CASteinman Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 We would be literally swimming in a huge sea of insects, mostly ants and termites.Or maybe beetles.
Stargazer Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 I will mention a conversation I had with a scientist, an expert in DNA and molecular chemistry in the cell who is also LDS. I will not give his name as this conversation was explicitly not for attribution. He pointed out that he believes in Evolution and he also believes in Adam and Eve. I asked him about this and he told me that whenever he talks about ancient humans he describes the old ones as "anatomically correct human beings". He does not refer to them as "Man". While he would not hazard a guess as to the exact time, he would say that the spirit of "Man" came into anatomically correct human beings, not all that long ago -- and quite a bit after their first appearance on the earth. He also indicated that the Garden was a type of Temple Environment where these more refined humans could feel more comfortable.and could make covenants with the Lord -- the first Humans to have the capacity to covenant with the Lord. And the fall of Man was where some of these covenants were violated.This is a well respected man and I enjoyed hearing his views.Wow, that really resonates. With me, at least. I've considered this subject frequently in my mind, and this crystallizes what I have been evolving (ahem) in my own mind on the subject. Too bad you can't say who this was. Thankyou for psoting this! 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 CASteinman:And Amoebas, in less 24 twenty four hours we'd be hip deep in them if they didn't die.
thesometimesaint Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 mfbukowski:Sometimes:That wouldn't do it.How so?
Freedom Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Debating and discussing this issue is, to me, like 5 year old children discussing puberty and sexual reproduction. We are all probably so far off the mark due to both a lack of information and an inability to comprehend that those who are in the know are having a polite yet condescending chuckle at our expense. A god-like condescension, but a condescension nonetheless. 1
cinepro Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 Debating and discussing this issue is, to me, like 5 year old children discussing puberty and sexual reproduction. We are all probably so far off the mark due to both a lack of information and an inability to comprehend that those who are in the know are having a polite yet condescending chuckle at our expense. A god-like condescension, but a condescension nonetheless.Well, maybe a 5 year old child discussing puberty and sexual reproduction with someone with a Ph.D in Human Development and Family Sciences.
SamIam Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) I only followed this thread for one day, last week for maybe 10 seconds so if by chance someone has already made mention of this one teensy weensy question then my apologies.I’m doing some other research for some other studies and I was just reminded of one little thingy. What’s amazing to me is that there is this huge, monstrous, foot stomping, trunk bellowing, trumpeting, mouse fearing, dung dropping, peanut eating, glaring, ear flapping, mouth slobbering, and bodaciously embarrassing elephant in the room that has just winked at me (he’s really just a big tease when it comes right down to it), so I think’s to myself “hey,” maybe them MDD folks might have an answer to my question. (I’m momentarily tipsy from some stuff I just sprayed in my mouth…hiccup)We have the theory of relativity and the math is very impressive and seems to validate an awful lot of potential. This seems like a pretty good theory overall and for the moment we should keep it around...of course till something better comes along.We have string theory. Now the math here is having some success but it isn’t without its difficulties either. So if someone is holding out waiting for just a wee bit more support for its probability who could blame them. It’s prudent to exercise careful judgment before one commits oneself to a line of thinking that might make you the ridiculed supporter of some potentially pseudo-scientific theory of everything rational. Still the math is building some promise so let’s just wait and see.However, there is this one group of wishful thinking folks who will elephant stomp you to the ground if you misspell the word cro-magnon but who will sidestep, look over, around, beside but never at, who will ignore, close their ears, plug their noses, run the other way, hide and clean the “what’s that smell” off their shoes before they’ll even think of questioning the elephant about why he’s in the room…..Really, toss out all of the creationalists if you want but from a purely scientific perspective HAVE YOU EVER DONE THE MATH?!!!Thus, several decades have only confirmed the observation of Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959):When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68.Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.It is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, "a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe" -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare. Fix, 196.All quotes sourced from the web site at this URL: http://C***.org/secu...c-improbabilityBottom line how do you get over this massive issue that has only moved farther away over time for validating any hope of evolution as a realistic possibility for answering any major questions. (whatever this stuff is I’m spritzing in my mouth , somebody is drinking by the gallon- do you think it is against the WOW? Did somebody really ask that somewhere else?)Now someone is going to respond with the simple little rejoinder “show the math to prove God”My only response to that is by the rules that my particular belief structure requires, nay demands, I am well within the constraints of the theological boundaries I have accepted to validate my belief in God. On the foundational principles of faith, obedience, and love of God, I am on target for maintaining exceptional consistency with the tenants of my chosen guide.However, science has rules and tenants as well and if a scientist can’t do the math to even get kind of close, say within a trillion or so, to proving evolution on what leg does he stand…oh I see. It’s the one the elephant has pinned to the ground under his massive foot.Oh...also... yes, lest anyone should think I was overlooking the rules of good spelling, I realize you should capitalize Cro-Magnon...wouldn't want anyone to think I was overlooking the obvious. Edited May 19, 2012 by SamIam
thesometimesaint Posted May 19, 2012 Posted May 19, 2012 http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.htmlhttp://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml
bu11fr0g Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 @samlam. No elephant. This is the argument of the watchmaker. It is not irrefutable in the least and makes many false assumptions. More the nonevolutionists need to explain the genetic relationships.
SamIam Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) No elephant.This is the argument of the watchmaker. It is not irrefutable in the least and makes many false assumptions.More the nonevolutionists need to explain the genetic relationships.Alas, you can at least give me credit for an entertaining read though right? wink wink.Still more objectively the watchmaker theory is sophistic. It is more condemning to science as it pits those scientists who use the math to illustrate the grand improbability against those who find alternative math to justify the improbability. I'll let them hash it out. The creationists generally tend to be in greater agreement for the more fundamental points.The point is that the watch is not under debate by creationists. The earth as the watch requires a set of rules and circumstances to define its origins. The point is that evolution is an inadequate explanation. More importantly creationists do not have to ignore their own rules to continue in their acceptance of a divine origin. Our rule base is consistently applied to maintain our perspective. However, evolution as a scientific theory cannot withstand the rigors of its own requirements and so people come up with a catchy little red herring about a watch.So here I am in this room, you know the one with the elephant in it, and I start looking around for the watch. And...and...what do you know the elephant winks again (saucy beast) and looks down at the leg that's got that other guys foot pinned to the ground and he has the brightest, jewel encrusted Rolex you ever saw. He said the rhino made it for him. Those elephants .. I've heard they are smart.However, to be fair if anyone wants to jump in and defend the Rhino's claims that it was he that built the watch, please feel free. But please don't just say "It is not irrefutable in the least and makes many false assumptions." Show me. Show me a consensus of backers of the evolutionary concept that have found the formulas that validate mutation rates that will sustain the diversity we can observe in the history of this world and I promise I won't bring up any more elephants with watch making rhino friends although it does reveal my fondness for a good fairy tail - one of few things I have in common with the great evolutionary pundit, Richard Dawkins.Also, on the genetics relationship thing...Is that supposed to be a stretch? I'm a creationalist...its okay for me according to the rigors of my venue of thought to shrug my shoulders a say - God. Show me the math, lets see how well the rigors of science can support the claim. Just for the record I absolutely believe that the scientific record and the fossil record must be recognized as providing some undeniable considerations. However, I reconcile them against God's record and not man's assumptions. Edited May 20, 2012 by SamIam 1
thesometimesaint Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) Samlam:The Creationists are divided. Types of Creationism What Types of Creationism Exist?Like evolution, creationism can have more than one meaning. At its most basic, creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a deity of some sort - but after that, there is quite a lot of variety among creationists as to just what they believe and why. People may lump all creationists together in one group, but it is important to understand where they differ and why. Not every critique of creationism and creationist ideology will apply equally well to all creationists. 1. Scientific CreationismWhen the evolution vs. creationism debate comes up, we are usually speaking of a more specific type of creationism: the fundamentalist Protestant version of creationism. This creationism (usually called Scientific Creationism or Creation Science) involves a literal interpretation of the Bible that is incompatible with evolution as well as with much other science and history, but which fundamentalists attempt to harmonize with scientific investigations of nature. 2. Flat Earthers & GeocentristsFlat Earthers believe that the Earth is flat rather than round. The sky above is a dome or “firmament” which holds back the waters which once covered the Earth in Noah’s Flood. This position is most commonly based upon a literal reading of the Bible, for example references to the “four corners of the earth” and the “circle of the earth.” Although some believe that all Christians used to think that the Earth is flat, that isn’t the case. 3. Young Earth CreationismYoung Earth Creationists (YEC), the largest and most vocal group of creationists active in America, rely upon the most literal interpretation of the Bible in comparison to other forms of special creationism. At its heart, the Young Earth Creationist movement is a movement of conservative Christians. It is rare to find a Young Earth Creationist making a case either for creationism or against evolution without doing so from a deliberately religious and, usually, fundamentalist Christian position. 4. Old Earth CreationismSometimes, special creationism accepts the existence of an “old earth,” such that an ancient earth is accepted, but not evolution itself. This requires rejecting a completely literal interpretation of Genesis, but not abandoning it wholly and not simply reading it as metaphorical in the manner of Theistic Evolutionists. When reading Genesis, Jewish and Christian Old Earth Creationists (OEC) can take a number of different paths... 5. Theistic Evolution & Evolutionary CreationismCreationism does not have to be incompatible with evolution; there are many who believe in a creator god(s) and who also accept evolution. They may have deistic beliefs and believe a god started everything then let it run without interference. Theistic Evolution encompasses theism, some system of traditional religious beliefs, and the idea that a god or gods used evolution to develop life on earth. 6. Intelligent Design CreationismIntelligent Design is the most recent form of creationism to develop, but its roots go back much further. Fundamentally speaking, Intelligent Design is based upon the idea that the existence of God could be deduced from the existence of intricate design in the universe. Edited May 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint
SamIam Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Samlam:The Creationists are divided.Math STS...show me the math.
Freedom Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Well, maybe a 5 year old child discussing puberty and sexual reproduction with someone with a Ph.D in Human Development and Family Sciences.And who, exactly, has the proverbial PH.D in this discussion?
Olavarria Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) As an anthropology student, I spent my first 6 or 7 years in college resisting all the evolutionary theories we were taught. I find it funny that since then, I have completely changed my stance.I know that the "evidence" has been discussed ad nauseum. I think the evidence that humans evolved is undeniable. But well beyond that, think about this:One of the big controversies among Christians is the question of why God would create man with evil desires, only to punish him for following those desires. IMHO, evolution answers this question, especially within Mormon doctrine.God is bound by laws - particularly mercy and justice. Even an omnipotent God operates within natural laws.Like God, "evolved man" operates under natural laws. Biological drives like the drive to reproduce, to fight for survival, etc. are all the result of natural selection; not placed there by God.God then places a divine spirit in that body, and directs us to "overcome the natural (evolved) man.Under this design, God did not place the evil desires of the natural-man in us; they were a natural outgrowth of the creation process. God intervenes so that they can be overcome.To me it just makes sense.If you don't believe in evolutuon then you don't belive in science. Edited May 20, 2012 by Olavarria
Olavarria Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 As an anthropology student, I spent my first 6 or 7 years in college resisting all the evolutionary theories we were taught. I find it funny that since then, I have completely changed my stance.I know that the "evidence" has been discussed ad nauseum. I think the evidence that humans evolved is undeniable. But well beyond that, think about this:One of the big controversies among Christians is the question of why God would create man with evil desires, only to punish him for following those desires. IMHO, evolution answers this question, especially within Mormon doctrine.God is bound by laws - particularly mercy and justice. Even an omnipotent God operates within natural laws.Like God, "evolved man" operates under natural laws. Biological drives like the drive to reproduce, to fight for survival, etc. are all the result of natural selection; not placed there by God.God then places a divine spirit in that body, and directs us to "overcome the natural (evolved) man.Under this design, God did not place the evil desires of the natural-man in us; they were a natural outgrowth of the creation process. God intervenes so that they can be overcome.To me it just makes sense.I like it:)
cinepro Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) And who, exactly, has the proverbial PH.D in this discussion?What do you mean "proverbially"? People who study evolution actually have Ph.D's. Edited May 20, 2012 by cinepro
cinepro Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) If you don't believe in evolutuon then you don't belive in science.BYU even offers this interesting course in its biology department:Evolutionary Biology: Biol 420-02Evolutionary Biology is our senior-level ‘capstone’ course in the life science core curriculum. This ‘capstone’ status reflects the fact that evolution is conceptually the single most important biological discipline as measured by its ability to tie together all other fields of biology. Without the unifying framework of evolution, the biological sciences would exist as a set of isolated, specialized fields. Indeed, Theodosius Dobzhansky was right when he said that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” More recently, the National Academy of Sciences has stated that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things” (1998). Given this importance, it is not surprising to find that our class is filled by students with majors spanning the full realm of the biological sciences. What then is it that makes evolution the great unifying concept of biology? The purpose of this class is to help you answer that very question! Edited May 20, 2012 by cinepro
thesometimesaint Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Samlam:Math STS...show me the math.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
Freedom Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 What do you mean "proverbially"? People who study evolution actually have Ph.D's.Those that know are the Gods. We, with our puny brains and puny amounts of data, are like 5 year old children. It is naive and arrogant to presume that those with PH.Ds are anywhere close to understanding how life actually came to be. I am pointing out that those on the so-called creation side have a very limited understanding of Gods plan, and those on the evolution side have a very limited understanding of the available data. Both sides are about as capable of drawing accurate conclusions as those in my example.
thesometimesaint Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Freedom:While that MIGHT be true, don't hold your breath for evolution to go away.
Freedom Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 One theory is that evolution only appears to be random because we are only able to view its progress on this earth. Evolution as we know it may be inevitable and on every other planet it results in the same ends. It could well be that when the earth is created within set parameters with specific elements and proximity to a certain sized sun, the elements work together down a single path and what we perceive as natural selection is the natural inevitable process of the given combination of elements. It is like putting a certain measured amount of ingredients into a mixing bowl. We know that, if we put the same ingredients into a bowl a thousand times over, it will always produce, for example, the batter to cook pancakes. If it only occurs once in nature, there is no way of knowing if the resulting batter was a fluke or not. To prove a theory, we need to be able to reproduce the experiment. The only way to prove if evolution is completely random is to re-create the earth as it was when it first formed and to observer its progress over millions of years. This idea differs from creationists who argue that God actively intervened. My theory argues that He did not need to intervene because the natural process, as complex as it is, would always result in Adam and Eve in the Garden.
Freedom Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Freedom:While that MIGHT be true, don't hold your breath for evolution to go away.I won't hold my breath that it will go away so long as you don't hold your breath that our current understanding of how life came to be is correct. Evolution is the best guess based on the data we have but ultimately we have such a small amount of data that it will never be possible to turn Evolution from a theory into a fact until God reveals his plan as a scroll from the beginning until the end.
thesometimesaint Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 (edited) Freedom:Evolution is a fact just like gravity is a fact. Our understanding of those facts can and does change. We're not going to do away with evolution any more than we going to do away with gravity.It is not a guess, any more than gravity is a guess. You do understand the difference between theory and law in the sciences?I'm fine with God telling me exactly how he did it. However I don't expect any overwhelming changes. That would just create a whole bunch of new questions I have. Edited May 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Freedom Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Freedom:Evolution is a fact just like gravity is a fact. Our understanding of those facts can and does change. We're not going to do away with evolution any more than we going to do away with gravity.It is not a guess, any more than gravity is a guess. You do understand the difference between theory and law in the sciences?I'm fine with God telling me exactly how he did it. However I don't expect any overwhelming changes. That would just create a whole bunch of new questions I have. Gravity is a great example that proves my point. We see the affects of gravity but we have no idea what causes it. We see the results of change, but we have no idea what causes it. There is clear evidence of evolution but the evolution we are talking about here is a theory, not a fact. This does not mean it is not true, just that we know so little that arguing about it is...well, you already read my analogy
thesometimesaint Posted May 20, 2012 Posted May 20, 2012 Freedom:Gravity is a fact. It is inseparable from matter(no matter = no gravity). The explanation of gravity is theory. IE; Is it waves, or depressions in the time space fabric of the universe, or some other thing we don't know about?Evolution is a fact. Descent with modification is the law behind it. The explanation of evolution is a theory. IE; What is permissible given what we do know reproductive biology and DNA, or some other thing we don't know about?While I'm very interested in eventually knowing everything about everything. I'm not going to throw out all I do know now in some hoped for future knowledge.
Recommended Posts