Pre-Adamites?

[Ahab]

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

Yes, but it's still not true.

I like to be entertained with interesting ideas but I also appreciate knowing the difference between reality and imagination.

[ERayR]

Yes, but it's still not true.

I like to be entertained with interesting ideas but I also appreciate knowing the difference between reality and imagination.

Snide remark and derision noted.

[Ahab]

Snide remark and derision noted.

Criticism noted.

[mfbukowski]

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....

I am not defending the movies here, but just wonder why we should find this post more "true" than the movies.

Both are "just somebody talkin'".

[Stone holm]

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.

This would require the garden to be a discrete place on an otherwise mortal planet which I have argued for but which some have objected to.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

We all have a certain amount of cognitive dissidence(The ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time). That being said the whole field of Biology only makes sense when evolution is its foundation. For a MD to disregard Biology isn't just cognitive dissidence it is oxymoronic.

Ps; It would be like a mathematician decrying Base 10.

Edited June 22, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

We all have a certain amount of cognitive dissidence(The ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time). That being said the whole field of Biology only makes sense when evolution is its foundation. For a MD to disregard Biology isn't just cognitive dissidence it is oxymoronic.

Ps; It would be like a mathematician decrying Base 10.

That is the way you see and understand it. There are others, me and apparently Elder Nelson and others, who see and understand things differently. Our separate ideas may not even agree with each other but that is Okay too. To call Elder Nelson oxymoronic is a bit over the top. There are parts of the evolutionary theory that I think those who adhere to must "have a certain amount of cognitive dissidence(The ability to hold two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time)" but I do not denigrate your holding to those ideas.

You have a tendency to ridicule with over the top and irrelevant comparisons. Note another one.

Edited June 22, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Since when did describing something as oxymoronic become ridicule?

[Questing Beast]

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

Our fecund, combined imaginations are without a doubt continually impacted by metaphysical reality. That is why "fantasy" is so focused on shared, prevalent motifs. That is why religions overlap in their beliefs so much. That is why "quest of the dream warrior" (as one music composer puts it), and "the war of the sons of light", et al. the "eternal champions" make so much sense to our emotions. We see ourselves as engaged in a "war of souls", which spills over into a physical war for possession of the Earth. But here all things die, are temporary in the most extreme sense, and so we only play in the wreck room, nobody stays in it.

It is far more likely, given our technological advancement in simulating the very same thing, that we are already fully engaged in a "virtual reality" experience in this world: immortals playing at mortality....

Edited June 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

I am not defending the movies here, but just wonder why we should find this post more "true" than the movies.

Both are "just somebody talkin'".

Not "true", just a hypothesis. There is no logic to support any assertion to exclusivity, simply because we have no way in this venue of "breaking the deadlock" of contending/conflicting metaphysical ideas. That is why religions multiply continually: somebody is always coming up with a new "wrinkle" to add to the endless religious "explanations". In other words, all religious "explanations" are only hypotheses, and will never be theories, because they cannot be tested by anyone, probably not even by the originator of the idea in question.

I like the way I think, better than I did before when I tried to make Mormonism work out dogmatically. My thinking is more open ended and allows for as much possibility as my 'satiable imagination can come up with. This, to me, is the most Godlike aspect that I/we possess, so I ought to be using it not denying it as some child's plaything. Well, it IS a child's plaything, of course, but that shouldn't be held to be some kind of rebuke, but rather among the greatest gifts....

Edited June 23, 2013 by Questing Beast

[CV75]

This would require the garden to be a discrete place on an otherwise mortal planet which I have argued for but which some have objected to.

"Require" might be a strong word, but depending on the timing of the queues and the arrangement of the cohorts, this approach allows ample time for natural selection and other population genetic changes and the relatively rare intraspecies mutation.

The reason I hedge on "require" (not that there's anything wrong with that) is, if the entire pangeaic Earth was Eden or the Garden of Eden, the Fall may have also started around the edges of the garden or the continent and worked its way inward; or, since the trees were in the midst of the garden, from that point outward; or followed some other pattern, allowing for the same gradual / sequential nature of the evidences that are misinterpreted as support of evolution.

What do you think are the Gospel-impacting ramifications of either position?

[cdowis]

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

Nothing beats real world experience.

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

OK, I got lost.

Just curious, has his "real theory of abogenisis" been tested and validated? Or is this just still in the hypothetical. Such an process is testable in the lab? (Excuse my ignorance of this subject).

Edited June 24, 2013 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

"Require" might be a strong word, but depending on the timing of the queues and the arrangement of the cohorts, this approach allows ample time for natural selection and other population genetic changes and the relatively rare intraspecies mutation.

The reason I hedge on "require" (not that there's anything wrong with that) is, if the entire pangeaic Earth was Eden or the Garden of Eden, the Fall may have also started around the edges of the garden or the continent and worked its way inward; or, since the trees were in the midst of the garden, from that point outward; or followed some other pattern, allowing for the same gradual / sequential nature of the evidences that are misinterpreted as support of evolution.

What do you think are the Gospel-impacting ramifications of either position?

Interesting concept of the gradual death of a global garden, while that concept works better than a global garden that suddenly becomes a non garden, I am not sure how well that works with the concept of an expulsion and the whole Cherrubim with a flaming sword thingy.

[mfbukowski]

Not "true", just a hypothesis. There is no logic to support any assertion to exclusivity, simply because we have no way in this venue of "breaking the deadlock" of contending/conflicting metaphysical ideas.

That's why metaphysics is dead and has been at least since Nietzsche, and is why I am always giving you a hard time. . The problem in fact is that now physics is more like metaphysics- no one knows what light "is" so we make up stories. The problem arises when you think that the stories are somehow "real".

All we call "real" is interpretations of sense data, or experiences. To coin a phrase ') there are no facts, only interpretations.

[Stone holm]

That's why metaphysics is dead and has been at least since Nietzsche, and is why I am always giving you a hard time. . The problem in fact is that now physics is more like metaphysics- no one knows what light "is" so we make up stories. The problem arises when you think that the stories are somehow "real".

All we call "real" is interpretations of sense data, or experiences. To coin a phrase ') there are no facts, only interpretations.

I didn't read the obituary, when did metaphysics die? I will miss it so much, it was such a nice travelling companion, so much more fun than quantum physics approach to light.

[mfbukowski]

I didn't read the obituary, when did metaphysics die? I will miss it so much, it was such a nice travelling companion, so much more fun than quantum physics approach to light.

I don't know of one contemporary philosopher of note who does metaphysics- do you?

[mfbukowski]

I didn't read the obituary, when did metaphysics die? I will miss it so much, it was such a nice travelling companion, so much more fun than quantum physics approach to light.

https://www.google.c...lient=firefox-a

I love his accent

Edited June 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

Since when did describing something as oxymoronic become ridicule?

When you add Ps; It would be like a mathematician decrying Base 10.

[Stone holm]

Since when did describing something as oxymoronic become ridicule?

Better question is when was labelling something as oxymoronic not considered ridicule?

Edited June 24, 2013 by Stone holm

[thesometimesaint]

When you add Ps; It would be like a mathematician decrying Base 10.

Tell that to computer programers.

[thesometimesaint]

Better question is when was labelling something as oxymoronic not considered ridicule?

By definition

oxymoronic

Web definitions

(oxymoron) conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence').

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[Questing Beast]

That's why metaphysics is dead and has been at least since Nietzsche, and is why I am always giving you a hard time. . The problem in fact is that now physics is more like metaphysics- no one knows what light "is" so we make up stories. The problem arises when you think that the stories are somehow "real".

All we call "real" is interpretations of sense data, or experiences. To coin a phrase ') there are no facts, only interpretations.

I agree with all of that. Perhaps my use of the word "metaphysics" has implications among better (formally educated) people that I am unaware of. I have discarded the words "paranormal", "supernatural" and suchlike because I don't believe they are accurate. Everything is "normal" and "natural" to God, so there is really no such thing as these words imply: what these words are actually saying is that there are normal and natural (real) things, and then there are assertions of unnatural and not normal things that are only assertions, not reality. But "metaphysical", the word, has signified to my mind a whole reality outside of the five physical senses of the human body; a "realm" of existence that is just as real, or more real, than "being there" (here), but not discernible through the five physical senses - and that science is wholly devoted to the five physical senses and has nothing whatsoever to do with studying or even admitting the existence of the "metaphysical"....

Edited June 24, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

By definition

oxymoronic

Web definitions

(oxymoron) conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence').

wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

yeah or military intelligence, compassionate conservatism, ....I know the drill

[thesometimesaint]

OK, I got lost.

Just curious, has his "real theory of abogenisis" been tested and validated? Or is this just still in the hypothetical. Such an process is testable in the lab? (Excuse my ignorance of this subject).

I don't know what you mean by validated other than we now know how to produce RNA, an important precursor to DNA, from chemical compounds. It is equally true that we haven't yet reproduced DNA in the lab.

http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

[ERayR]

I don't know what you mean by validated other than we now know how to produce RNA, an important precursor to DNA, from chemical compounds. It is equally true that we haven't yet reproduced DNA in the lab.

http://www.livescien...reated-lab.html

All those great brains and they can't do in a controlled environment what happened accidentally in nature?