Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 "No Death before the Fall" But the church does not have an official position. We now know that mainstream science is correct about Native American DNA, the first Presidency approved the new essay. We dont know anything about mainstream science on Native American DNA. We have no idea just exactly who all the different groups who inhabited the Americas were. We know some of them were from the middle east but beyond that we have no idea. We also have no idea who may have come from other areas on the globe.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Look up "temporal" in dictionary- of or pertaining to time. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.Micro-evolution=variation within speciesMany micro-evolution=more variation within species.The problem is that there is no actual proof that these small changes lead to entirely new and different species over very long periods of time. Its all conjecture.You should say types of animals in stead of new or different species. New species? Well that does seem to happen. When was the last time they found a new type of animal or plant though? You always see these reports of "All these new species of spiders". Well they are still spiders.
strappinglad Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Crocodiles are no such thing. They are just supremely well adapted to their environment. There is a reason we don't find Crocodiles in the wilds of Alaska. Well we do find these cuddly little fellows and others which roamed the place before those nasty humans ruined the climate. http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/new-dinosaur-cousin-of-t-rex-discovered-in-arctic-1.2570982
Anijen Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 We dont know anything about mainstream science on Native American DNA. We have no idea just exactly who all the different groups who inhabited the Americas were. We know some of them were from the middle east but beyond that we have no idea. We also have no idea who may have come from other areas on the globe.So you believe there was migration to America, but no way did some of that migration was via the Berengia land mass?
Calm Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) When was the last time they found a new type of animal or plant though? Kind of both... http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/new-meat-eating-plant-species-found-japan Some more: http://www.ibtimes.com/13-coolest-new-species-discovered-2013-chocolate-frogs-walking-sharks-glue-spitting-velvet-worms Edited April 28, 2014 by calmoriah
thesometimesaint Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Mere conjecture. It would be very nice to be an evolutionist and just make things up on the fly. Please point out where to find crocodiles in the wilds of Alaska.
The Nehor Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 How about if the Church had our Father asking our Lord if Man was on this planet along with all existing life already on this planet after our Lord and Michael had created this planet, with our Lord saying No to that question, and then had our Lord and Michael come down to this planet to put Man on this planet with Michael having his name changed to Adam.Hmmmmm..... would that do it for you? Cute, I have a rebuttal for it but I would have to break covenants to give it so I can't.
thesometimesaint Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Well we do find these cuddly little fellows and others which roamed the place before those nasty humans ruined the climate.http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/new-dinosaur-cousin-of-t-rex-discovered-in-arctic-1.2570982 Sense the earth is only 7000 years old Noah must have rode around on the coconut eating ones.http://www.science20.com/fish_feet/t_rex_ate_coconuts
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) Kind of interesting that it wasn't until after they had eaten the fruit that the skins were made. It was said that they would fall when they ate of the tree. So perhaps the world was already in a fallen condition at that point.Yes, that is of course the answer and makes sense for traditionalists. On that view, I suppose the earth changed after Adam (Eve? Both?) ate the fruit. Interestingly then, when God appeared to them, the world was already in a fallen state. So why did God ask Jehovah "Is man found on the earth?" before the creation of man, when he obviously knew already? What do you think the reason was? This is not a trap or anything- I would just like to know what a traditionalist might think about that one. For the record I am not in any way opposed to your position incidentally, I just think it is another way to see something that I see differently. You follow one model, I follow another. Edited April 28, 2014 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) "problem is that there is no actual proof that these small changes lead to entirely new and different species" What do you expect? A crocoduck? Of course you won't find a half duck and half crocodile, but you find small changes in the fossil record and DNA evidence. Can you name a single modern Biologist or Paleontologist doctor that does not believe in Evolution (except a Christian fundamentalist)? How about a Mormon? Seminary manual"the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation." (p. 280)I think we need to be aware that Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we presently have to explain the data, but we need to understand that spirituality has nothing to do with facts. Darwinian evolution works better than any other scientific explanation, but surely it is not a complete account of all the details of "what really happened" So even the seminary manual is off. It implies that there "were" "periods of creation". Nobody knows that. Nobody knows what the "actual age" of the earth is. To know that would require knowing the speed of rotation of the earth and exactly now long a "year" was while the glob that was the early earth was getting hit by objects etc- IF even that is a correct model of the earth's evolution. Saying that the earth even has an "actual age" implies that theoretically you could say that the earth sprang into existence on Thursday the 6th of April, in the year 7 billion 384 million 758 thousand 927 years ago at 2 Pm. There IS no "actual age" of the earth- because it is all based on our present understanding of time, which doesn't even make sense when a rotation of the earth was not 24 "hours" or when the earth took more or less than 365 "days" in a "year". It is in principle impossible to define the "actual age of the earth" since all those words rely on definitions which do not even apply. We do not have a perfect record of every cell division which ever happened in "history" and therefore we do not know for absolutely sure what "laws" every single cell division followed, or if God repeatedly influenced what was happening. It's all just words ultimately, and how you want to see the data. So it isn't that Rob is "wrong" and it's not that the scientific view is "wrong". You just have to look at both ways of seeing the world, and understand how each operates to explain the data, and which works best in your understanding of how the world works. No one can do better than that. Edited April 28, 2014 by mfbukowski
Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 So you believe there was migration to America, but no way did some of that migration was via the Berengia land mass? Im not saying one way or another on if there was a migration over a land bridge to the Americas. I don't believe there was any migrations before some 4500 years ago (flood). What I am saying is that we can't be sure on who came when or where over the years, especially after the BoM times in roughly 400ad. We also can't be sure on if the Nephites and Lamanites traded with the far east using ships and thus how their DNA is here. There are too many unknowns. But to just say it was because they came over on a land bridge some 20,000 years ago is ridiculous.
Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 You should say types of animals in stead of new or different species. New species? Well that does seem to happen. When was the last time they found a new type of animal or plant though? You always see these reports of "All these new species of spiders". Well they are still spiders.Okay, I see your point. Let me clarify- Just because we share 50% similarities in DNA with a banana does not mean we came from the same ancestor.
Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Please point out where to find crocodiles in the wilds of Alaska.Please point out why we see no real transitional fossils. All we see in the fossil record are either fossils that are pretty much identical to their living ones (such as crocodiles and not to forget the famous Caelocanth) or ones that are long extinct.
The Nehor Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Okay, I see your point. Let me clarify- Just because we share 50% similarities in DNA with a banana does not mean we came from the same ancestor. Nor does it mean we did not. Possible joint ancestor:
Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Nor does it mean we did not. Possible joint ancestor: Yeah...not really seeing it, heh heh.Funny toon though...So how is it that we can share 50% of our DNA with a banana and yet not be anywhere even close to 50% similar?
The Nehor Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Yeah...not really seeing it, heh heh.Funny toon though...So how is it that we can share 50% of our DNA with a banana and yet not be anywhere even close to 50% similar? You are judging entirely by external appearance not being 50% similar. A lot of genetics is DNA telling our cells how to live and survive which is remarkably similar in all life.
MormonFreeThinker Posted April 28, 2014 Author Posted April 28, 2014 Yeah...not really seeing it, heh heh.Funny toon though...So how is it that we can share 50% of our DNA with a banana and yet not be anywhere even close to 50% similar? "ot be anywhere even close to 50% similar" I think its less than 50% of our DNA, but ironically your argument refutes your previous arguments.
mfbukowski Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Yeah...not really seeing it, heh heh.Funny toon though...So how is it that we can share 50% of our DNA with a banana and yet not be anywhere even close to 50% similar?Explanation 1: God made us as a special creation Explanation 2: God turned certain genes on and off during development of the different organisms. Our speech ability is governed by the same genes that govern the songs of birds, but are turned on and off at different times during development of the organisms. Explanation 3: God has nothing to do with it. Genes randomly developed and turned on and off randomly, some organisms survived, others didn't. Viola! Monkeys typing Shakespeare. None of the three are perfect explanations of all the reasonable possibilities. This is a VERY complicated world.
Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Explanation 1: God made us as a special creation Explanation 2: God turned certain genes on and off during development of the different organisms. Our speech ability is governed by the same genes that govern the songs of birds, but are turned on and off at different times during development of the organisms. Explanation 3: God has nothing to do with it. Genes randomly developed and turned on and off randomly, some organisms survived, others didn't. Viola! Monkeys typing Shakespeare. None of the three are perfect explanations of all the reasonable possibilities. This is a VERY complicated world.Explanation #4 God created, or caused to continue the pre-existing seeds, of all the different kinds of species and that the reason why we share similarities in DNA is because we share a common designer who understands biology and how important it is for all life forms to use the same program.
Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 "ot be anywhere even close to 50% similar" I think its less than 50% of our DNA, but ironically your argument refutes your previous arguments. Every evolutionist wants to compare Chimp DNA with human DNA showing a 90+% similarity but yet when it comes to bananas the same logic doesn't add up.
Rob Osborn Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 You are judging entirely by external appearance not being 50% similar. A lot of genetics is DNA telling our cells how to live and survive which is remarkably similar in all life.So then, why do they use the same comparison with Chimps and Humans showing external similarities?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Okay, I see your point. Let me clarify- Just because we share 50% similarities in DNA with a banana does not mean we came from the same ancestor.Yeah I agree with that. I could see creation being done in steps using the same components and building on each other.
Ahab Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 I think we need to be aware that Darwinian evolution is the best explanation we presently have to explain the data, but we need to understand that spirituality has nothing to do with facts. Darwinian evolution works better than any other scientific explanation, but surely it is not a complete account of all the details of "what really happened"Where do you get the idea that Darwinian evolution makes more sense than the idea that God brought the ancestors for every kind of being to this planet, including 2 of our kind, and that every kind simply reproduced after its own kind?That is the most straightforward way to do it, and the way I will do it when it's my turn to create a planet. Why wait millions of years when you could do it in just a few days?So even the seminary manual is off. It implies that there "were" "periods of creation". Nobody knows that.Think of each day's events as different periods of creation. Nobody knows what the "actual age" of the earth is. To know that would require knowing the speed of rotation of the earth and exactly now long a "year" was while the glob that was the early earth was getting hit by objects etc- IF even that is a correct model of the earth's evolution.Saying that the earth even has an "actual age" implies that theoretically you could say that the earth sprang into existence on Thursday the 6th of April, in the year 7 billion 384 million 758 thousand 927 years ago at 2 Pm.There IS no "actual age" of the earth- because it is all based on our present understanding of time, which doesn't even make sense when a rotation of the earth was not 24 "hours" or when the earth took more or less than 365 "days" in a "year".It is in principle impossible to define the "actual age of the earth" since all those words rely on definitions which do not even apply.I think it helps to know that God didn't need to start from scratch, or nothing, when creating this planet.We do not have a perfect record of every cell division which ever happened in "history" and therefore we do not know for absolutely sure what "laws" every single cell division followed, or if God repeatedly influenced what was happening.Each kind reproducing or perpetuating its own kind is enough for us to understand at this point, I think. And knowing that plants and animals can't transport themselves through outer space kinda helps us to know they need some help getting from planet to planet if they are ever going to be spread out from planet to planet.It's all just words ultimately, and how you want to see the data. So it isn't that Rob is "wrong" and it's not that the scientific view is "wrong".You just have to look at both ways of seeing the world, and understand how each operates to explain the data, and which works best in your understanding of how the world works.No one can do better than that.Yeppers. We each can only do the best we can with what we have to work with.
cdowis Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 (edited) So then, why do they use the same comparison with Chimps and Humans showing external similarities?For the same reason that a lawnmower engine has many of the same characteristics of a jet engine. A designer uses the same/similar designs to get similar functional results. The same evidence of similarity of DNA between chimp and man supports evolution also supports the notion of an intelligent designer. We find striking similarities, I understand, between the DNA of the bovine and the whale. Edited April 28, 2014 by cdowis 1
ERayR Posted April 28, 2014 Posted April 28, 2014 Crocodiles are no such thing. They are just supremely well adapted to their environment. There is a reason we don't find Crocodiles in the wilds of Alaska. You don't find polar bears in the tropical forest either but that neither proves or disproves macro-evolution. All it is evidence of is they tend to prefer the environment they are adapted to. (micro-evolution)
Recommended Posts