thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 "Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground" We're actually closer to ancient sea water. But the symbolism works for me.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I like Scott Adams' (the creator of Dilbert) take on this: http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/proof_almost_of_intelligent_design/ That just puts evolution back one stage. As to the space travel thing, the organic molecules necessary for life are pretty common though out the universe.
longview Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 There are still many unanswered questions, but all Mormon PhD Biologists, Geneticists, and Paleontologists agree that Evolution is a fact, because there are "smoking guns"I am curious about this issue. However I am not a expert researcher nor do I have the ability nor the time to dig out this kind of information. It would require an extensive survey. Do you have a reference to some surveys?But I seriously doubt your absolutist claim of "ALL". Do you believe some of them are open to the possibility of the earth being cobbled together with fragments from other dead planets or if it was formed out gaseous clouds? What if God could show you a completely different scenario? I am still waiting for your documented, unabiguous reference to a "smoking gun". Please name me one Mormon PhD Biologist, Geneticist, or Paleontologist that doesn't believe in Evolution.Not sure how to do this. I tried searching on mormonscholarstestify.org and found one that was/is a geophysicist by the name of Jeffery Wynn. But that page contains his testimony without going into his opinions of the creation process. "But none that distinctly shows new features in one creature that it did not have" My challenge first, name me one Mormon PhD Biologist that doesn't believe in Evolution. Even Young Earth Creationists (like AnswersinGenesis) agree that Evolution happens. They believe that "the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances"I am sure that most would accept the concept of "Natural Selection" (or micro evolution). Your reference pointed to a general site. Could you please do us a favor and provide the specific names and profession of particular individuals and their beliefs. I can't read your mind. How about Jawless Fish to Jawed Vertebrate? Shuyu, Internal cranial anatomy very similar to the anatomy seen in basal jawed vertebrates.Sounds very interesting. Please provide specific references. Thanks. "DNA science is still in its infancy."If DNA science is useless, why did the church say "What seems clear is that the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples likely represented only a fraction of all DNA in ancient America"Again, please provide specific references. With DNA evidence scientists can know who you are related to, and can identify a person So DNA science is only useful for the things you like, Cherry Picking.Why are you arguing? We both know that in courts of law, the evidence of DNA in particular cases are stated as a percentage of probability within a population. In other words, not absolute. There is still much more to learn about mapping of the genome and continued development of tools for examining parts. Plenty of questions to be asked, such as: Does God use DNA as a programming tool? How did the RNA within the cell develop its ability to convey "messages" between the DNA strand and the amino acid manufacturing sites? Is it even conceivable that evolution could bring this about? Which came first? The amazing cell or some other soupy entity? So many questions, so far, no "smoking gun", the science is definitely not "settled".
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I am curious about this issue. However I am not a expert researcher nor do I have the ability nor the time to dig out this kind of information. It would require an extensive survey. Do you have a reference to some surveys?But I seriously doubt your absolutist claim of "ALL". Do you believe some of them are open to the possibility of the earth being cobbled together with fragments from other dead planets or if it was formed out gaseous clouds? What if God could show you a completely different scenario? I am still waiting for your documented, unabiguous reference to a "smoking gun". Not sure how to do this. I tried searching on mormonscholarstestify.org and found one that was/is a geophysicist by the name of Jeffery Wynn. But that page contains his testimony without going into his opinions of the creation process. I am sure that most would accept the concept of "Natural Selection" (or micro evolution). Your reference pointed to a general site. Could you please do us a favor and provide the specific names and profession of particular individuals and their beliefs. I can't read your mind. Sounds very interesting. Please provide specific references. Thanks. Again, please provide specific references. Why are you arguing? We both know that in courts of law, the evidence of DNA in particular cases are stated as a percentage of probability within a population. In other words, not absolute. There is still much more to learn about mapping of the genome and continued development of tools for examining parts. Plenty of questions to be asked, such as: Does God use DNA as a programming tool? How did the RNA within the cell develop its ability to convey "messages" between the DNA strand and the amino acid manufacturing sites? Is it even conceivable that evolution could bring this about? Which came first? The amazing cell or some other soupy entity? So many questions, so far, no "smoking gun", the science is definitely not "settled". Undoubtedly there are a very few that do not accept evolution as the best answer for how life changed over time on our planet. Whether God was involved or not is a different question unanswerable from science. Individual scientist are free to believe or not believe as is their choice. Micro and Macro Evolution are exactly the same thing. Without going really deep into the science. It is process of exclusion. We eliminate all proposed DNA donors until we get to the most likely donor. IE; Some have claimed that certain people were the offspring of JS. So far no such link has been proven by DNA studies of the proposed offspring. Jawless to jawed. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7360/full/nature10276.html DNA The Church and American Indians.https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng God is outside the realm of science. But as a religious person and a scientist I see no reason that he couldn't. SEE Meiosis, Mitosis, and replication of RNA in lab.Meiosis: Mitosis: RNA in Lab: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100222162009.htm The fact that it did is proof of evolution. Whether life came from some primordial soup, from space, or God doesn't effect the evidence for evolution.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Whether life came from some primordial soup, from space, or God doesn't effect the evidence for evolution. Yup. What I think is going on is that some people can't square their understanding of evolution with their understanding of God. That's fine, but it doesn't affect the evidence in favor of evolution. As I said, I used to think that Joseph Fielding Smith was absolutely right when he said that evolution was incompatible with church doctrine. I no longer think that, and most Mormons I know don't think that way, either. I eventually decided that maybe my understanding of how God works wasn't entirely right, and I was limiting God by insisting that He had to act in a certain way.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 I am curious about this issue. However I am not a expert researcher nor do I have the ability nor the time to dig out this kind of information. It would require an extensive survey. Do you have a reference to some surveys?But I seriously doubt your absolutist claim of "ALL". Do you believe some of them are open to the possibility of the earth being cobbled together with fragments from other dead planets or if it was formed out gaseous clouds? What if God could show you a completely different scenario? I am still waiting for your documented, unabiguous reference to a "smoking gun". Not sure how to do this. I tried searching on mormonscholarstestify.org and found one that was/is a geophysicist by the name of Jeffery Wynn. But that page contains his testimony without going into his opinions of the creation process. A geophysicist is not an expert in Biology, Biology - "The study of living organisms" and not an expert in Paleontology, Paleontology - "The branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants." I am sure there are some Mormon scientists that don't believe in Evolution, but probably no Mormon PhD Biologists or Paleontologist denies Evolution.I can name many Mormon PhD Biologists, Genetics, and Paleontologists that believe in Evolution. For example Dr. Ugo A. Perego (PhD in Genetics)Dr. Perego wrote “Mitochondrial DNA: a female perspective in recent human origin and evolution” (in Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities, 2010); Dr. T. Heath Ogden (PhD in Biology)He wrote, "all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden Dr. Wade E. Miller (PhD In Paleontology) contributed to a paper in a Evolutionary Biology Journalhttp://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/evolutionary-biology/dinosaur-tracks-and-traces Survey"Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism."http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html Ken Ham, President of AnswersinGenesis believes that " word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances." Ken Ham believes in Evolution in the Family Level, that is Macro-Evolution. Ken denies that he believes in Macro-Evolution, but he doesn't understand that Evolution in the family level is Macro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution = New species.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Yup. What I think is going on is that some people can't square their understanding of evolution with their understanding of God. That's fine, but it doesn't affect the evidence in favor of evolution. As I said, I used to think that Joseph Fielding Smith was absolutely right when he said that evolution was incompatible with church doctrine. I no longer think that, and most Mormons I know don't think that way, either. I eventually decided that maybe my understanding of how God works wasn't entirely right, and I was limiting God by insisting that He had to act in a certain way. Einstein was famous partly for his claim that "God doesn't play dice with the universe". The retort by Neils Bohr was "Stop telling God what to do".
USU78 Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 God is outside the realm of science. Could not disagree more. G-d is the Author of all TRVTH. Science can achieve truth, and sometimes approximates TRVTH. To claim that Manunkind has carved out a portion of G-d's Creation that is wholly his, and of which he says to G-d, "Thus far and no farther" is the pinochle of arrogance. And I don't believe you really think that.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Could not disagree more. G-d is the Author of all TRVTH. Science can achieve truth, and sometimes approximates TRVTH. To claim that Manunkind has carved out a portion of G-d's Creation that is wholly his, and of which he says to G-d, "Thus far and no farther" is the pinochle of arrogance. And I don't believe you really think that. Hmmm. I always thought that the admission that science can say nothing for or against God to be an admission of humility, not the "pinochle" of arrogance. (Sorry, but I'm giggling at the thought of God playing cards with my MIL, whose favorite game was Pinochle). Science is about explaining observable phenomena through repeatable experimentation. God, by nature, exists outside of observable, repeatable experimentation, which is why we say God is outside the realm of science. If he were within the realm of science, we could just perform experiments to prove or disprove His existence. That's not possible. I thought most people understood that.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Could not disagree more. G-d is the Author of all TRVTH. Science can achieve truth, and sometimes approximates TRVTH. To claim that Manunkind has carved out a portion of G-d's Creation that is wholly his, and of which he says to G-d, "Thus far and no farther" is the pinochle of arrogance. And I don't believe you really think that. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Einstein was famous partly for his claim that "God doesn't play dice with the universe". The retort by Neils Bohr was "Stop telling God what to do". As a Mormon, I was always taught that God worked within the eternal laws of the universe. If that's so, it's entirely possible that evolution is one of the laws of the universe that He must follow.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 As a Mormon, I was always taught that God worked within the eternal laws of the universe. If that's so, it's entirely possible that evolution is one of the laws of the universe that He must follow. Agreed.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 All life has a common ancestor. What exactly that common ancestor looked like is what is unknown at this time.SEE Argument from Ignorancehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceSEE God of the Gaps So, you are arguing from ignorance the point that all life has a common ancestor- we can't prove it didn't happen on the one hand so on the other hand it must be true. Its funny that you stated before that perhaps life emerged from several different sources but then you change it later to say that all life did have a common ancestor. This is what troubles me most about evolutionary theory- they have no clue on how life first evolved. All we have a record of is the cambrian explosion where life shows up fully formed. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not good at explaining anything I am coming to find out. That whole video is basically his rambling about nothing and bringing up old arguments that intelligent people in todays society do not bring up. None of his arguments even apply to any of my beliefs. So what was your point in linking it? Let me ask- since when have I ever said- "hum, not sure how it could of happened, oh well, God must have did it". Thats a ridiculous belief and no one I know who espouses the ID theory believes such thing.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 All life has a common ancestor. What exactly that common ancestor looked like is what is unknown at this time.SEE Argument from Ignorancehttp://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignoranceSEE God of the Gaps So, you are arguing from ignorance the point that all life has a common ancestor- we can't prove it didn't happen on the one hand so on the other hand it must be true. Its funny that you stated before that perhaps life emerged from several different sources but then you change it later to say that all life did have a common ancestor. This is what troubles me most about evolutionary theory- they have no clue on how life first evolved. All we have a record of is the cambrian explosion where life shows up fully formed. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not good at explaining anything I am coming to find out. That whole video is basically his rambling about nothing and bringing up old arguments that intelligent people in todays society do not bring up. None of his arguments even apply to any of my beliefs. So what was your point in linking it? Let me ask- since when have I ever said- "hum, not sure how it could of happened, oh well, God must have did it". Thats a ridiculous belief and no one I know who espouses the ID theory believes such thing.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not good at explaining anything I am coming to find out. That whole video is basically his rambling about nothing and bringing up old arguments that intelligent people in todays society do not bring up. None of his arguments even apply to any of my beliefs. So what was your point in linking it? Let me ask- since when have I ever said- "hum, not sure how it could of happened, oh well, God must have did it". Thats a ridiculous belief and no one I know who espouses the ID theory believes such thing. So, if life sprang from intelligent design, how did it happen and when?
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) It actually proves my point that they cannot figure out when, how or what on the emergence of life. The intriguing part is that they have to acknowledge that at some point life came from something nonliving. That to me seems like a paradox. I mean what was it? So lets go back and live in the early 19th Century and not be able to explain how the orbits of planets stay stable. Edited June 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 People who believe God created us also believe that at some point life came from something nonliving. Why is that a paradox?No, we believe that life only comes from life. Life is not capable of coming from a process that does not involve life preceding it.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 "Then the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground"I am formed from the dust of the ground. My two children are formed from the dust of the ground. Looks to me like God made man the same way we make man.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I am formed from the dust of the ground. My two children are formed from the dust of the ground. Looks to me like God made man the same way we make man. I must have missed that part when my parents taught me about the birds and the bee's.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 No, we believe that life only comes from life. Life is not capable of coming from a process that does not involve life preceding it. Are you saying that life on this planet was transplanted from elsewhere?
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Yup. What I think is going on is that some people can't square their understanding of evolution with their understanding of God. That's fine, but it doesn't affect the evidence in favor of evolution. As I said, I used to think that Joseph Fielding Smith was absolutely right when he said that evolution was incompatible with church doctrine. I no longer think that, and most Mormons I know don't think that way, either. I eventually decided that maybe my understanding of how God works wasn't entirely right, and I was limiting God by insisting that He had to act in a certain way.People do not square up things with evolution for the precise reason that Darwinian evolution must explain all of lifes existence void of an intelligent cause or design in nature. Heres the deal- if the flood in Noah's time is real and was a global event then the geologic column is a testimony of that event. This would make the entire leg of evolution to stand upon fall to the ground and break in a million pices never to be put together again. There is way more at stake here than meets the eye. This basically comes down to either beliveing the word of god or the understanding of man. Whose side are we gonna stand on? If evolution is true, then the flood is completely false and never happened and Noah and the flood account is a grand deception. But if it just so happens that God's word is correct and there was a global flood as is taught in our doctrine, then the evidence for evolution disappears entirely!
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Are you saying that life on this planet was transplanted from elsewhere?Life on this planet arose from a source of life from another place in the universe that came here to this planet and procreated their seed here on this planet.
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Life on this planet arose from a source of life from another place in the universe that came here to this planet and procreated their seed here on this planet. Do you think that's the case with all forms of life? Do all paramecia, for example, arise from some original paramecium that came from another planet? I have to give you props for taking a position that seems more at home in the Journal of Discourses than in the correlated manuals of today.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I must have missed that part when my parents taught me about the birds and the bee's.The scriptures tell us that all of us are made from the dust of the earth. Now for the logic- In LDS theology, God must have a wife in order for the "seed" of the body to go on eternally. We also believe that sexual relations and procreation extends beyond death and resurrected beings have this blessing if properly married for all eternity. The scriptures inform us that the lineage of man traces back to God himself, Adam being the literal son of God. God made Adam in his own image using the very seed from his body to create him. As such, we all are of divine heritage, all having the very seed of deity within each one of us. We also thus become His heirs in eternity. Besides that, the promise that the seeds continue is literally defined as the seeds of the physical body. We are created in the very image of God. This means that just as we have reproductive organs so does God. Just as we can procreate and make man in our image, so too can God do the same. Why would God thus use a process to create man in his own image with the seed of God within him in any other way than what we know to be scientifically true?
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 So, you are arguing from ignorance the point that all life has a common ancestor- we can't prove it didn't happen on the one hand so on the other hand it must be true. Its funny that you stated before that perhaps life emerged from several different sources but then you change it later to say that all life did have a common ancestor. This is what troubles me most about evolutionary theory- they have no clue on how life first evolved. All we have a record of is the cambrian explosion where life shows up fully formed. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not good at explaining anything I am coming to find out. That whole video is basically his rambling about nothing and bringing up old arguments that intelligent people in todays society do not bring up. None of his arguments even apply to any of my beliefs. So what was your point in linking it? Let me ask- since when have I ever said- "hum, not sure how it could of happened, oh well, God must have did it". Thats a ridiculous belief and no one I know who espouses the ID theory believes such thing. Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally ignorant. IE; Sure God could have done any number of things. ID is predicated on the idea that the Christian God did something. It is impossible to prove God didn't. That is a classic argument from ignorance. Modern biology is predicated on Common Descent. We have clues as how life was first formed(Abiogenesis) but not enough to conclude that is exactly how it happened. BTW Evolution doesn't either but there is far more evidence for it than Abiogenesis has at this time. Obviously. You are just interested in maintaining your own ignorance. EVERY example so far proposed by the Creationists as a marker for so called intelligent design has been debunked. You keep linking to Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis. He claims that God says so in Answers in Genesis. That is a religion parading as science.
Recommended Posts