Teancum Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Well, basically:-> Kolob, the celestial "glass" sphere at the centre has 15 great stars/planets (poss. systems) rotating around it.-> Our sun Shinehah is one of those stars that receive it's light from indirectly from Kolob-> Around our sun orbit 12 planets the lesser around the greater (presumably less light to greater light)-> Our earth was made up of other worlds which were broken up (presumably never celestialized) Gives a whole new perspective to "Worlds Without Number" doesn't it. According to Joseph Smith:"And how shall I write to your understanding even the little I may have retained in memory? You will not forget that the march in science through the last seventy years has in many things reversed the world's thought, changed its modes and almost its face, and is fast exploding the dogmas of outside theology. Well, the keys to all this knowledge were first committed to the Prophet Joseph, as a part of the gospel, for the world's benefit, for all of which he was derided. He was the first in this age to teach "substantialism", the eternity of matter, that no part or particle of the great universe could become annihilated or destroyed; that light and life and spirit were one; that all light and heat are the "Glory of God", which is his power, that fills the "immensity of space", and is the life of all things, and permeates with latent life, and heat, every particle of which all worlds are composed; that light or spirit, and matter, are the two first great primary principles of the universe, or of Being; that they are self-existent, co-existent, indestructible, and eternal, and from these two elements both our spirits and our bodies were formulated, and he gave us to understand that there were twelve kingdoms, or planets revolving around our solar system, to which the Lord gave an equal division of His time or ministry and that now was His time to again visit the earth. He taught that all the systems of the worlds were in revolution, the lesser around the greater. He taught that all the animal kingdoms would be resurrected, and made us understand that they would remain in the dominion of those who, with creative power, reach out for dominion, through the power of eternal lives. He taught us that the saints would fill the great West, and through Mexico, Central and South America we would do a great work for the redemption of the remnant of Jacob. Of what he taught us relating to the Kingdom of God, as it would become organized upon the earth through "all nations learning war no more", and all adopting the God-given constitution of the United States as a Palladium of Liberty and Equal Rights. (Benjamin F. Johnson, Letter to George F. Gibbs, 1903)He also said that:“This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodeled and made into the one on which we live. ” (Words of Joseph Smith pg 60, and published in the Ensign - https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/01/the-restoration-of-major-doctrines-through-joseph-smith-the-godhead-mankind-and-the-creation?lang=eng#footnote36-03235_000_007. And Abraham 3:13And he said unto me: This is Shinehah, which is the sun. And he said unto me: Kokob, which is star. And he said unto me: Olea, which is the moon. And he said unto me: Kokaubeam, which signifies stars, or all the great lights, which were in the firmament of heaven. And Book of Abraham Facs 2:5"Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob."Well Joseph sure got that one wrong because the earth certainly is not made up of parts of other planets.
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Well Joseph sure got that one wrong because the earth certainly is not made up of parts of other planets. The Earth is made of star dust 1
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 (edited) . Edited December 7, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
rodheadlee Posted December 7, 2014 Posted December 7, 2014 Well Joseph sure got that one wrong because the earth certainly is not made up of parts of other planets.CFR
strappinglad Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) From what I have read about scientists in the past, they were humble in their admitting ignorance and glorifying the Creator. SOME of today's scientists are arrogant in their ignorance. They claim to know what happened during every nano second of the emergence of the universe , yet they are constantly being " surprised " about what is actually observed and observable. Even the moon, which has been very thoroughly studied, surprises on occasion. The public is being misled when it is told that science knows how the stars were formed, how the solar system was formed, and how the earth and moon were formed. When presented with some cosmic problem, the scientific solution is to claim an " impact did it" . Two celestial bodies smashed into each other and Lo there was water and life.' Stuff happens 'and 'God did it' are on about the same plain explanation wise. Edited December 8, 2014 by strappinglad
Guest Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 In the Milky Way Galaxy we got other planets besides just Earth which humans live on. What's the point of God creating planets like Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, Venus, Pluto, Saturn, etc. if not to populate them with humans or other life beings? Do you think God created other life forms for those planets, are there aliens out there?No point, just gravitational pull of matter.
Teancum Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 CFRCFR That the earth was not made up of numerous other planets!? Really? Well perhaps if you view collisions of the gases and other elements that revolved around our early sun as being made from other worlds then maybe you have a case. Scientist call this accretion from the solar nebula.. But that does not seem to me that really qualifies as parts of other worlds per say. Collisions with other bodies from this solar system not for other worlds from elsewhere may have added to the formation. Science als theorizes that a major collision with a large forming planet may have created the moon.http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed
ERayR Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 CFR That the earth was not made up of numerous other planets!? Really? Well perhaps if you view collisions of the gases and other elements that revolved around our early sun as being made from other worlds then maybe you have a case. Scientist call this accretion from the solar nebula.. But that does not seem to me that really qualifies as parts of other worlds per say. Collisions with other bodies from this solar system not for other worlds from elsewhere may have added to the formation. Science als theorizes that a major collision with a large forming planet may have created the moon.http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed And it is all based on extrapolations based on individual assumptions which may or may not be true and there is no way of verification. Just a lot of religious faith.
rodheadlee Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 CFR That the earth was not made up of numerous other planets!? Really? Well perhaps if you view collisions of the gases and other elements that revolved around our early sun as being made from other worlds then maybe you have a case. Scientist call this accretion from the solar nebula.. But that does not seem to me that really qualifies as parts of other worlds per say. Collisions with other bodies from this solar system not for other worlds from elsewhere may have added to the formation. Science als theorizes that a major collision with a large forming planet may have created the moon.http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/earth_timeline/earth_formed"The details of how the Earth formed are still being worked out" a quote from your article. No one really knows is the point. I'm open to learning about it. I suspect there is a finite amount of matter in the universe and it gets used over and over.
thesometimesaint Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 We don't know much about gravity either. So lets throw out Newton, and Einstein.http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-exist
Teancum Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) And it is all based on extrapolations based on individual assumptions which may or may not be true and there is no way of verification. Just a lot of religious faith. No not religious faith. The best conclusions based on the verifiable evidence that a good scientist would be willing to change, modify or even over turn if other evidence is found, tested, discovered. Religious faith is belief in something with no evidence or even in spite of it. Edited December 8, 2014 by Teancum
Teancum Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) "The details of how the Earth formed are still being worked out" a quote from your article. No one really knows is the point. I'm open to learning about it. I suspect there is a finite amount of matter in the universe and it gets used over and over. Yes I could agree with that. So maybe the from other worlds is not that far out to a certain extent. However given the forces and heat involved in the process I doubt there would be little remaining that could be identifiable from the other world. For example fossil records from the other worlds would not survive the cataclysmic events of the new world formation. Edited December 8, 2014 by Teancum
ERayR Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 No not religious faith. The best conclusions based on the verifiable evidence that a good scientist would be willing to change, modify or even over turn if other evidence is found, tested, discovered. Religious faith is belief in something with no evidence or even in spite of it. Yes religious faith. There is not enough verifiable evidence to fill in the gaps. No verifiable incidents of natural, spontanious generation of living matter from non living matter. No verifiable evidence to connect macro-evolution with micro-evolution. All there is, is faith that it happened at a certain point. Not in my life it isn't. It is based on the evidence of my experiences, empirical and spiritual. You will fall on your face every time when you omit one or the other.
thesometimesaint Posted December 8, 2014 Posted December 8, 2014 Evidence for evolution.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450http://www.nas.edu/evolution/
rodheadlee Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 We don't know much about gravity either. So lets throw out Newton, and Einstein.http://bigthink.com/videos/gravity-doesnt-existsigh, I didn't say I wanted to throw stuff out.
rodheadlee Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Yes I could agree with that. So maybe the from other worlds is not that far out to a certain extent. However given the forces and heat involved in the process I doubt there would be little remaining that could be identifiable from the other world. For example fossil records from the other worlds would not survive the cataclysmic events of the new world formation. in my work a chemical bond is always preferable to a structural bond - no sanding required I could see where melting all of the elements into one mass the be reformed over time to become a solid object would work. How do suppose they get seeded with life? Edited December 9, 2014 by rodheadlee
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) No verifiable incidents of natural, spontanious generation of living matter from non living matter. No verifiable incidents, spontanious generation of living matter from the dust of the Earth. No verifiable evidence to connect macro-evolution with micro-evolution. All there is, is faith that it happened at a certain point. I used to believe in ID theory, but the evidence strongly points to Macro-Evolution, I don't like it, I am not doing wishful thinking and confirmation bias. What a coincidence that apes and humans are the smartest creatures on the planet, why? Look at that ape, he was not trained, he did something very clever, how do you explain that level of intelligence? Edited December 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
pogi Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 No verifiable incidents, spontanious generation of living matter from the dust of the Earth. That's why he is saying both positions are faith based. What a coincidence that apes and humans are the smartest creatures on the planet, why? Somebody had to be the smartest. This in no way helps evolutionist theory or hurts creationist theory. They both acknowledge this fact. Look at that ape, he was not trained, he did something very clever, how do you explain that level of intelligence? Apes are smart. Easy enough explanation. Why must all animal be stupid for creationism to be true? 2
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) That's why he is saying both positions are faith based. True, but Evolution is not about the origin of life. The origin of life is not relevant in a Evolution debate. Somebody had to be the smartest. This in no way helps evolutionist theory or hurts creationist theory. They both acknowledge this fact. True, but I am saying that humans and apes are the smartest creatures. Evolution predicts that humans and chimps are cousins, that is why both have a high level of intelligence. Creationism does not predict that, why wasn't the dog or the horse the smartest animal? Apes are smart. Easy enough explanation. Why must all animal be stupid for creationism to be true? I am not saying that, there are millions of animal species on the planet, why did the chimp happen to be the smartest one? The high level of intelligence is another evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Edited December 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
pogi Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) True, but I am saying that humans and apes are the smartest creatures. Evolution predicts that humans and chimps are cousins, that is why both have a high level of intelligence. Creationism does not predict that, why wasn't the dog or the horse the smartest animal? Animals that are created with the closest matching geno and phenotypes to humans, would be the most like humans. Creationists can make predictions too. Its not rocket science. If two animals have similar geno and phenotypes, they will be similar in many attributes. This does nothing to prove that one evolved from the other, it could just as easily be explained that they were created alike. Evolutionists simply conclude that they must be "cousins" because they are alike. It's not really a prediction, nor is it very conclusive, just a guess really as to why they are similar. I don't need to "predict" that apes are smart or that they are like humans in some regards. I can watch a youtube video for a minute and see that they are smart. Edited December 9, 2014 by pogi 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there’s always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/why-creationism-isnt-science/#ixzz3LQ2uxIYl
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) it could just as easily be explained that they were created alike. So God created both of us (humans and chimps) literally out of the dust with a similar appearance and intelligence? That does not prove Evolution, but why would God do that? There are stronger evidences that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, for example Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Edited December 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Evolutionists simply conclude that they must be "cousins" because they are alike. It's not really a prediction, nor is it very conclusive, just a guess really as to why they are similar. Please read what the church says about common ancestry https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng"Any two individuals share approximately 99.9% of their genetic arrangement, but the thousands of small differences account for the tremendous variation between people. Genetic variations are introduced through what geneticists call random mutation. Mutations are errors that occur as DNA is copied during the formation of reproductive cells. These mutations accumulate over time as they are passed from generation to generation, resulting in unique genetic profiles. The inheritance pattern of the first 22 pairs of chromosomes (called autosomes) is characterized by continuous shuffling: half of the DNA from both the father and the mother recombine to form the DNA of their children. The 23rd pair of chromosomes determines the gender of a child (XY for a male, XX for a female). Because only males have the Y chromosome, a son inherits this chromosome mostly intact from his father. Human cells also have DNA in a series of cell components called the mitochondria. Mitochondrial DNA is relatively small—containing approximately 17,000 instructions—and is inherited largely intact from the mother. A mother’s mitochondrial DNA is passed to all of her children, but only her daughters will pass their mitochondrial DNA to the next generation. Mitochondrial DNA was the first type of DNA to be sequenced and was thus the first that geneticists used to study populations. As technology has improved, analysis of autosomal DNA has allowed geneticists to conduct sophisticated studies involving combinations of multiple genetic markers. Population geneticists attempt to reconstruct the origins, migrations, and relationships of populations using modern and ancient DNA samples. Examining available data, scientists have identified combinations of mutations that are distinctive of populations in different regions of the world. Unique mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome profiles are called haplogroups. Scientists designate these haplogroups with letters of the alphabet." You can apply the same methods to humans and chimps.
pogi Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) So God created both of us (humans and chimps) literally out of the dust with a similar appearance and intelligence? That does not prove Evolution, but why would God do that? I don't know, but I could come up with many reasonable hypothesis. But they would all be guesses, just like evolution. There are stronger evidences that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, for example Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein sequence. In the absence of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Again, this could be evidence that they were created with matching protein sequences. Considering that all animals require functioning organs and organ systems made from the same stuff and sequences that we are made of, that there would be many similarities between species is not surprising. Why drastically alter a design for life that works really well? Edited December 9, 2014 by pogi 1
thesometimesaint Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I don't know, but I could come up with many reasonable hypothesis. But they would all be guesses, just like evolution. Again, this could be evidence that they were created with matching protein sequences. It is not too strange to me considering that all animals must have functioning organs and organ systems, made from the same stuff and sequences that we are made of, that there would be many similarities between species. Why drastically alter a design for life that works really well? Then do it. Put your "reasonable hypothesis" to the tests. Tautology.
Recommended Posts