Pre-Adamites?

[Questing Beast]

You plan on living until the Millennium? If not, what about between death and resurrection?

There is no "Millennium" in the doctrinal sense. We already started a brand new millennium, which is pretty cool, so I'd be an idiot not to believe in a time-marking system that governs my daily life. Death is only apparent, from the pov on this side. I believe that there is no such thing as death to immortals. We don't shed a body, we return to one, like waking up from a very detailed and long dream (or not so long, again from the pov on this side life as a mortal seems rather long). So there is no resurrection, that is a metaphor or even a mistaken belief. These are the concepts that I have been turning over for some years now. I like how they "taste" better than the Judeo-Christian pov, which has too many jarring parts and is too complicated as a set of answers to the "terrible questions"....

[Stone holm]

There is no "Millennium" in the doctrinal sense. We already started a brand new millennium, which is pretty cool, so I'd be an idiot not to believe in a time-marking system that governs my daily life. Death is only apparent, from the pov on this side. I believe that there is no such thing as death to immortals. We don't shed a body, we return to one, like waking up from a very detailed and long dream (or not so long, again from the pov on this side life as a mortal seems rather long). So there is no resurrection, that is a metaphor or even a mistaken belief. These are the concepts that I have been turning over for some years now. I like how they "taste" better than the Judeo-Christian pov, which has too many jarring parts and is too complicated as a set of answers to the "terrible questions"....

Well my taste buds have something of a Mormon configuration which suggests to me that while we have historically just started a new Millennium, we haven't yet started the Millenium.

[cdowis]

Yes it is truly odd that Elder Nelson a medical doctor would not know the difference between a living organism and a nonliving explosion in print shop. All that is is a variation on the watchmaker analogy fallacy. http://en.wikipedia....chmaker_analogy

Are you prepared to defend this argument, or are you going to make us do your work for you.

If you are going to criticize Elder Nelson, don't do a drive-by poster -- be a man, stand up and tell us specifically your argument. Let's see what you got.

Edited June 21, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

That is correct... there is a difference between the non-living and living. The living, cannot come from the non-living as it lacks that spark of life. I wonder what was the living part of the Big Bang that got the evolutionary ball rolling...

Life as we know it is a complex biochemical carbon based reaction. Typeface exploding is neither complex nor biochemical, nor carbon based.

Since we can produce RNA in a test tube. Please quantify "spark of life".

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/life-evolution-a-test-tube/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429140849.htm

The Big Bang produced the universe in which life could evolve in.

Edited June 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

Life as we know it is a complex biochemical carbon based reaction. Typeface exploding is neither complex nor biochemical, nor carbon based.

We do mathmatical modeling all the time, and the typeface example is a simplified version of thousands, millions, billions of "explosions". It is a reasonable simile of what is happening in the carbon based world over long periods of time. The typeface example is just another way of talking about computer modeling -- not physical typeface.

Since we can produce RNA in a test tube. Please quantify "spark of life".

http://www.cosmosmag...on-a-test-tube/

http://www.scienceda...90429140849.htm

The Big Bang produced the universe in which life could evolve in.

YES, and that can be modeled after with the typeface analogy, in the same way scientists can use a computer algorithm. We not only use test tubes, we also use computer modeling. I am surprised that you were not aware of that.

Edited June 21, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Are you prepared to defend this argument, or are you going to make us do your work for you.

If you are going to criticize Elder Nelson, don't do a drive-by poster -- be a man, stand up and tell us specifically your argument. Let's see what you got.

More than prepared. I've never asked you to do my work.

That is an ad hominem. I had expected better from you. I already referred you to the watchmaker analogy fallacy, but here it is again if you missed it the first time in your desire to attack me.

"All that is is a variation on the watchmaker analogy fallacy". http://en.wikipedia....chmaker_analogy

[cdowis]

I mae the observation that your attack on Elder Nelson was personal, questioning his knowledge and understanding of these issues. I then questioned your tactic of hiding behind some internet link.

When you make personal attacks on a General Authority, expect a very pointed response.

Finally, nothing that I posted was "ad hominem". Offensive, yes.

Edited June 21, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

I have nothing against computer modeling as far as it is translated correctly.

Nothing beats real world experience.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Faster isn't necessarily better. You do know the term GIGO?

[thesometimesaint]

Ciunepro said:

Elder Nelson has an odd view of science, especially when it comes to the creation of the Earth and evolution, in light of his being a medical doctor and all...

I merely agreed.

What more do you want than confirmation from a source that isn't self referential? Would it help if I simply said "because I said so"?

[Flyonthewall]

Life as we know it is a complex biochemical carbon based reaction. Typeface exploding is neither complex nor biochemical, nor carbon based.

Since we can produce RNA in a test tube. Please quantify "spark of life".

http://www.cosmosmag...on-a-test-tube/

http://www.scienceda...90429140849.htm

The Big Bang produced the universe in which life could evolve in.

I see the articles provided do not say they have proven the Theory of evolution, but that they are closer to an answer.

From the article itself:

“They are synthetic genetic systems, and they are evolving. But they’re not living because they don’t yet show the capacity to invent functions out of whole cloth [independently from basic building blocks].

...

"RNA world hypothesis

Many scientists believe that early life was based on RNA and predated the arrival of life based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and proteins. RNA, which can both store information like DNA as well as act as an enzyme like proteins, and may have supported pre-cellular life.

A lading proponent of the so-called ‘RNA world’ hypothesis, Joyce believes that RNA-based catalysis and information storage may have been the first step in the evolution of cellular life."

Science is still guessing. It takes what little information it has and creates a story to connect the dots. The scriptures don't have answers to how things were done, but it does recognize God as the creator, science does not.

The spark of life is God.

[thesometimesaint]

I see the articles provided do not say they have proven the Theory of evolution, but that they are closer to an answer.

From the article itself:

“They are synthetic genetic systems, and they are evolving. But they’re not living because they don’t yet show the capacity to invent functions out of whole cloth [independently from basic building blocks].

...

"RNA world hypothesis

Many scientists believe that early life was based on RNA and predated the arrival of life based on deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and proteins. RNA, which can both store information like DNA as well as act as an enzyme like proteins, and may have supported pre-cellular life.

A lading proponent of the so-called ‘RNA world’ hypothesis, Joyce believes that RNA-based catalysis and information storage may have been the first step in the evolution of cellular life."

Science is still guessing. It takes what little information it has and creates a story to connect the dots. The scriptures don't have answers to how things were done, but it does recognize God as the creator, science does not.

The spark of life is God.

You can't prove any theory, all that you can do is falsify it. A hypothesis is just a working model that meets a limited number of conditionals. As the number of conditionals that are met increases that hypothesis becomes a theory. There is no magic number that have to be met just that every one so far presented is met. IE; We did not throw out Newton when Einstein came along, we did not throw out Einstein when Quantum Mechanics came along.

Without building blocks it is impossible to build anything. IE; The building blocks of salt are Sodium and Chlorine without which you have nothing.

I have no problem with God doing it as long as you don't claim that God is the answer as to how he did it.

[ERayR]

Ciunepro said:

Elder Nelson has an odd view of science, especially when it comes to the creation of the Earth and evolution, in light of his being a medical doctor and all...

I merely agreed.

What more do you want than confirmation from a source that isn't self referential? Would it help if I simply said "because I said so"?

I don't think it is so odd, especially him being an apostle of God and all ...

[thesometimesaint]

I don't think it is so odd, especially him being an apostle of God and all ...

Exactly where is it claimed that Apostles of God are always correct?

[ERayR]

Exactly where is it claimed that Apostles of God are always correct?

Attribution of conclusion not expressed. A common problem in communication with you. You observed that you expected his medical background to produce an outlook different than he expressed. I observed that I found his outlook consistent with his calling as an apostle. I never expressed apostolic infallibility.

[Ahab]

There is no "Millennium" in the doctrinal sense.

See Revelation 20:7

We already started a brand new millennium, which is pretty cool, so I'd be an idiot not to believe in a time-marking system that governs my daily life.

I'm glad we got that settled.

Death is only apparent, from the pov on this side.

We'll be able to see it from the other side too when it happens to us.

I believe that there is no such thing as death to immortals.

Death is a particular type of separation, rather than an end to life as some people think.

We don't shed a body, we return to one, like waking up from a very detailed and long dream (or not so long, again from the pov on this side life as a mortal seems rather long). So there is no resurrection, that is a metaphor or even a mistaken belief.

The example we have of our Savior's resurrection shows us somethinh about what we will experience when it happens to us. Our spirit will separate from our mortal body and then later reunite with it, never to be separated from it again.

[ERayR]

We don't shed a body, we return to one, like waking up from a very detailed and long dream (or not so long, again from the pov on this side life as a mortal seems rather long). So there is no resurrection, that is a metaphor or even a mistaken belief. These are the concepts that I have been turning over for some years now. I like how they "taste" better than the Judeo-Christian pov, which has too many jarring parts and is too complicated as a set of answers to the "terrible questions"....

The Matrix?

[Questing Beast]

See Revelation 20:7

...

The example we have of our Savior's resurrection shows us somethinh about what we will experience when it happens to us. Our spirit will separate from our mortal body and then later reunite with it, never to be separated from it again.

Quoting scripture, arguing from the authority of scriptural assertions, is circular arguing.

So "the resurrection of our Savior" is likewise circular arguing/reasoning. Nobody can verify that the story as represented in the gospel writers' accounts literally happened. What they wrote about had happened a lifetime or more before they wrote about it. But let's say that Jesus Christ literally left the tomb, such that when the witnesses came it was empty because Jesus had revived and departed from it. This is all well and good for somebody whose body has not even started to decay. But it hardly fits someone eaten by a shark and pooped as goo into the ocean, or burned at the stake, or fried in a fire storm, etc. Plenty of physical bodies, in fact the vast majority of them, ceased to "be" eons ago. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a type, not a literal event we can all anticipate in like manner. It makes more sense to accept that the body you use(d) is part of this realm, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the real you, wherever you (we) are....

[Questing Beast]

The Matrix?

Good heavens no by Jove! There were no immortals in that silly set of movies, only escaped humans who could still die readily enough.

No, this world is real enough, it's just not "the Home World" where we live as immortals, where we do all of our pondering and relating, meanwhile we "go away" for what is probably the virtual equivalent of a night's sleep, and come "here". What we learn while our minds channel through a fallible, physical brain and its appendages, is not possible to learn any other way. That's why we do the "mortality thing", so we can learn. Mortality is sort of like a quarantined "wreck room"; it has no contact with the "real world", the Home World, other than by communication between those who have enjoyed "being there" (here) and share their experiences of it....

Edited June 21, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Ahab]

Good heavens no by Jove! There were no immortals in that silly set of movies, only escaped humans who could still die readily enough.

No, this world is real enough, it's just not "the Home World" where we live as immortals, where we do all of our pondering and relating, meanwhile we "go away" for what is probably the virtual equivalent of a night's sleep, and come "here". What we learn while our minds channel through a fallible, physical brain and its appendages, is not possible to learn any other way. That's why we do the "mortality thing", so we can learn. Mortality is sort of like a quarantined "wreck room"; it has no contact with the "real world", the Home World, other than by communication between those who have enjoyed "being there" (here) and share their experiences of it....

Ah, sounds more like Avatar now. Not true, but an entertaining idea.

[ERayR]

Ah, sounds more like Avatar now. Not true, but an entertaining idea.

Ahab I think you are misreading what QB is saying. Or I am. Let you mind consider a wider range of possibilities.

[Ahab]

Ahab I think you are misreading what QB is saying. Or I am. Let you mind consider a wider range of possibilities.

You can think what you want but what he described still sounds a lot like Avatar to me. Can't you see that as a possibility of what he considers to be true?

[CV75]

Science is still guessing. It takes what little information it has and creates a story to connect the dots. The scriptures don't have answers to how things were done, but it does recognize God as the creator, science does not.

The spark of life is God.

One way I think evidence for evolution can be misinterpreted is if there was a lengthy, gradual and sequential departure of life from the Garden of Eden from the “simplest” to Adam, leaving the mistaken impression in (or interpretation from) the fossil, genetic and other records that life evolved from eoarchean abiogenesis, rather than life forms departing the garden over millions of years and giving way to new life forms as they exited the garden.

We know that “all do not die at once,” and not everyone is born, makes covenants, or is resurrected at once, so why should they all depart the Garden of Eden at once? As Noah was the last to enter and leave the ark, Adam may have been the first to enter the garden and the last to leave; or the first to be created from the ground outside the garden and the last to return to it in the form of a fallen world. This would also allow a 7,000 year timeframe for humankind’s history.

[ERayR]

You can think what you want but what he described still sounds a lot like Avatar to me. Can't you see that as a possibility of what he considers to be true?

Yup certainly is a possibility. Can't you see any other possibilities?

[Ahab]

Yup certainly is a possibility. Can't you see any other possibilities?

Your turn now. What other possibility can you see from what he described:

No, this world is real enough, it's just not "the Home World" where we live as immortals, where we do all of our pondering and relating, meanwhile we "go away" for what is probably the virtual equivalent of a night's sleep, and come "here". What we learn while our minds channel through a fallible, physical brain and its appendages, is not possible to learn any other way. That's why we do the "mortality thing", so we can learn. Mortality is sort of like a quarantined "wreck room"; it has no contact with the "real world", the Home World, other than by communication between those who have enjoyed "being there" (here) and share their experiences of it....

[ERayR]

Your turn now. What other possibility can you see from what he described:

No, this world is real enough, it's just not "the Home World" where we live as immortals, where we do all of our pondering and relating, meanwhile we "go away" for what is probably the virtual equivalent of a night's sleep, and come "here". What we learn while our minds channel through a fallible, physical brain and its appendages, is not possible to learn any other way. That's why we do the "mortality thing", so we can learn. Mortality is sort of like a quarantined "wreck room"; it has no contact with the "real world", the Home World, other than by communication between those who have enjoyed "being there" (here) and share their experiences of it....

Uh Okay. That is certainly one possibility and it has some appeal.