Duncan Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I love the image of God squatting down next to a puddle of ooze stirring it with his finger or maybe simply blowing on it, causing ripples and just that little shift that was needed for "dust" to become life.If Jesus can heal a blind man using mud, I don't see God being adverse to making some rather interesting mudpies that then made other mudpies and eventually some things more complicated. but how does a mudpie become more complicated? does someone throw magic man making powder on it? what is going with the mudpies!!!!! i have to know this!! hahahahha!
jkwilliams Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I agree things mutate, my sisters-the gruesome twosome are a prime example but I don't see things totally changing into something else That's what the fossil record shows: more complex organisms developing from simpler ones.
Flyonthewall Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I love the image of God squatting down next to a puddle of ooze stirring it with his finger or maybe simply blowing on it, causing ripples and just that little shift that was needed for "dust" to become life.This may be an image well received by some but to me it simply does not ring true. If I am a child of God, then I am child of God - not a pollywog. If Jesus can heal a blind man using mud, I don't see God being adverse to making some rather interesting mudpies that then made other mudpies and eventually some things more complicated.That is fine for you, but for me, our current form has always been ... Ether 3:15 & 16 prove to me that God knew exactly what body our spirits required and He knew how to make them. 15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. 16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. 2
Duncan Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 That's what the fossil record shows: more complex organisms developing from simpler ones. there's no gaps anywhere? somewhere there's a half man half squirrel looking thing? because if there is then I am looking pretty good to the ladies 4
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Which is the most complex organism, a mosquito with 6 chromosomes, a dog with 78 or the ciliated protozoa with 15600 ?I personally like to use the encephalization quotient as a good measure. Which puts humans at the top.
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 there's no gaps anywhere? somewhere there's a half man half squirrel looking thing? because if there is then I am looking pretty good to the ladiesPlesiadapiformes is what you're looking for. 1
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 This may be an image well received by some but to me it simply does not ring true.If I am a child of God, then I am child of God - not a pollywog.That is fine for you, but for me, our current form has always been ... Ether 3:15 & 16 prove to me that God knew exactly what body our spirits required and He knew how to make them.15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.I don't think Calmoriah is denying that the human body is created in the image of God. It's the methodology behind its creation. One thing that bugs me about these threads is that the anti-evolution side frequently calls into question the pro-evolutionary side's belief and testimony in God, his hand in Creation, the Atonement, the divine nature of the spirit, or the image of God in the human body.The Genesis creation account is complicated one because in actuality it is two accounts amalgamated into one. The first ends at Genesis 2:3 and the other one picks up from there. The two accounts differ. The Creator deities are different (Elohim vs Yahweh), the time period is changed, the process is mixed up, and the cosmology is different in each. There have been many attempts to resolve this, the early Gnostics have the most wild accounts in my opinion. There is even a Latter-day Saint interpretation of the differing accounts.What this means is that the methodology behind creation is left murky.
Duncan Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Plesiadapiformes is what you're looking for. looks like a mutant squirrel! it isn't a half man though, is there a fossil record with say a man with a giant tail and squirrel fur on its body? not a squirrel but what I am looking for is this! http://dailyseinfeld.com/post/36290521680 Kramer from Seinfeld in the episode, "the Butter Shave"! Edited June 2, 2014 by Duncan
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 We dont go to prison for killing animals, only for killing humans.
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 looks like a mutant squirrel! it isn't a half man though, is there a fossil record with say a man with a giant tail and squirrel fur on its body?not a squirrel but what I am looking for is this!http://dailyseinfeld.com/post/36290521680Kramer from Seinfeld in the episode, "the Butter Shave"!It's well on it's way though. It had nails, a more prognathic face, etc.
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 But apes are not humans.Except the human ones. "Apes" is an umbrella term for a number of similar species.
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 We dont go to prison for killing animals, only for killing humans.That's a poor metric for measuring animal vs human. Especially considering you CAN go to prison for killing some animals in many circumstances. There will also be other circumstances where you don't imprison a human for killing another.I'll just repeat my question, you might have missed it earlier:Do you object to being a multicellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic organism that can move around, see, smell, and hear stuff, while also not being restricted by a cell wall?
Duncan Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 It's well on it's way though. It had nails, a more prognathic face, etc. why do squirrels still exist and people have peanut allergies?! there would have to be millions of squirrel to human evolutions, why doesn't God just have a squirrel a squirrel and evolve within it's own species rather (which is what I am saying) then wait billions of year waiting for a human to appear?
strappinglad Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 That's what the fossil record shows: more complex organisms developing from simpler ones. Actually it doesn't. The Cambrian explosion of life forms in a geologic blink of time is strong evidence that this so-called movement from simple to complex is false. Many fossils found are just as complex and are virtually identical to specimens of living organisms today , yet they are supposed to be millions of not hundreds of millions of years distant. Oh , I forgot, evolution means change over time except when it doesn't. It means slow changes except when changes happen rapidly. It means simple to complex except when things stay the same or get simpler. Then there is convergent evolution which means extraordinary developments like eyes or flight didn't just overcome the huge odds of such once but several times in very different creatures. I think that even if a pre- Cambrian rabbit was found neo-Darwinians would be able to come up with some evolutionary name for the reason and wave away any objections.
Calm Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 but how does a mudpie become more complicated? does someone throw magic man making powder on it? what is going with the mudpies!!!!! i have to know this!! hahahahha!Play in the mud for awhile...you might figure it out. 1
Calm Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I don't think Calmoriah is denying that the human body is created in the image of God. It's the methodology behind its creation. One thing that bugs me about these threads is that the anti-evolution side frequently calls into question the pro-evolutionary side's belief and testimony in God, his hand in Creation, the Atonement, the divine nature of the spirit, or the image of God in the human body.The Genesis creation account is complicated one because in actuality it is two accounts amalgamated into one. The first ends at Genesis 2:3 and the other one picks up from there. The two accounts differ. The Creator deities are different (Elohim vs Yahweh), the time period is changed, the process is mixed up, and the cosmology is different in each. There have been many attempts to resolve this, the early Gnostics have the most wild accounts in my opinion. There is even a Latter-day Saint interpretation of the differing accounts.What this means is that the methodology behind creation is left murky.Right.Man forms bodies or rather women by bringing together dead elements that form around a seed of life and grow according to a plan. Nine months or nine million years or more, what difference does that make to God who created the plan, gave us the blueprint of life?
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) This isn't proof of evolution, of one species evolving into another completely different species.This is merely Natural Selection within a population of crickets.. But even AnswersinGenesis disagrees with you. They do believe that different species share a common ancestor. "the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances." http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/keaan-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/ "evidence suggests in most instances it’s the family level."https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/counting-kinds/ That means that they probably believe that the Fox, the Chihuahua, and Wolf share a common ancestor. Canidae - "a cosmopolitan family of carnivorous mammals that includes the wolves, jackals, foxes, coyote, and the domestic dog" http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/canidae So what is that? A human or an Ape? Edited June 2, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Duncan Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 But even AnswersinGenesis disagrees with you. They do believe that different species share a common ancestor. "the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances." http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/keaan-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/ "evidence suggests in most instances it’s the family level."https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/counting-kinds/ That means that they probably believe that the Fox, the Chihuahua, and Wolf share a common ancestor. Canidae - "a cosmopolitan family of carnivorous mammals that includes the wolves, jackals, foxes, coyote, and the domestic dog" http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/canidae So what is that? A human or an Ape? an ape
halconero Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 why do squirrels still exist and people have peanut allergies?! there would have to be millions of squirrel to human evolutions, why doesn't God just have a squirrel a squirrel and evolve within it's own species rather (which is what I am saying) then wait billions of year waiting for a human to appear? This actually a common objection to evolutionary theory, though it's usually phrased as "if humans are descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" It's an understandable objection, but is a misunderstanding of the concept of common descent. Evolutionary theory isn't that we're descended from squirrels. There is no "half man squirrel" thingy. Rather, it's the idea that at some point humanity and squirrels shared a common ancestor that was quite unlike both species, yet had the potential to develop into both. At some point, members of these species were separated from each other, and the differing environments lead to different development.
cdowis Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Humans are apes OK, if you wish. My lawnmower engine has many things in common with a jet engine so they are both "engines". But man and ape do not have a common ancestor. Edited June 2, 2014 by cdowis
katherine the great Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 We dont go to prison for killing animals, only for killing humans.Seriously? You've never heard of poaching? Or cruelty to animals?
katherine the great Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 OK, if you wish. My lawnmower engine has many things in common with a jet engine so they are both "engines". But man and ape do not have a common ancestor.Yes we do.
katherine the great Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 why do squirrels still exist and people have peanut allergies?! there would have to be millions of squirrel to human evolutions, why doesn't God just have a squirrel a squirrel and evolve within it's own species rather (which is what I am saying) then wait billions of year waiting for a human to appear?Duncan seriously. You are more intelligent than this. Do some cursory reading on evolutionary theory and then come back to the table with some basic information. 2
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 mutations are one thing but a bedbug is a bedbug is a bedbug but do bedbugs turn into something else entirely over time?like they don't grow gills or have flippers or something. I am no scientist but shouldn't we see bugs with very short life spans be turning into something else? Evolution doesn't reward every possible combination of traits. IE; The Cockaduck. Such would be the opposite of evolution. It rewards those traits that confirm a competitive advantage in a given environment. Change the environment and traits over time will change with it. Change it fast enough and the species dies.
Recommended Posts