Freedom Posted September 8, 2013 Posted September 8, 2013 Freedom My "working hypothesis" has nothing to do with evolution, but a reconciliation of the scriptural account of the creation with scientific findings. I have tackled the interpretation of the scriptural account. Please provide the passage in scripture that demonstrates any alternatives to evolution. I do not know of any. Nowhere in any of our scriptures does it address the progressive development of life on earth
cdowis Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 Please provide the passage in scripture that demonstrates any alternatives to evolution. I do not know of any. Nowhere in any of our scriptures does it address the progressive development of life on earth It appears that you do not fully understand the concept of "working hypothesis." Do you have anything to offer?
cdowis Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 And in that other thread there were examples provided on how you could step by step certain specific features you provided. Naturally. Your claim is that of irreducible complexity. Perhaps, but let's move on. And all the claims of different features being irreducible, examples have been shown of specific intermediary steps and how it actually is reducible. Some examples have been addressed, others have not. The problem is that step-by-step means that *each* step must be addressed individually. Typically I see the magic wand used to skip over some of those steps -- using speculation/opinion/ and assertion rather than actual data and facts to fill in the gaps.For example, in my profound ignorance, I do not see how the control functionality or interaction of the cardio and respiratory systems, could have developed by dribbling, considering that they are real time systems. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 We didn't come from monkeys. Monkeys and humans are two modern creatures that commonly descended from ancient creatures (according to evolutionary theory).And that ancient creature is......... We don't know.
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 And in that other thread there were examples provided on how you could step by step certain specific features you provided. Naturally. Your claim is that of irreducible complexity. Perhaps, but let's move on. And all the claims of different features being irreducible, examples have been shown of specific intermediary steps and how it actually is reducible. Some examples have been addressed, others have not. The problem is that step-by-step means that *each* step must be addressed individually. Typically I see the magic wand used to skip over some of those steps -- using speculation/opinion/ and assertion rather than actual data and facts to fill in the gaps.For example, in my profound ignorance, I do not see how the control functionality or interaction of the cardio and respiratory systems, could have developed by dribbling, considering that they are real time systems. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130721161714.htm
cdowis Posted September 9, 2013 Author Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) Very informative article, but unfortunately does not directly address the issue of dribbling vs quantum leap of the control mechanism. But it is certainly a move in the right direction. Faith in evolution would be that the answer will eventually be revealed within the context of the current understanding of evolution (dribbling), but.... that is faith. But the fundamental issue still remains. Edited September 9, 2013 by cdowis 1
thesometimesaint Posted September 9, 2013 Posted September 9, 2013 I don't have faith per say in Evolution. It is simply the best explanation so far for how life on this planet changed over time. I do have faith that the Scientific Method is the best method so far developed to determine the physical reality of our earth and place in this universe. I can't verify quantum leaps in evolution, but have no particular problem with punctuated equalibrium.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
Freedom Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 It appears that you do not fully understand the concept of "working hypothesis." Do you have anything to offer?You cannot reject one theory that is flooded with evidence and offer up a hypothesis with absolutely no supporting evidence either in the scriptures or in science. You can use this argument for what ever doctrine you want to create.
ERayR Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 I don't have faith per say in Evolution. It is simply the best explanation so far for how life on this planet changed over time. Not if you take into consideration the evidences of advanced technical civilizations in the far distant past(prehistoric). OOps that can't be it doesn't fit the macro-evolutionary mold so it must be ignored.
Rivers Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Most definately. Why else would God need a wife other than their seed could continue into eternity.So your view is similar to that of BY.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Not if you take into consideration the evidences of advanced technical civilizations in the far distant past(prehistoric). OOps that can't be it doesn't fit the macro-evolutionary mold so it must be ignored.Friendly CFR on these prehistoric technologically advanced civilizations. I've heard this before but only in passing.
ERayR Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Friendly CFR on these prehistoric technologically advanced civilizations. I've heard this before but only in passing. Go back to the last discussions we had here a couple of months ago. I provided CFR then.
cinepro Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Just for fun, here's a great article about Intelligent Design on the LDS Science Review Blog: Why I Still Dislike Intelligent Design
emarkp Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 As I have mentioned in the Dawkins thread, the step by step process is unable to handle certain features of living creatures. There needs to be an extension of evolution which tackles "quantum jumps" which are observed throughout nature. Step by step just does not work in all situations. Actually you're quite wrong here. I'm just as tired of ignorant believers wrongly claiming what scientific evidence and theory exists as I am of ignorant atheists (e.g. Dawkins) wrongly claiming what we believers think. Two peas in a pod, you and Dawkins.
cdowis Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) At what point is a man a man? Nibley defines it as someone who is descended from Adam. ("Before Adam") When I heard his talk, the thought came to mind "The apartment theory of creation". The earth had different apartments. Not sure what that means, and Nibley's talk didn't really clarify it for me. Edited September 10, 2013 by cdowis
cdowis Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 I don't have faith per say in Evolution. It is simply the best explanation so far for how life on this planet changed over time. I do have faith that the Scientific Method is the best method so far developed to determine the physical reality of our earth and place in this universe. I can't verify quantum leaps in evolution, but have no particular problem with punctuated equalibrium.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium Thank you for your post. I was tryng to remember punctuated equilibrium -- an interesting adjunct to evolution that appears to deal with the quantum jump issue. Let me take a closer look at it.
cdowis Posted September 10, 2013 Author Posted September 10, 2013 Actually you're quite wrong here. I'm just as tired of ignorant believers wrongly claiming what scientific evidence and theory exists as I am of ignorant atheists (e.g. Dawkins) wrongly claiming what we believers think. Two peas in a pod, you and Dawkins. And I am really really tired of those who make ad hominem attacks rather than dealing directly with the issues.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Go back to the last discussions we had here a couple of months ago. I provided CFR then.This post here I believe:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61312-dowis-refutes-dawkins/page-14#entry1209282549
ERayR Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 This post here I believe:http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/61312-dowis-refutes-dawkins/page-14#entry1209282549 That is a good place to start but it is nowhere near exhaustive. In fact it barely scratches the surface. If you want some additional suggestions PM me.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Not if you take into consideration the evidences of advanced technical civilizations in the far distant past(prehistoric). OOps that can't be it doesn't fit the macro-evolutionary mold so it must be ignored. Here I thought Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 I figure the Gods evolved, and that pretty much takes care of both sides of the debate for me. ("Eternal progression" applied to the biological realm!)For anyone interested, a good primer on evolution which I often recommend is Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body
ERayR Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Here I thought Adam and Eve rode around on dinosaurs. Thanks for proving my point.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Nibley defines it as someone who is descended from Adam. ("Before Adam") When I heard his talk, the thought came to mind "The apartment theory of creation". The earth had different apartments. Not sure what that means, and Nibley's talk didn't really clarify it for me. I think Nibley was onto something that our species truly became mankind when we were able to read and write our own history, about 10,000 years ago.
thesometimesaint Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Thanks for proving my point. You are always welcome.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 My "working hypothesis" has nothing to do with evolution, but a reconciliation of the scriptural account of the creation with scientific findings. I have tackled the interpretation of the scriptural account.My project is to tackle the "common ancestry" side of things. I have no problem with the mechanism of evolution itself, but its broad use by its proponents such as common ancestry. Evolution just cannot "handle the load" of such applications, without waving the magic wand of evolution.So if you set aside scripture/prophets/personal revelation and just went with scientific evidences, would you view evolution as the best model, though incomplete, for explaining the fossil record and speciation? Or do you see another explanation? Or would you say it's all just guessing as there isn't physical evidence to answer that question enough to have a theory?I know I'm asking for a hypothetical as you obviously do take into account scripture and revelation in your process, but say you had to write a scientific paper on it and couldn't use those sources... would you purport any other theory besides evolution?
Recommended Posts