Evolution Is Alive And Well In Hawaii

[ERayR]

I don't understanding it either. I can't get inside his head, and can only go by what he posts. He seems to be a sycophant of Ken Ham and just makes it up as he goes along. Considering how badly people behave you'd think that the other animals would be insulted by the comparison.

 

Whether he is a sycophant of Ken Ham or not I couldn't say.  What I can say he is not the only one who has a tendency to make it up as they go.  

[jkwilliams]

It is simple and as such a bit telling about your mindset.  He is saying he is a child of God and he doesn't consider God to be an animal.

That I can understand. Most people classify mortal humans as belonging to the animal kingdom; God is an exalted being, not a mortal human.

[ERayR]

You do the right to say that, and you most definitely are a son of God, nothing less. You are also a multicellular, eukaryotic organism. Furthermore, I declare that you are heterotrophic, meaning that you rely on other organisms (plants or animals) for sustenance, and have a digestive tract. Even more incredible, you lack a cell wall and are generally motile, meaning you have the power to move around by yourself. When you were in your mother's womb as an embryo, you passed through a blastula stage and also began to develop sensory organs which respond to stimuli. Hence...you're an animal.

 

Scientific definition for animal:

 

1. Multicellular

2. Eukaryotic

3. Heterotrophic + generally a digestive tract

4. No cell wall

5. Motile - You can move voluntarily

6. Embryo with blastula stage

7. Sensory organ

 

Do you object to being any of these?

 

The problem is you are trying to attach a scientific notation to a religious concept.  The science club has defined the religious as out of bounds in the scientific arena but seems to feel it ok to impose the scientific definition into the religious arena.

[ERayR]

That's not what we see in the fossil record, so no, we shouldn't expect such rapid evolution from one species to another. Speciation takes a very long time. Think, for example, of the nene in Hawaii, which apparently descended from a common ancestor of the Canada goose, arriving in Hawaii some 500,000 years ago. They look quite similar to a Canada goose, but they are different in morphology and behavior.

 

There is plenty of room in the fossil record for dissenting interpretations at the macro level. 

[ERayR]

One good evidence for the Theory of Evolution is the discovery of the primitive hominid "Eoanthropus dawsoni."

He was naturally selected from a quarry in Sussex, England.

 

I thought that was a proven hoax.

[jkwilliams]

There is plenty of room in the fossil record for dissenting interpretations at the macro level.

Sure, but I don't see a lot of dissent among the people who study these things.

[ERayR]

Sure, he could have, but that's not what the fossil record shows. There is a clear and consistent pattern of evolving life forms in one direction. Either God has used evolution as a natural process to create the varieties of species we see, or he has intentionally made the history of the earth look that way, even though he created everything as is. I don't see any reason why God would try to fool us.

 

Again interpretation tells a lot about the mindset of the interpreter.

[jkwilliams]

Again interpretation tells a lot about the mindset of the interpreter.

Indeed. Admittedly, evolution isn't a major area of interest for me, but it is interesting. My interpretation comes from reading up on the subject over a few years, so I'm comfortable with what I think. I don't have an ideological need to believe in it; I just think evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence. You obviously disagree. No worries.

[ERayR]

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.

 

 

Nope not at all, only their interpretation of scripture.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Wait long enough and you will have a jet propelled lawn mower.

[ERayR]

I think crickets losing their voice in order to avoid killer flies is a better example of adaptation than evolution

 

I would be more impressed if those crickets developed small elephant feet and began to stomp out those flies.  Now there would be a real survival trait and some good evidence for macro-evolution.

[ERayR]

Just out of curiosity, how do you distinguish between adaptation and evolution?

 

I don't, but then I have never questioned micro-evolution, only the extrapolation that leads to macro-evolution.

[ERayR]

You quote Darwin but I'm not convinceed you actually read his work. If you have read "Origin of Species" I suggest you read it again, starting with Darwin's work with pigeons. Or have you just cut and pasted from other sites that reflect the opinion you started with?

 

Pigeons are a good example.  There are many varieties from the very small to the very large with numerous traits but they are all still pigeons.

Edited June 2, 2014 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Sure, but I don't see a lot of dissent among the people who study these things.

 

Because the science club has defined the parameters so as to exclude any who do not subscribe to the clubs interpretations.

[ERayR]

Indeed. Admittedly, evolution isn't a major area of interest for me, but it is interesting. My interpretation comes from reading up on the subject over a few years, so I'm comfortable with what I think. I don't have an ideological need to believe in it; I just think evolution is the theory that best fits the evidence. You obviously disagree. No worries.

 

I used to be in the macro-evolution camp until I started finding things that didn't fit and was summarily dismissed by the science club precisely because it didn't fit.

[Flyonthewall]

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.

I realize it is the methodology of creating a body that is in question, but I don't buy evolution was needed.

God has a body and has had one for an eternity. Our bodies are patterned after His. Our spirits are in the form of our bodies.

Bodies had already been made and had been so for an eternity. No need to re-invent the wheel...so to speak.

And I am not calling into question anybody's testimony or belief in God for their pro-evolution stance. It just doesn't ring true to me. Until I have a complete understanding of how it was done, I will not bash anyone else's opinion or belief in how things were done. I actually still hold evolution as a possibility but is low on the probability list for me.

[williamsmith]

So question.....  I see a big flaw in this "study" unless it's been resolved in the details?

 

But, if Maggots were burowing in the backs of crickets, which is in fact where the wings attach and such, and then the crickets reproduce etc., wouldn't in fact the crickets not having wings or fully developed wings anymore likely in fact be caused by the maggots interferring with the natural genetics of the critic, that it's NOT caused by them being "targets" of flies who then give them maggots, thus the crickets developed something so they could hide like the study claims?

 

So, I think they made an utterly false conclusion from the study.  Still evolution to a degree, but simply evolution caused by environmental changes.  For example, we know humans used to be stronger, and have slightly less intelligence, but our changes in environment from hunter gatherers to more domestic caused our bodies to be weaker and our minds to be expanded more.  BTW, this doesn't mean we went from "Ape" to human.... which is what the church has always been against.  We have always been our "unique" selves (unless there are possibly two species, the pre-adamites and the chosen people (which could potentially indicate some of the human race "evolved" from an omeba in the ocean, but not necessarily).

Edited June 2, 2014 by williamsmith

[halconero]

It is simple and as such a bit telling about your mindset. He is saying he is a child of God and he doesn't consider God to be an animal.

Then he disembodied God and we regress to the formless spirit formulated through various ecumenical councils.

It would be similar to objecting to the idea that plant and animal life are created from the same intelligences that God is. We know that not all intelligences are equal, nevertheless all are intelligence, and all can be spirit. By classifying God as an animal we are simply embodying him as a multicellular, eukaryotic, heterotrophic, motic being. It does not mean equating him with a dog, horse, monkey, or fish in anything (nature, mind, glory, etc) but physiology.

 

Edit: Clearing up last sentence.

Edited June 3, 2014 by halconero

[ERayR]

Then he disembodied God and we regress to the formless spirit formulated through various ecumenical councils.

 

 

 

Your interpretation not his.

 

Again you are applying scientific interpretation to a religious concept.  The science club has rejected allowing any religious data to be considered therefor it is not honest to apply scientific naming to a religious concept. 

[halconero]

I realize it is the methodology of creating a body that is in question, but I don't buy evolution was needed.

God has a body and has had one for an eternity. Our bodies are patterned after His. Our spirits are in the form of our bodies.

Bodies had already been made and had been so for an eternity. No need to re-invent the wheel...so to speak.

And I am not calling into question anybody's testimony or belief in God for their pro-evolution stance. It just doesn't ring true to me. Until I have a complete understanding of how it was done, I will not bash anyone else's opinion or belief in how things were done. I actually still hold evolution as a possibility but is low on the probability list for me.

 

But we also believe that there was a period/time/place/eternity where God did not have a body. I agree with you that our bodies are patterned after his, but how did he pattern them? 

 

Thank you for the not bashing, I have no problems with people who disagree. It's when they question my belief in God, his role as Creator, his Son, and the Atonement that I get turned off.

Edited June 2, 2014 by halconero

[halconero]

The problem is you are trying to attach a scientific notation to a religious concept.  The science club has defined the religious as out of bounds in the scientific arena but seems to feel it ok to impose the scientific definition into the religious arena.

 

I don't draw any such lines. The principles of Mathematics, physics, literature, chemistry, biology, aviation, poetry all fall under the category of Mormonism in so far they are true. We are a materialistic religion, so my attempt to attach scientific notions to religious concepts isn't disallowed. If God has an organic body, which is doctrinal, what type of body is it? Is it a single-celled organism? Multicellular? Motic? Heterotrophic? How do we classify his body?

[halconero]

Nope not at all, only their interpretation of scripture.

 

Ah, so we're setting up creeds are we?

[ERayR]

I don't draw any such lines. The principles of Mathematics, physics, literature, chemistry, biology, aviation, poetry all fall under the category of Mormonism in so far they are true. We are a materialistic religion, so my attempt to attach scientific notions to religious concepts isn't disallowed. If God has an organic body, which is doctrinal, what type of body is it? Is it a single-celled organism? Multicellular? Motic? Heterotrophic? How do we classify his body?

 

The science club disallows it.  God nor religious concepts are allowed in forming scientific conclusions.  I have learned that well from tss and others on this board. 

[ERayR]

Ah, so we're setting up creeds are we?

 

Not in the least.  If creed it is then those on the scientific side are the ones demanding adherence to a creed.  It seems that if one disagrees with the macro-evolution they are treated as if they have inferior intelligence and just don't understand the concept. 

[katherine the great]

Katherine (or anyone who believes man descended from apes),

At which point in the evolutionary line do you believe God started providing souls/spirits to our ancestors?

I think all lifeforms have a spirit. But I don't think other forms before Adam were under the Adamic covenant.

Edited June 3, 2014 by katherine the great