Evolution Is Alive And Well In Hawaii

[MormonFreeThinker]

I am made from the dust of the earth. You are made from the dust of the earth. My pet cat is made from the dust of the earth. The flower I planted last week is made from the dust of the earth. Scientifically we can prove how each one of us is made from the dust of the earth (we come from the matter of the earth).

 

You believe in Super-Macro Evolution, I don't. 

I believe God created in man in the womb, Jeremiah 1:5.  

 

Have you seen God making the dust Evolve to a Human? Again, you believe that the humans evolved from the dust. 

 

I agree that life comes from the Earth, but I never seen the dust Evolving to a human.

Edited June 15, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Zakuska]

I am made from the dust of the earth. You are made from the dust of the earth. My pet cat is made from the dust of the earth. The flower I planted last week is made from the dust of the earth. Scientifically we can prove how each one of us is made from the dust of the earth (we come from the matter of the earth).All the evidence there is points to an intelligent creation. Its all scientific.

I'm made from the dust of a commit. Thus my DNA is Alien. Edited June 15, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Whose truth?  According to whose interpretation of the data?  Yours, mine, the milk mans?

[Rob Osborn]

You believe in Super-Macro Evolution, I don't. 

I believe God created in man in the womb, Jeremiah 1:5.  

 

Have you seen God making the dust Evolve to a Human? Again, you believe that the humans evolved from the dust. 

 

I agree that life comes from the Earth, but I never seen the dust Evolving to a human.

Well, like it or not, you are made from the matter of this earth.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, like it or not, you are made from the matter of this earth.

 

No one is denying that.

[ERayR]

 

Whose truth?  According to whose interpretation of the data?  Yours, mine, the milk mans?

 

 

Please read again for comprehension.  Nowhere do I even suggest all are equal.  I was pointing out (now listen close) that we each base our reality on how we see and understand the data.  You have chosen to interpret or accept the data in one way,  Someone else takes that data and combines it with other data that they have that you do not, or have rejected. 

[ERayR]

I'm made from the dust of a commit. Thus my DNA is Alien.

 

Me too or so my family tells me.

[thesometimesaint]

Please read again for comprehension.  Nowhere do I even suggest all are equal.  I was pointing out (now listen close) that we each base our reality on how we see and understand the data.  You have chosen to interpret or accept the data in one way,  Someone else takes that data and combines it with other data that they have that you do not, or have rejected. 

 

I've got excellent reading comprehension. You did say yours, mine, or the milkman's. Is there something about the milkman's interpretation that would lead to a better understanding of anything other than milk delivery? IE; I observe a balloon rising into the sky. That is a data point. The Theory of Gravity states that all things are pulled towards each other. Would the correct interpretation of that data point mean that the Theory of Gravity is wrong?

Edited June 15, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

I've got excellent reading comprehension. You did say yours, mine, or the milkman's. Is there something about the milkman's interpretation that would lead to a better understanding of anything other than milk delivery? IE; I observe a balloon rising into the sky. That is a data point. The Theory of Gravity states that all things are pulled towards each other. Would the correct interpretation of that data point mean that the Theory of Gravity is wrong?

 

Again, in your attempt to belittle, you show your prowess at the inane.  Your comprehension skills must have deserted you today.  Nowhere have I indicated the importance of one over the other or their equality.  However, if you are going to successfully communicate with someone you really should find out where they are coming from before you attempt to ridicule and demean.

[thesometimesaint]

Again, in your attempt to belittle, you show your prowess at the inane.  Your comprehension skills must have deserted you today.  Nowhere have I indicated the importance of one over the other or their equality.  However, if you are going to successfully communicate with someone you really should find out where they are coming from before you attempt to ridicule and demean.

 

You're the one who said the interpretation of the milkman is just a valid.

[strappinglad]

Opinions are like _____, everybody has one. A PhD does not automatically confer wisdom or even a lot of knowledge. Today a PhD is usually focused in a narrow realm . Now , an advanced degree backed up by 20+ years of field experience does add considerable validity to an opinion. It should be noted, however, that some of the major theories from the last century were not and likely could not have been peer reviewed because of they were outliers from the existing concensus of degreed and experienced scientists. Case in point, Einstein's Relativity theory.

[ERayR]

You're the one who said the interpretation of the milkman is just a valid.

 

Read it again and continue to read.  I said nothing about it being just as valid.  Please stop attributing to me things I did not say.

[thesometimesaint]

Opinions are like _____, everybody has one. A PhD does not automatically confer wisdom or even a lot of knowledge. Today a PhD is usually focused in a narrow realm . Now , an advanced degree backed up by 20+ years of field experience does add considerable validity to an opinion. It should be noted, however, that some of the major theories from the last century were not and likely could not have been peer reviewed because of they were outliers from the existing concensus of degreed and experienced scientists. Case in point, Einstein's Relativity theory.

 

What?

 

That's not how science works. First we propose a idea, then test it to destruction. If it passes all the tests thrown against it to date. Then it becomes a theory, if not it is modified or rejected.  The Theory of Relativity has been repeatedly confirmed by scientists. IE; Quantum Mechanics does NOT reject the Theory of Relativity it just modifies it for objects that are very small. 

[bcuzbcuz]

Read it again and continue to read.  I said nothing about it being just as valid.  Please stop attributing to me things I did not say.

You actually said, and I quote, "Whose truth? .... Yours, mine, the milk mans (sic)?"

If you meant it to mean something else than how it reads, how about writing more succinctly, so that your intent is clear?

[ERayR]

You actually said, and I quote, "Whose truth? .... Yours, mine, the milk mans (sic)?"

If you meant it to mean something else than how it reads, how about writing more succinctly, so that your intent is clear?

Note I ask whose truth you were going with. I DID NOT say Yours, mine, the milk mans (sic)?" they are all equally valid.  You chose to interpret it that way and then attributed it to me.  I in actuality do not consider yours or the milkman's as being equally as valid as mine.  Go figure.

Edited June 16, 2014 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Note I ask whose truth you were going with. I DID NOT say Yours, mine, the milk mans (sic)?" they are all equally valid.  You chose to interpret it that way and then attributed it to me.  I in actuality do not consider yours or the milkman's as being equally as valid as mine.  Go figure.

 

Reality has the unfortunate habit of biting us on the butt when we go with idiosyncratic interpretations of reality.

Edited June 16, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

Reality has the unfortunate habit of biting us on the butt when we go with idiosyncratic interpretations of reality.

 

It happens a lot when we go to reading our own idiosyncrasies into what somebody else says (writes).

[changed]

18 pages, and still no "new information"... sad, really... 

[bcuzbcuz]

18 pages, and still no "new information"... sad, really...

How's this?

(Sorry, I've never learned how to post a full sized picture...but you can find one at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/pictures/111013-shark-albino-one-eyed-fetus/#)

One-Eyed Anomaly

Photograph courtesy Marcela Bejarano-Álvarez

Talk about a one-of-a-kind discovery—an extremely rare cyclops shark (pictured) has been confirmed in Mexico, new research shows.

The 22-inch-long (56-centimeter-long) fetus has a single, functioning eye at the front of its head—the hallmark of a congenital condition called cyclopia, which occurs in several animal species, including humans.

Earlier this year fisher Enrique Lucero León legally caught a pregnant dusky shark near Cerralvo Island (see map) in the Gulf of California. When León cut open his catch, he found the odd-looking male embryo along with its nine normal siblings. "He said, That's incredible—wow," said biologist Felipe Galván-Magaña, of the Interdisciplinary Center of Marine Sciences in La Paz, Mexico.

Once Galván-Magaña and colleague Marcela Bejarano-Álvarez heard about the discovery—which was put on Facebook—the team got León's permission to borrow the shark for research. The scientists then x-rayed the fetus and reviewed previous research on cyclopia in other species to confirm that the find is indeed a cyclops shark.

Cyclops sharks have been documented by scientists a few times before, also as embryos, said Jim Gelsleichter, a shark biologist at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville. The fact that none have been caught outside the womb suggests cyclops sharks don't survive long in the wild.

Overall, finding such an unusual animal reinforces that scientists still have a lot to learn, Gelsleichter added.

"It's a humbling experience to realize you ain't seen it all yet."

(See "Cyclops Myth Spurred by 'One-Eyed' Fossils?")

—Christine Dell'Amore

Edited June 17, 2014 by bcuzbcuz

[thesometimesaint]

It happens a lot when we go to reading our own idiosyncrasies into what somebody else says (writes).

 

True. None of us is always absolutely clear on what we write. Some 90% of all communication is nonverbal, and when we add in the difficulty of not seeing the person it becomes very hard indeed. 

[bcuzbcuz]

True. None of us is always absolutely clear on what we write. Some 90% of all communication is nonverbal, and when we add in the difficulty of not seeing the person it becomes very hard indeed.

But is it the responsibilty of the reader to decifer the message properly, or is the responsiblity upon the writer to state his opinions clearly?

Another one of my "inane" comparisons is that if hearing was dependent upon the listener, we wouldn't need microphones and speaker systems. (and where would that leave Rock and Roll ?)

[thesometimesaint]

But is it the responsibilty of the reader to decifer the message properly, or is the responsiblity upon the writer to state his opinions clearly?

Another one of my "inane" comparisons is that if hearing was dependent upon the listener, we wouldn't need microphones and speaker systems. (and where would that leave Rock and Roll ?)

 

It is a bit of both. But the majority of the responsibility goes to the writer.

 

Rock and Roll is one of the Great Grandsons of the old Negro spirituals sung by slaves. So pretty much in the same place as any other music before the advent of modern electronics. Small venue.

[Rob Osborn]

But is it the responsibilty of the reader to decifer the message properly, or is the responsiblity upon the writer to state his opinions clearly?

Another one of my "inane" comparisons is that if hearing was dependent upon the listener, we wouldn't need microphones and speaker systems. (and where would that leave Rock and Roll ?)

I have long been intrigued by communication and how we learn and understand. It has been my long opinion that the writer is most reponsible for correctly conveying what they mean to another. Lawyers of course take it way beyond this point and actually make it confusing- intentional trickery. When I look for a pattern to communicate I turn to the Book of Mormon because it is easy and plain to understand. When i teach i try to come at the same doctrine from two or three different angles so that there is no doubt as to what I am teaching. The Church, having so many leaders to interpret doctrine over the years, have caused from time to time incorrect official doctrine to be taught. It creates a paradox because in one instance our official doctrine may state one principle and then in another instance teach another doctrine that is different making two separate doctrines that do not coincide. A typical correlation problem. Even words can have different meanings in separate instances and be paradoxial overall. This is readily seen in things like the plan of salvation doctrine. The church claims to only teach one single plan of salvation but anyone who has been to a temple open house or gone through and have their endowments knows that the temple plan of salvation is different than what is generally taught outside the temple. This same thing also is applied to prayer- in temples we learn of what is called the "true order of prayer" but outside the temple we teach a different kind of prayer that also is supposed to be the true order of prayer. So it is all a little confusing and definitly a correlation problem of the left hand not knowing the right hand.

[bcuzbcuz]

I have long been intrigued by communication and how we learn and understand. It has been my long opinion that the writer is most reponsible for correctly conveying what they mean to another. Lawyers of course take it way beyond this point and actually make it confusing- intentional trickery. When I look for a pattern to communicate I turn to the Book of Mormon because it is easy and plain to understand. When i teach i try to come at the same doctrine from two or three different angles so that there is no doubt as to what I am teaching. The Church, having so many leaders to interpret doctrine over the years, have caused from time to time incorrect official doctrine to be taught. It creates a paradox because in one instance our official doctrine may state one principle and then in another instance teach another doctrine that is different making two separate doctrines that do not coincide. A typical correlation problem. Even words can have different meanings in separate instances and be paradoxial overall. This is readily seen in things like the plan of salvation doctrine. The church claims to only teach one single plan of salvation but anyone who has been to a temple open house or gone through and have their endowments knows that the temple plan of salvation is different than what is generally taught outside the temple. This same thing also is applied to prayer- in temples we learn of what is called the "true order of prayer" but outside the temple we teach a different kind of prayer that also is supposed to be the true order of prayer. So it is all a little confusing and definitly a correlation problem of the left hand not knowing the right hand.

During the Football World Cup 2010 from South Africa, I was in Canada while my wife watched the same game in Sweden. I wrote several times about how I thought Spain didn't have a chance to win the title (knowing my wife favoured that team). When I got back to Sweden and Spain had won the championship title, I had to deny everything I had written. I categorically claimed to never have said the things she quoted me on.

Sometimes retreat is the better part of valor, and I should have kept my mouth shut, but I swore on a stack of Bibles that someone must have stolen my e-mail acount and written those terrible things instead of me.

Or was it just that my right hand didn't know what my left hand was writing.

[katherine the great]

Can someone find the modern human skull?

 

 

I think I can identify all of those skulls.