Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Whether life evolved here or came from a different planet that wouldn't have the slightest effect on Evolution. Again you are putting the cart before the horse. Evolution doesn't care whether life was created by God or natural processes. Evolution is simply how life changed once it was here. BTW. I didn't call anyone here an imbecile. The DSM defines imbeciles as those persons with mental abilities less than 70 IQ points. I seriously doubt scientists, in general or specific, would fall under that definition.It certainly doesn't show then if they are incapable of allowing possibility that life originated from an intelligent source!
Rob Osborn Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 That is what science does. Designs experiments to test whether their hypothesis is correct or not. That by definition is science. For the last 150 years science has been try to disprove evolution. None have done it yet.Its not that we haven't proven evolution is false, its the fact that we have yet to even prove it is true! (in context of man evolving from a lower species)
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 There is a major issue with "how" and "why" life came into existence on this planet. If science wishes to delve into this study they "must" keep open the option that life may indeed have been brought here from another place in the universe by an intelligent process capable of possessing traits like or similar to how we define true intelligence. If science is not willing to accept this possibility then they are nothing but imbeciles. If they likewise state that nothing "intelligent" could have been the cause for life coming into existence, then they again are nothing but imbeciles. Thus-Science, by definition, MUST include the possibility that life may have arisen in an intelligent process by design by an intelligent entity, force, law, etc.There is a logical expectation, based on factuality, that life on earth could have been planted here by a space traveling higher intelligence. The expectation for this possibility is founded in the facts that 1 The human race lives in and occupies a part of the universe. 2. The human race is intelligent and is capable of carrying life forms (including themselves) to regions in space beyond the bounds of earth's atmosphere.3. The human race is even now capable of projecting earthly life forms (including themselves) into regions of space beyond the earth's gravitational field.5. Because the human race lives in and occupies part of the universe, this establishes a precedent that other intelligent life forms may also exist in other parts of the universe. 6. Because man continually progresses technologically, other intelligent life forms elsewhere in the universe may be more technologically advanced than man.7. These more technologically advanced life forms may have the ability to travel even further into space than man has heretofore been able to do, and as they travel they may also carry other life forms in tow.8. Because earth is part of the universe and is capable of sustaining life as we know it, there may be other parts within the universe that could sustain life as we know it.9. As a consequence of the above, it's not beyond the realm of possibility there may be other parts of the universe capable of sustaining life that might also be reachable by space travel.10 The above being the case, said space travelers could carry transplantable life forms to other parts of the universe believed to be capable of sustaining the transplanted life forms.11 Said technologically advanced space travelers might then transplant life forms from their part of the universe into another part of the universe with the full expectation that life as they know it might flourish in this other part of the universe.12 Based on the above, It's not beyond the realm of possibility that these transplanted life forms we planted and actually did flourish in another part of the common universe.
Freedom Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Its not that we haven't proven evolution is false, its the fact that we have yet to even prove it is true! (in context of man evolving from a lower species) If you factor in the possibility of magic, we have not proven it true. For that matter, we have not proven that oil is under the ground. It could just be showing up by magic when ever people drill down.
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 If you factor in the possibility of magic, we have not proven it true. For that matter, we have not proven that oil is under the ground. It could just be showing up by magic when ever people drill down.Miracles are not magic. The sarcasm on this point digs you into a whole. Here's why:Was it magic when Jesus turned water into wine or created water and wine for the Nephite sacrament service? I'm sure there are millions upon millions of humans who would derisively laugh at and mock these miracles. Would you find their dismissiveness hasty and unwise? We are told that billions of former inhabitants of this planet, whose bodies have now gone back to dust, are all one day going to be raised from the dead bodily, into glorious immortality. This feat makes the creation scenarios you mock look like child's play by comparison. But I'll bet you think it's all just peachy keen. And I bet you won't make a mockery of it by saying it's magic. They say people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The creation miracles God is going to employ when He creates the new heaven and the new earth are precisely the kinds "unbelievable" things you mock. Don't you realize that many men and women are going to inherit celestial bodies in a mere instant and that it won't take millions of years to evolve organically to reach that state. This is creation, even the creation of the new heaven and earth on the eighth day; the very kind of miraculous creation dynamic you dismiss and mock regularly on this board. But I bet you swallow it like honey.
Stone holm Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Miracles are not magic. The sarcasm on this point digs you into a whole. Here's why:Was it magic when Jesus turned water into wine or created water and wine for the Nephite sacrament service? I'm sure there are millions upon millions of humans who would derisively laugh at and mock these miracles. Would you find their dismissiveness hasty and unwise? We are told that billions of former inhabitants of this planet, whose bodies have now gone back to dust, are all one day going to be raised from the dead bodily, into glorious immortality. This feat makes the creation scenarios you mock look like child's play by comparison. But I'll bet you think it's all just peachy keen. And I bet you won't make a mockery of it by saying it's magic. They say people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The creation miracles God is going to employ when He creates the new heaven and the new earth are precisely the kinds "unbelievable" things you mock. Don't you realize that many men and women are going to inherit celestial bodies in a mere instant and that it won't take millions of years to evolve organically to reach that state. This is creation, even the creation of the new heaven and earth on the eighth day; the very kind of miraculous creation dynamic you dismiss and mock regularly on this board. But I bet you swallow it like honey. Why are we so demeaning to Magic? I see magic as being essentially the same as miracles, both simply manipulate matter using an understanding of laws that we do not yet understand, or have forgotten. When the magicians threw down sticks which turned into snakes, and then Aaron's rod turned into a bigger snake? Were the snakes any less snakes depending on whether Aaron through down the stick or the magicians? Its just that Aaron was set up to create a bigger and better snake. So turning water to wine, yeah that's a pretty neat magic trick.
teddyaware Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Why are we so demeaning to Magic? I see magic as being essentially the same as miracles, both simply manipulate matter using an understanding of laws that we do not yet understand, or have forgotten. When the magicians threw down sticks which turned into snakes, and then Aaron's rod turned into a bigger snake? Were the snakes any less snakes depending on whether Aaron through down the stick or the magicians? Its just that Aaron was set up to create a bigger and better snake. So turning water to wine, yeah that's a pretty neat magic trick.LOL! Touche! I wonder if a teenage boy was there when the water was turned to wine and he said, "that's so COOOOOOOL!"
CMZ Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 In my opinion, Isaac Asimov's, "Foundation Trillogy" is the best description of overall history of the universe that exists in Man's world. It is at times wordy and boring, and now is in 6 parts, not 3. His model, I think, fits right into Mormon theology. It seems likely that in the beginning, material out in the universe somehow achieved a logical network and later became sentient. Perhaps this sentient being eventually made habitable planets and then made its self a physical body. One of my issues with LDS theology is that we believe that God "is" flesh and bone, while I believe that God "can be" flesh and bone, else how could he exist in space, traveling planet to planet. As to our being created exclusively Male and Female another poster has postulated an interesting theory that we were that way in the Garden of Eden, but since the fall our bodies have fallen prey to entropy, and even our genetic structure has begun to fail, though it will probably last til Christ's return. I don't have a problem with God being flesh and bone and traveling through space. I'm sure somebody could talk about wormholes and other such things. I'm not pre-eminently qualified in this area. And, yes, our spirits are either male or female but in our fallen mortal world some people will have bodies that do not clearly express the eternal gender of their spirit.
EllenMaksoud Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 I don't have a problem with God being flesh and bone and traveling through space. I'm sure somebody could talk about wormholes and other such things. I'm not pre-eminently qualified in this area. And, yes, our spirits are either male or female but in our fallen mortal world some people will have bodies that do not clearly express the eternal gender of their spirit.I've seen too many folk who are born very messed up physically and mentally. It is not for me to judge a single soul, but to follow the example of Jesus Christ and love others. The Mormons taught me that.
CMZ Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 I've seen too many folk who are born very messed up physically and mentally. It is not for me to judge a single soul, but to follow the example of Jesus Christ and love others. The Mormons taught me that. That seems to go along with what I said.
EllenMaksoud Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 That seems to go along with what I said.Yes, it does. I was about to quote:"We cannot know God", but surprise, surprise it is not in the Bible. Hmmmm So, perhaps within the limits of our ignorance we can increasingly know God. Lord, help my ignorance.
CMZ Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) "It is the first principle of the gospel to know the character of God." "And this is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true and living God." (decent paraphrases until I can look up the exact quotes) I think people are going to have to start recognizing that perfect spirits are often born into imperfect bodies, including ones where the outward body doesn't give the proper indication as to what gender that person's spirit is. None of this goes against the Proclamation. Its statement about gender being eternal still remains intact and true. Edited January 17, 2014 by CMZ
Stone holm Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 LOL! Touche! I wonder if a teenage boy was there when the water was turned to wine and he said, "that's so COOOOOOOL!"Heck, teenage boy not required, I would say pretty cool as well especially if The Lord said drink up shortly thereafter. Many believe it was His own wedding.
teddyaware Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Heck, teenage boy not required, I would say pretty cool as well especially if The Lord said drink up shortly thereafter. Many believe it was His own wedding. And as far as fine wines go, I'll bet ya it was really good stuff!
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 I won't be oxymoronic for long, because God is the ultimate creation scientist. I eagerly await that time.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 It certainly doesn't show then if they are incapable of allowing possibility that life originated from an intelligent source! Evolution doesn't care where life came from once it was here. To date there is not one scintilla of physical evidence that life as we know it came for somewhere else. Simple organic compounds are found in comets, and asteroids, but nothing remotely approaching life as we know it. It is past time you put away your fantasies of little green men as the source of life on this planet.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Evolution doesn't care where life came from once it was here. To date there is not one scintilla of physical evidence that life as we know it came for somewhere else. Simple organic compounds are found in comets, and asteroids, but nothing remotely approaching life as we know it. It is past time you put away your fantasies of little green men as the source of life on this planet.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_menTo date there not one scintilla of evidence that life emerged on this earth without some intelligent force guiding or creating it.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 To date there not one scintilla of evidence that life emerged on this earth without some intelligent force guiding or creating it. SEE Supernaturalhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural
wenglund Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 From the scientific world a eyewitness account is the least trustworthy of evidence. I thought science was based predominately, if not almost exclusively, on what is observable/witness through the five human senses--including eyes. Evidently, seeing isn't believing. Maybe science relies more on what we smell and feel. Who knows? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 SEE Supernaturalhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernaturalMy God isn't supernatural nor does he work by supernatural means. I equate this to scientists working in the lab- they too are creating or modifying life not using any supernatural methods. If they can create or modify life, who isn't to say someone else in the universe did that too on this earth? You may never get that...
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 My God isn't supernatural nor does he work by supernatural means. I equate this to scientists working in the lab- they too are creating or modifying life not using any supernatural methods. If they can create or modify life, who isn't to say someone else in the universe did that too on this earth? You may never get that... So you have your own special definition of words now.SEE Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 I thought science was based predominately, if not almost exclusively, on what is observable/witness through the five human senses--including eyes. Evidently, seeing isn't believing. Maybe science relies more on what we smell and feel. Who knows? Thanks, -Wade Englund- Not really. We use equipment to "see" what is not readily apparent. IE: No one has ever seen a germ with the unaided human eye. But we fully accept the Germ Theory of disease. Also no one has ever "smelled" pure oxygen. It has no smell, but human life as we know it wouldn't exist without it. Likewise no one has ever seen an electron, but our entire modern world in built upon the idea of electrons. Interestingly some 96% of the universe is composed of stuff we can't see or measure, but we do see(measure) its effects.
Rob Osborn Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 So you have your own special definition of words now. SEE Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself. What double standard are you referring to? I have never believed in the supernatural. I believe in God who has worked within scientific means (remember that my science requires facts and observation) to create and bring life to the earth.
Stone holm Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 Evolution doesn't care where life came from once it was here. To date there is not one scintilla of physical evidence that life as we know it came for somewhere else. Simple organic compounds are found in comets, and asteroids, but nothing remotely approaching life as we know it. It is past time you put away your fantasies of little green men as the source of life on this planet.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_menWho said they were green? None of the ones I have seen are green. Michelle Bachman isn't green, Glenn Beck isn't green.
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2014 Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) Who said they were green? None of the ones I have seen are green. Michelle Bachman isn't green, Glenn Beck isn't green. I question if those two are really human, but that is a different type of question. But more seriously "little green men" is a term used to explain the supernatural. If I don't know how nature did it, it must be "little green men". Edited January 18, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Recommended Posts