faithful LDS members "faithless"?

Not explicitly. Hence, I said, "But you're speaking as if..."

And you also said "no one claims that". Which I never said they did.

I state A and you hear B. You state B and I hear A. I state I believe in evolution, but not directly from apes and you agreed that I wasn't the only TBM to believe this.

I see the confusion now. We agree on micro and macro, but not on the apes. Correct?

[bookofmormontruth]

Better let David O. McKay know too:

Oh geez, seriously relax. I am not calling the LDS faithful "faithless".

But you definitely can do a source better than one that states his viewpoint was "in private" and "never made a public statement", "the closest he came". That is stretching.

[WalkerW]

At this time, I just don't believe it.

That's fine.

And I know with that admission, I better hand out some "chill pills" for it almost feels I am somehow attacking a religion.

When you start claiming that it is an act of faithlessness to accept it, then a chill pill is in order.

So I took the position of Joseph F. Smith and you took the position of Henry Eyring.

Wrong. You created a false dichotomy, which I demonstrated.

The faithless as in no faith in God.

Exactly. Considering faithful LDS members have and continue to accept evolution, I'd suggest being more careful with your labels.

And you also said "no one claims that". Which I never said they did.

This is how I'm reading your responses.

By the way, the last quote and source are slightly inaccurate. But we have observed speciation now anyway, where Darwin didn't.

I state A and you hear B. You state B and I hear A. I state I believe in evolution, but not directly from apes and you agreed that I wasn't the only TBM to believe this.

I also said that your claiming to be a evolutionist was misleading.

I see the confusion now. We agree on micro and macro, but not on the apes. Correct?

I accept Darwinian evolution. Clear enough?

[WalkerW]

But you definitely can do a source better than one that states his viewpoint was "in private" and "never made a public statement", "the closest he came". That is stretching.

Perhaps you could try reading the actual book. Then perhaps you could read about the controversy between B.H. Roberts, James E. Talmage, and Joseph Fielding Smith.

[bookofmormontruth]

That's fine.

When you start claiming that it is an act of faithlessness to accept it, then a chill pill is in order.

Wrong. You created a false dichotomy, which I demonstrated.

Exactly. Considering faithful LDS members have and continue to accept evolution, I'd suggest being more careful with your labels.

This is how I'm reading your responses.

By the way, the last quote and source are slightly inaccurate. But we have observed speciation now anyway, where Darwin didn't.

I also said that your claiming to be a evolutionist was misleading.

I accept Darwinian evolution. Clear enough?

I like how you left out my entire statements to make it look like I am calling the LDS faithful "faithless"

Classy! And yes loud and very clear! Good job! Very impressive!

[thews]

It is a genetic mutation. End of story.

As usual, you completely miss the point of the argument presented, and instead give your opinion regarding the intent of the person presenting it, which you are completely wrong.

The gene wasn't dormant or "turned off" and then magically expressed itself in the 50 cases. The same way that bald apes are a genetic mutation or if we followed your logic, apes descended from humans.

You couldn't be more incorrect when telling me what my point is. My point, is that if we were descended from apes, we would have more hair and it wouldn't be a rare (50 cases in 300 years) genetic mutation.

You drop a lot of "anti" scary bombs BOMT, but when you pretend to know the intent of people who disagree with you, I assure you that you have no idea, and asking others defend your planted arguments is simply a ruse.

[TAO]

A certain radio personality was talking with an atheist and summed up the atheist beliefs.

He stated, (paraphrasing of course) that, " You as an atheist believe that something came from nothing". Which he then stated was "A scientific and mathematic impossibility".

Meaning that the universe was created out of nothing. For me this comment kind of intrigued me. I enjoy talking about the first cause of things. What do you believe specifically about the origins of the universe. What caused it?

I love debates with atheists as they tend to get very lively. Do you think there is any merit to this train of thought?

Mola, they'd answer it the same way we do sometimes - there is no beginning or end of causes and effects, sorta.

But again, that could be wrong... but that's where the logic takes us. It [somewhat] aligns up with LDS theology... I guess?

[WalkerW]

I like how you left out my entire statements to make it look like I am calling the LDS faithful "faithless"

I was responding particularly to that part of your statement. It isn't like I'm hiding your posts. They are here for anyone to read.

You called evolution the "religion of the faithless." You also claimed that "anything less" than your interpretation of Joseph F. Smith's statement (which, within the context of the conversation, meant evolution) "is faithless."

I don't think faithful LDS members who accept evolution along with the majority of the scientific community would appreciate being told that this acceptance qualifies them as "faithless believers" in the "religion of the masses."

You may not have meant to include LDS members, but the way you put it does out of necessity.

In other words, tone down your rhetoric.

[LeSellers]

I've talked to a lot of atheists. I don't find your caricature accurate at all. But, good for you for shooting down a straw.

The world-class physicist, Stephen hawking, asks the question, "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"

It is a religious question, but Hawking is an atheist.

Lehi

[WalkerW]

The world-class physicist, Stephen hawking, asks the question, "Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?"

It is a religious question, but Hawking is an atheist.

Lehi

Though Hawking claims in his new book The Grand Design that no creator or god was necessary for the universe's existence. However, there have been a number of responses to this. Here are just a few that I like:

Paul Davies, "Stephen Hawking's Big Bang Gaps," The Guardian (Sept. 4, 2010).

John Haldane, "Philosophy Lives," First Things 209 (Jan. 2011).

Roger Scruton, "Memo to Hawking: There's Still Room for God," The Wall Street Journal (Sept. 24, 2010).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interesting.