ERayR Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 whose fault is that when overwhelming evidence is everywhere on the planet; 95% of reputable universities, medical institutions teach it as fact, all medical science is empowered by basic biological evolution facts.... whose fault is that when overwhelming evidence is everywhere on the planet; 95% of reputable universities, medical institutions teach it as fact, all medical science is empowered by basic biological evolution facts.... Again the evidence for macro-evolution is not so overwhelming. There has been a lot of things taught as fact that was later recanted so don't find to much comfort in that.
ERayR Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 No because nearly all of the credible biologists say so and the fossil record backs them up. Nearly all? What 98%, 75%, 50%? It is not the fossil record that supports it but rather the interpretation and extrapolation from micro-evolution.
thesometimesaint Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 You are good at red herrings. The statement was: "The Scientific evidence shows clearly Adam was not created on the spot...........". I asked for the irrefutable evidence for such a statement. By the way if he means what I think he does I agree with him. I just think such a bald pronouncement should be backed up with some evidence.Wherever it was it wasn't in Missouri. To be scienfically accurate there was no individual Adam and/or Eve(They are strictly a religious concept). It takes about 80 (40 men and 40 women unrelated by genetics) to have the genetic diversity to sustain the gene pool for humans to exist.
ERayR Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Wherever it was it wasn't in Missouri. To be scienfically accurate there was no individual Adam and/or Eve(They are strictly a religious concept). It takes about 80 (40 men and 40 women unrelated by genetics) to have the genetic diversity to sustain the gene pool for humans to exist. Who said anything about where or Missouri? More red herrings? And there was no fall so there was/is no need for an atonement so there was/is no need for a Savior so Christ is allegorical? Edited October 23, 2013 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 Nearly all? What 98%, 75%, 50%? It is not the fossil record that supports it but rather the interpretation and extrapolation from micro-evolution. The correct answer is 99.9%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolutionAll there is is interpretations. But those interpretations must be consistant with the evidence. Here is an article you might find interesting.http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml Evolution is the only scientific explanation that is accepted by science. Here is just a partial list of scientific organizations that accpet evolution.http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443http://www.nas.edu/evolution/http://www.agiweb.org/gap/evolution/http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/paleo_geo_evol.htmlhttp://www.paleosoc.org/evolutioncomplete.htm
thesometimesaint Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) Who said anything about where or Missouri? More red herrings? And there was no fall so there was/is no need for an atonement so there was/is no need for a Savior so Christ is allegorical? Joseph Smith seemed to believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. The Fall is not a scientific concept. Edited October 23, 2013 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 The Fall is not a scientific concept. Can you really not see what you are saying? You are saying macro-evolution is real then there must be some other explanation for the fall. It either didn't happen or it is metaphorical. You seem to think that if you never let them touch then there is no conflict. Whether you see it or not they do cross and where they cross there is a short circuit. That tells me there is an error somewhere in the mix. If you insist that there is no error in the macro-evolutionary concept then there is an error in the concept of the fall.
thesometimesaint Posted October 23, 2013 Posted October 23, 2013 Can you really not see what you are saying? You are saying macro-evolution is real then there must be some other explanation for the fall. It either didn't happen or it is metaphorical. You seem to think that if you never let them touch then there is no conflict. Whether you see it or not they do cross and where they cross there is a short circuit. That tells me there is an error somewhere in the mix. If you insist that there is no error in the macro-evolutionary concept then there is an error in the concept of the fall. I know exactly what I am saying. You are presenting a false dichotomy. There is no microevolution vs macroevolution they are BOTH just evolution. The Fall is not a scientific concept. I don't know how to put it any other way. There comes a point where our understanding of science AND religion diverge. It is just intrinsic to those two different ways of understanding our universe. Both can be equally true, but talking about two different things. IE; Using apples to define donuts only goes so far until they both break down. I firmly believe that someday they will be fully reconciled, but that day, in all likelihood isn't going to be today.
Stone holm Posted October 23, 2013 Author Posted October 23, 2013 You can have evolution and Adam and Eve, not mutually exclusive. What you cannot have is global garden of Eden which is not required by our doctrine anyway. I also see no reason it can't be in Davies County either. The Earth's land masses didn't look the same as now no matter when they got bounced out of the garden. I suspect I would take the notion of the altar lasting allot house years with a cup of salt though.
ERayR Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 You can have evolution and Adam and Eve, not mutually exclusive. What you cannot have is global garden of Eden which is not required by our doctrine anyway. I also see no reason it can't be in Davies County either. The Earth's land masses didn't look the same as now no matter when they got bounced out of the garden. I suspect I would take the notion of the altar lasting allot house years with a cup of salt though. IMNSHO what is mutually exclusive is macro-evolution and the fall.
Stone holm Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 You can have evolution and Adam and Eve, not mutually exclusive. What you cannot have is global garden of Eden which is not required by our doctrine anyway. I also see no reason it can't be in Davies County either. The Earth's land masses didn't look the same as now no matter when they got bounced out of the garden. I suspect I would take the notion of the altar lasting allot house years with a cup of salt though. Amazing what auto correct will do, exactly why would the computer think "all those years" should be "allot house years" is not terribly clear to me.
Solitario Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 Again the evidence for macro-evolution is not so overwhelming. There has been a lot of things taught as fact that was later recanted so don't find to much comfort in that.You may not find much comfort but Planetwide Medical Science does. Evolutionary principles drive everything physical about biology. One of my doctors has a Bible in her Office, does not bring in exam rooms or her triage.....I respect that.There's much we do not know about Evolution & Medical science but we learned enough to multiply & replenish the Planet for sure.
thesometimesaint Posted October 24, 2013 Posted October 24, 2013 You can have evolution and Adam and Eve, not mutually exclusive. What you cannot have is global garden of Eden which is not required by our doctrine anyway. I also see no reason it can't be in Davies County either. The Earth's land masses didn't look the same as now no matter when they got bounced out of the garden. I suspect I would take the notion of the altar lasting allot house years with a cup of salt though. Having been in winter in the midwest. I can think of a lot of places I'd rather be than in Missouri that time of year.
Stone holm Posted October 24, 2013 Author Posted October 24, 2013 Having been in winter in the midwest. I can think of a lot of places I'd rather be than in Missouri that time of year. Ah yest, but in a few decades it will be more northern Georgia, who knows what it was like climate wise at the time. Remember at one point most of that area essentially got wiped out by a mega quake. St. Louis, although we don't normally think of it as so is considered one of the most dangerous cities in America for fault lines it is for potential earthquakes, what Yellowstone is for potential volcanic eruptions.
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Ah yest, but in a few decades it will be more northern Georgia, who knows what it was like climate wise at the time. Remember at one point most of that area essentially got wiped out by a mega quake. St. Louis, although we don't normally think of it as so is considered one of the most dangerous cities in America for fault lines it is for potential earthquakes, what Yellowstone is for potential volcanic eruptions. I've become a regular hot house flower living here in southern California. It is cold to me when it is under 60 degrees F.
Stone holm Posted October 25, 2013 Author Posted October 25, 2013 I've become a regular hot house flower living here in southern California. It is cold to me when it is under 60 degrees F. Not to worry that should cease to be a problem for you in the coming decades.
thesometimesaint Posted October 25, 2013 Posted October 25, 2013 Not to worry that should cease to be a problem for you in the coming decades. I worry about my kids and grandkids. Me not so much.
Stone holm Posted October 25, 2013 Author Posted October 25, 2013 I worry about my kids and grandkids. Me not so much. Actually, there are some in Vermont especially those in agriculture trying to adapt to the changes and future crops -- the situation is already causing a lot of uncertainty in the maple production. Except for Maine, New England has pretty much lost lobster production -- Maine is experiencing a boom in lobster production, but they are expecting it to go into decline and vanish, there is apparently something about the warmer water that wipes them out.
thesometimesaint Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Vermont maple syrup and Maine lobster. Yummm. The next 50 years or so are going to be real interesting.
ERayR Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Actually, there are some in Vermont especially those in agriculture trying to adapt to the changes and future crops -- the situation is already causing a lot of uncertainty in the maple production. Except for Maine, New England has pretty much lost lobster production -- Maine is experiencing a boom in lobster production, but they are expecting it to go into decline and vanish, there is apparently something about the warmer water that wipes them out. Not an unusual thing. From what I understand it has happened many times before. It is my understanding the Sahara desert used to be a well water area.
Stone holm Posted October 26, 2013 Author Posted October 26, 2013 Not an unusual thing. From what I understand it has happened many times before. It is my understanding the Sahara desert used to be a well water area.Don't know, but it certainly hasn't been for a longtime, but then our gr gr grandchildren may some day say the same of much of Southern United States.
ERayR Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 Don't know, but it certainly hasn't been for a longtime, but then our gr gr grandchildren may some day say the same of much of Southern United States. The point being that without the help of man the world has gone through some pretty dramatic climate changes and a very large part of the perceived present changes are natural changes and not man caused. It appears that one of the big causes is Pacific Ocean volcanic activity. (el Nino, el Nina)
thesometimesaint Posted October 26, 2013 Posted October 26, 2013 The point being that without the help of man the world has gone through some pretty dramatic climate changes and a very large part of the perceived present changes are natural changes and not man caused. It appears that one of the big causes is Pacific Ocean volcanic activity. (el Nino, el Nina) No one doubts that the earth has undergone significant climatic changes over the last 4.5 Billions of years of its existance. It is now the RATE of change with man's pumping of billion of tons of CO2 into our air that is causing problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4BJDwI8zSk#t=196 No it is not volcanoes that are the cause. There is a natural variabilty in ocean heat. What man is doing is adding additional heat into that natural variability.
Stone holm Posted October 27, 2013 Author Posted October 27, 2013 The point being that without the help of man the world has gone through some pretty dramatic climate changes and a very large part of the perceived present changes are natural changes and not man caused. It appears that one of the big causes is Pacific Ocean volcanic activity. (el Nino, el Nina)Yes, we know about ice ages and their opposites, the problem is we are accelerating and perhaps making permanent an overheated period that is not going to play out well for a lot of people. Once the perma frost starts melting with its methane release things are gonna get ugly. This should be a conservative issue.
ERayR Posted October 27, 2013 Posted October 27, 2013 (edited) Yes, we know about ice ages and their opposites, the problem is we are accelerating and perhaps making permanent an overheated period that is not going to play out well for a lot of people. Once the perma frost starts melting with its methane release things are gonna get ugly. This should be a conservative issue.Pardon me if I don't overly concerned by what apears to be a cyclical phenomena being exploited for a few to make a great deal of money. Edited October 27, 2013 by ERayR
Recommended Posts