Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Which is it two hundred miles or three hundred miles.I don't know, somewhere in that area. I'm pulling up the articles.
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change + small change = new species. Agreed? Princes kisses frog, frog changes into a prince = fairy taleFrog + millions of years, frog changes into prince = macro-evolution.
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 If a fish were to grow 2 more fins, be able to breath in water and outside of water, and could eat a different food from its most recent relatives then that would be a different species (and an amphibian.) Oh wait! We've observed organisms getting gills and un-getting gills in the fossil record! So evolution does change species. Here's another interesting thing on that. Its about our parathyroid. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4067039.stmhttp://www.pnas.org/content/101/51/17716.full And you still think we don't come from some fish? Seriously, that's ridiculous. So God is a fish? I wondered about the fish bumperstickers. 3
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I don't know, somewhere in that area. I'm pulling up the articles. That is the problem. You are just putting up articles with no evidence that you are giving them any critical thought.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 So God is a fish? I wondered about the fish bumperstickers.I never said that. It looks like you're out of ammunition (not a big surprise since you don't support evolution.) Princes kisses frog, frog changes into a prince = fairy taleFrog + millions of years, frog changes into prince = macro-evolution.Agreed. Only the second is reasonable though, which has been mathematically demonstrated that the complexity we see could arrive. I'll have the article soon.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 1. I fact check.2. I do give it critical though, by comparing arguments for and against. I've found that there are no real arguments against evolution. Just made up ones. Trust me, I've gone through all the evangelical idiocy. It didn't take me long to figure out what it was.3. I read my scriptures and when I find things that don't fit into my current notions I adjust my current notions to fit new data. Sounds critical to me.
ksfisher Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 As Calmoriah has pointed out Hagoth traveled extensively. Extensive travel is all relative. What a farmer in 13th century England considered extensive travel compared to what Marco Polo thought was probably considerably different. No distance for Hagoth's travels is given. Other than the "land northward" no destination is mentioned. He may have been well traveled, for a Nephite, but the extent of his travels cannot be determined from the text. 3
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 1. I fact check.2. I do give it critical though, by comparing arguments for and against. I've found that there are no real arguments against evolution. Just made up ones. Trust me, I've gone through all the evangelical idiocy. It didn't take me long to figure out what it was.3. I read my scriptures and when I find things that don't fit into my current notions I adjust my current notions to fit new data. Sounds critical to me. It appears, from your posts, that one thing you haven't considered is the idea you might be wrong in your assessment. We all come at a problem from our own knowledge and experience.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I hope you'll reconsider your assessment. Its horribly wrong and illogical.And actually I have considered that, I've just done enough research I know what the best theory is in this area :|
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I hope you'll reconsider your assessment. Its horribly wrong and illogical.And actually I have considered that, I've just done enough research I know what the best theory is in this area :| Then don't be so dogmatic and give others some credit for being reasonably intelligent. 2
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Watch this series...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWVGnv7yTEI&index=1&list=PL55386FEEB52180E5Read this:http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Limited_Geography_TheoryRead this Book:http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Jesse-Nile-Washburn/dp/088290020X The Book is where you'll get most of the calculations. Sorry, I couldn't find a free article on it. Its a really good book though! Edited July 16, 2014 by Bowtiemenace
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) Sorry, but I can't if you don't believe in evolution. The most obvious theory next to Newtons laws of motion :| I would if you'd accepted that though Edited July 16, 2014 by Bowtiemenace
Bob Crockett Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 No, they aren't capable scientific attacks. You think they are. You obviously no nothing about science. (But that's ok, you're a heartland modeler anyways.) Isn' tthis a blatant derail of the thread? And, no, I don't think the heartland model has any legs whatsoever. 1
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Isn' tthis a blatant derail of the thread? And, no, I don't think the heartland model has any legs whatsoever.You're right, this is a derail. I'll stop with the evolution stuff. I forgot, you're an unlimited geography person. I guess that's not quite as bad... Still though... Well, i'm ending the forum battle. Nice debate!
ERayR Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Sorry, but I can't if you don't believe in evolution. The most obvious theory next to Newtons laws of motion :| With seven decades of and a curious mind it is not as if I am ignorant of the information you find so conclusive. It is just that I have other information that calls into question that which you are enamored with. What arrogance you exhibit in your judgments that those who disagree with you are not reasonably intelligent.
Calm Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 The book by Washburn is from 1974, there has been a lot of scholarship since then. Is there something in it particularly that makes it of value that wouldn't be replaced much better by Mormon's Codex perhaps?
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 No, I just haven't read Mormon's Codex yet. So I know what's in that one. That's why I recommended it. It shows my point.
ksfisher Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 The book by Washburn is from 1974, there has been a lot of scholarship since then. Is there something in it particularly that makes it of value that wouldn't be replaced much better by Mormon's Codex perhaps? Perhaps the fact that Washburn's book cost only $2.84 (used) makes it much more desirable than anything Sorenson or Brant Gardner have written
Calm Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) You can go online and get a lot of what Sorenson wrote for free. Brant's stuff online is out of date sad to say, but his publisher needs to feed his wife and kids. Bowtie, you should enjoy this: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-reading-mormons-codex Sorenson's son has a website he's putting up. If you do a search on the poster name of "cursor" you should find it easily enough as he posts announcements on what he's posting from time to time. Edited July 16, 2014 by calmoriah 2
ksfisher Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/authors/gardner-brant This provides a good start to becoming familiar with Brant Gardner's work. Also here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/author/brant/ Edited July 16, 2014 by ksfisher 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 16, 2014 Author Posted July 16, 2014 MormonFreeThinker is that you with a new name? No, he is a smart kid, he said he is 16 years old. When I was 16 years old I believed that the Earth was only thousands of years old. 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 16, 2014 Author Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) delete Edited July 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 16, 2014 Author Posted July 16, 2014 Bacteria Evolving on a human timescale:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bact It is extremely hard to convince people online, I had a debate with ID creationists a few weeks ago, and nobody changed their mind.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 I just thought of something ERayR for you to check out... Here's a link to something on the Sorites Paradox. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ Truth comes in degrees. The statement: a frog is not a fish, or a fish is not a frog is only partially true. We might say .9% true. A frog is genetically very similar to a fish, and has many similar anatomical features. The distinctions we make are very arbitrary. What you're doing is your making those distinctions larger between classes of organisms in order to be able to ignore evidence for evolution. Comments like "its not a change in kind" or "not a change in species" don't refute the point, because those are arbitrary classifications. At what point does it become a different species? Or a different kind? Anyways, I should probably stop derailing so much now... But definitely take a look at the Sorites paradox. I hope it will enlighten you.
Recommended Posts