ERayR Posted September 29, 2013 Posted September 29, 2013 Because it has been claimed by some that it means that Adam was placed on an dead piece of rock. I have never heard that claim can you direct me to where I can find it?
changed Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 (Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33)33 And worlds without number have I created...there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now standPersonally, I think new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds... at least one day our world will have another world built on it... and cycles do tend to repeat themselves...(New Testament | Revelation 21:1)1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;I also think there is more to our world than we can see...(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:16 - 17)16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his aeyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.Ithink Eden is real, and Adam and Eve, but that they came from another plane - from another sphere, perhaps the same place as the "chariots of fire"?
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 (Pearl of Great Price | Moses 1:33)33 And worlds without number have I created...there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now standPersonally, I think new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds... at least one day our world will have another world built on it... and cycles do tend to repeat themselves...(New Testament | Revelation 21:1)1 AND I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;I also think there is more to our world than we can see...(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:16 - 17)16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his aeyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.Ithink Eden is real, and Adam and Eve, but that they came from another plane - from another sphere, perhaps the same place as the "chariots of fire"?Well not sure about our world having new worlds on it, unless you include its conversion to a Celestial world as a new world which is Earth's eventual destiny. Those who promote thy recycled theory usually do it to try and explain the fossil record. I suspect they have in mind aborted Creations.
changed Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Well not sure about our world having new worlds on it, unless you include its conversion to a Celestial world as a new world which is Earth's eventual destiny.The cycle starts (Eden), and ends (C.K.), in perfection, it seems a bit like a cycle. jmo.
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 The cycle starts (Eden), and ends (C.K.), in perfection, it seems a bit like a cycle. jmo.I agree although that is more of a progression than a cycle. But some contending against evolution have argued that the Earth was organized from recycled materials which may have contained debris from former worlds. I assume they were referring to worlds that were watched and failed to obey so were aborted and materials recycled . Have never felt comfortable with that argument.
thesometimesaint Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 I have never heard that claim can you direct me to where I can find it? Nothing directly. I've just heard it a few times. .
thesometimesaint Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 That idea raises more questions for me too.
ERayR Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 Nothing directly. I've just heard it a few times. . Was it from official sources or just somebodies wild idea?
ERayR Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 That idea raises more questions for me too. Which Idea? It would certainly help follow you if you would use the quote function.
cinepro Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 The operative words here are May Have. Regarding evidence for macro-evolution, all the words on the website that I linked to are operative.
Stone holm Posted September 30, 2013 Posted September 30, 2013 We essentially took our world with us to the moon. Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.Galileo Ps; http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/29/chimpanzees-clobber-humans-in-complex-memory-tests-study/Oh and you don't think that part of another world didn't come along with Adam? Methinks BY would disagree with you.
ERayR Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Oh and you don't think that part of another world didn't come along with Adam? Methinks BY would disagree with you. If you don't agree with BY you can just claim he didn't know what he was talking about and ignore it.
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 If you don't agree with BY you can just claim he didn't know what he was talking about and ignore it.I love BY when it comes to the Genesis account, always have. When a Fundie goes all anti science at Church, I love to quote BY.
ERayR Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I love BY when it comes to the Genesis account, always have. When a Fundie goes all anti science at Church, I love to quote BY. I like him too. His proclamations not only did not support young earth fundamentalists they also do not support macro-evolution. IMNSHO he was not as uninformed as some would now like to make him.
thesometimesaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Was it from official sources or just somebodies wild idea? Nothing official.
thesometimesaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 ERayR:I agree although that is more of a progression than a cycle. But some contending against evolution have argued that the Earth was organized from recycled materials which may have contained debris from former worlds. I assume they were referring to worlds that were watched and failed to obey so were aborted and materials recycled . Have never felt comfortable with that argument. Sorry
thesometimesaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Oh and you don't think that part of another world didn't come along with Adam? Methinks BY would disagree with you. World? No. BY believed a great many things that are demonstrably false, or not accepted by the Church today. But he is still one of my favorite Presidents of the church.
thesometimesaint Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I like him too. His proclamations not only did not support young earth fundamentalists they also do not support macro-evolution. IMNSHO he was not as uninformed as some would now like to make him. Modern evolutioary thought came about in the 1930's and 40's. Long after BY death.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
Stone holm Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Modern evolutioary thought came about in the 1930's and 40's. Long after BY death.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis Please do not assume that I agree with ERayR and his macro vs micro evolution arguments.
strappinglad Posted October 11, 2013 Posted October 11, 2013 Just for fun here is a link to comic commentary . The BAH! Festival is basically evolutionists poking fun at other evolutionists and their evolutionary explanations. http://bahfest.com/
ERayR Posted October 11, 2013 Posted October 11, 2013 Modern evolutioary thought came about in the 1930's and 40's. Long after BY death.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis Then it seems he was way ahead of them.
ERayR Posted October 11, 2013 Posted October 11, 2013 Please do not assume that I agree with ERayR and his macro vs micro evolution arguments. Aw shucks just when I was beginning to think I was making headway. Macro and micro designations predate even this old man so I can't claim ownership. http://www.icr.org/article/1156/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#concept
ERayR Posted October 12, 2013 Posted October 12, 2013 Aw shucks just when I was beginning to think I was making headway. Macro and micro designations predate even this old man so I can't claim ownership. http://www.icr.org/article/1156/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#concept
thesometimesaint Posted October 13, 2013 Posted October 13, 2013 The so called Institute for Creation Science is oxymoronic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science For a better understanding of what Micro/Macroevolution is.\http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI The ancient Greek word for the smallest division of anything that retains its identity is an Atom. But that hardly means that those ancient Greeks were thousands of years ahead of us in the Atomic Theory. BY for all his good ideas had some real whoppers to.
Recommended Posts