thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 I would not be that harsh on man, even without technology. While man is not a fast runner he is designed to outlast most animals. The average human (before most of us got fat and weak) can outrun any predator as long as there is some distance between them when the pursuit starts. Humans do not really need to swim well and never really have. The sea is not a bountiful source of food without some level of technology or at least some moderately advanced tools. Most animals cannot fly and as cool as flying would be humans being able to fly would not help them much in terms of securing food. We may not have sharp teeth or claws but humans are superbly designed to wield weapons which are in many ways superior. Even if it is something picked up like a tree branch a human (again, before the obesity epidemic) can fight off a lot of animals and a weapon has the advantage of being able to sustain damage without weakening the user. If a predator breaks a tooth or claw trying to bring down prey it can be a long term problem. If a human breaks a weapon you replace it.Our young are relatively helpless though for an extended period. In very short and very long distances man is pretty good. A good human runner can maybe do 100 yards in 10 seconds to a mile at about 15 mph, Our natural enemies the cheetahs and the bears are better runners. Cheetahs do 70 mph. More than enough to outrun any human. Even bears at 35 mph can outrun us. Our best feature in running is our stamina over long distances say 20 miles where we can outrun even a horse. True we are land based animals. Most land based animals don't like water and will only drink when absolutely necessary. Where the human species came from there do be crocodiles in that water, and they have nothing against eating us. Birds really aren't our natural enemies, and they have to eat 3 times their body weight everyday just to stay alive. The T-Rex would find us just a light snack. Really it is our massive brain, expressive face, vocal chords, and prehensile hands that give us our competitive edge. Picking up a rock or a tree branch may be simple technology but it is technology. Technologically I would say the it was the invention of the controlled use of fire that really separated us from the other animals.
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 In very short and very long distances man is pretty good. A good human runner can maybe do 100 yards in 10 seconds to a mile at about 15 mph, Our natural enemies the cheetahs and the bears are better runners. Cheetahs do 70 mph. More than enough to outrun any human. Even bears at 35 mph can outrun us. Our best feature in running is our stamina over long distances say 20 miles where we can outrun even a horse. True we are land based animals. Most land based animals don't like water and will only drink when absolutely necessary. Where the human species came from there do be crocodiles in that water, and they have nothing against eating us. Birds really aren't our natural enemies, and they have to eat 3 times their body weight everyday just to stay alive. The T-Rex would find us just a light snack. Really it is our massive brain, expressive face, vocal chords, and prehensile hands that give us our competitive edge. Picking up a rock or a tree branch may be simple technology but it is technology. Technologically I would say the it was the invention of the controlled use of fire that really separated us from the other animals.Cheetahs and bears are faster but unless they start close to the human the average human could tire them out before they could kill.I was under the impression that using basic tools without modifying them was not a form of technology. Admittedly my last Anthropology class was over a decade ago and it is possible that the definitions changed or that my memory is faulty.I would also put humans ability to communicate as a huge edge. Humans can plan and coordinate to a degree that wolves would envy if they were capable of it.
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 (edited) Sure, given the choice I rather be 200 yards than 20 yards from a bear. Better yet have a fast car or small tank between me and it. Edited November 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 A man chases a woman until she catches him. Yes; human females do the choosing. Just as females of almost every species do the choosing. Why did you choose the mate you did when any fertile female of our species would do. We are not mere animals that think the way you propose. there are too many layered issues here on why a person chooses whom they choose. Its not some evolutionary bullpucky like some few scientists tend to think. Why did I personally choose the female I ended up with? Many, many layered things came into play. It wasnt if she was fit to have my children, It wasnt because she would offer a good survival of my species. It wasnt because the mutations or varriances in the genes had led to making her more desirable for the type of climate we live in...Get the drift? I chose to marry her because she fit my spiritual desires. But yeah- science cant account for the spiritual stuff can it?
The Nehor Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Sure, given the choice I rather be 200 yards than 20 yards from a bear. Better yet have a fast car or small tank between me and it. Well, in the areas humans first populated you generally had a long view so smart humans did not let the bear get that close before running. The less smart ones turned out to be both a genetic dead end and a delicious snack.
thesometimesaint Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 We are not mere animals that think the way you propose. there are too many layered issues here on why a person chooses whom they choose. Its not some evolutionary bullpucky like some few scientists tend to think. Why did I personally choose the female I ended up with? Many, many layered things came into play. It wasnt if she was fit to have my children, It wasnt because she would offer a good survival of my species. It wasnt because the mutations or varriances in the genes had led to making her more desirable for the type of climate we live in...Get the drift? I chose to marry her because she fit my spiritual desires. But yeah- science cant account for the spiritual stuff can it? Colbert on I'm not a scientisthttp://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sc6mpp/the-republicans--inspiring-climate-change-message
Rob Osborn Posted November 11, 2014 Posted November 11, 2014 Colbert on I'm not a scientist http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sc6mpp/the-republicans--inspiring-climate-change-message Is this how you spend your time? No wonder you guys dont have a clue, heh heh. 1
The Nehor Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 (edited) Is this how you spend your time? No wonder you guys dont have a clue, heh heh.Whereas you spend your time arguing creationist junk science from even less reputable sources. Glass houses and all that. Edited November 12, 2014 by The Nehor
thesometimesaint Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Your entire post comes down to one sentence == we don't know, we can't explain it. See how easily you could have said that, without the mumble jumbo, trying to divert from the main issue that evolution simply fails the "ten ton trailer" test of explaining some very basic issues on the development of organisms. I am speaking from experience -- I have had several threads on such questions and, when the evolutionists finish their rhetorical fireworks, they basically admit that there is no answer that evolution can provide.++++++++++++++= Sigh, while I am blathering away here, let me repeat something I posted a long time ago. Of all arguments for evolution, one of the strongest arguments is the "tree of life", the interconnected nature of all organisms. Basically the argument is that "only evolution can explain this." Well, I have an alternative explanation. This is not the time or place to get into details, but it is based on chaos theory. It was, for example, discovered that thru the chaos model, a single tree in a forest could predict the nature of the entire forest. If you want to get a general picture of an entire forest, scientists discovered that they can look at a single tree. I propose that, with enough research, chaos theory could provide that explanation of the DNA similarities and the hierarchy of organisms. None of this makes evolution "go away", but simply puts it into its proper place as only one mechanism of the development of the variety and characteristics of organisms we see today. Without getting too technical Chaos Theory has very little relevance to evolution.http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/can-new-scientist-get-any-worse-on-evolution/
ERayR Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Without getting too technical Chaos Theory has very little relevance to evolution.http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/11/05/can-new-scientist-get-any-worse-on-evolution/ No bias in this authors presentation. "I thought they’d been set straight by petulant evolutionists interested in real science. . ." If you do not agree with our position it is not real science. It is not hard to win the argument if you define the opposition out of the discussion to start. Something that I have notice is quite common with macro-evolutionists.
Rob Osborn Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 Whereas you spend your time arguing creationist junk science from even less reputable sources. Glass houses and all that. You can think our intelligent designer (God) is junk science, thats okay, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. As for me, I will bank on the idea that God exists and that he created us.
thesometimesaint Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 You can think our intelligent designer (God) is junk science, thats okay, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. As for me, I will bank on the idea that God exists and that he created us. I sincerely believe that God exists; That he is the father of my Spirit; That he created my physical body to house that Spirit. Intelligent Design is still junk science. 1
The Nehor Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 You can think our intelligent designer (God) is junk science, thats okay, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. As for me, I will bank on the idea that God exists and that he created us.I said creationist science was junk. Not Gods. I agree with your second sentence.
Ringil Posted November 12, 2014 Posted November 12, 2014 The vast majority of Catholics including the clergy, bishops, and Cardinals would accept many of the ideas surrounding the theory of Evolution. There are some Catholic Traditionalists, that, for some reason have become married to variants of biblical literalism- especially in the US- where there has been a kind of evangelical infection in some corners of the Church. You often see this among converts and in the Southern US.
Rob Osborn Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I sincerely believe that God exists; That he is the father of my Spirit; That he created my physical body to house that Spirit. Intelligent Design is still junk science. If intelligent design is junk science then why is the pattern that makes life an intelligent design?
Silhouette Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) I sincerely believe that God exists; That he is the father of my Spirit; That he created my physical body to house that Spirit. Intelligent Design is still junk science.I'm so confuuuuused! Can you please explain what you said? As always, I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm just trying to understand and learn some new ideas. If you believe that God is the Father of your spirit, and that He created a body for that spirit to dwell in...He has to be intelligent to do those things, so why is Intelligent Design junk science? Do you not think that God created everything else in the universe? Including the universe itself? I'm just trying to reconcile your two statements in my mind. Edited November 14, 2014 by Silhouette
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I'm so confuuuuused! Can you please explain what you said? As always, I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm just trying to understand and learn some new ideas. If you believe that God is the Father of your spirit, and that He created a body for that spirit to dwell in...He has to be intelligent to do those things, so why is Intelligent Design junk science? Do you not think that God created everything else in the universe? Including the universe itself? I'm just trying to reconcile your two statements in my mind.Virtually all LDS believe that God designed the Universe and, by extension, themselves. How directly he was involved they may disagree on.The problem is that 90%+ of the evidence for intelligent design is quack science pedaled by quacks to sell books and get website hits. You go to creationist sites and you start pushing 99% quackery. I believe God caused the Universe to form and took a hand in the creation of this world and everything on it including myself. That does not mean that lies and half-truths designed to support that position should be allowed to stand. 2
Silhouette Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Virtually all LDS believe that God designed the Universe and, by extension, themselves. How directly he was involved they may disagree on.The problem is that 90%+ of the evidence for intelligent design is quack science pedaled by quacks to sell books and get website hits. You go to creationist sites and you start pushing 99% quackery. I believe God caused the Universe to form and took a hand in the creation of this world and everything on it including myself. That does not mean that lies and half-truths designed to support that position should be allowed to stand.That makes sense to me. So it's possible to believe that God created everything, while not agreeing with the way some of the evidence for this is presented. Is that right?
The Nehor Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 That makes sense to me. So it's possible to believe that God created everything, while not agreeing with the way some of the evidence for this is presented. Is that right?Yeah, or that people might fabricate evidence or twist data to try to turn it into evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 I'm so confuuuuused! Can you please explain what you said? As always, I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm just trying to understand and learn some new ideas. If you believe that God is the Father of your spirit, and that He created a body for that spirit to dwell in...He has to be intelligent to do those things, so why is Intelligent Design junk science? Do you not think that God created everything else in the universe? Including the universe itself? I'm just trying to reconcile your two statements in my mind. Hi Silhouette. I assume everyone here has good intentions until they prove otherwise. I agree it may sound confusing until you consider that as a scientist it is against the rules of science to use God as the explanation for how things works in our natural world/universe. it would be like using a baseball and hockey sticks, on a tennis court, in a game of football. You can do it, but it is no longer football.SEE I believe God is the father of my Spirit, not that he created it. Our Spirits are eternal, our bodies in this life not so much. So I'm comfortable with science telling me HOW God did it, and my religion telling me WHY he did it. But that doesn't mean there isn't plenty more to learn about both. What we know is but a tiny thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance.
ERayR Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 That makes sense to me. So it's possible to believe that God created everything, while not agreeing with the way some of the evidence for this is presented. Is that right? There are data and conclusions on both sides of this issue that IMO are not convincing. Be careful and if it is important to you make it a matter for prayer.
ERayR Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Hi Silhouette. I assume everyone here has good intentions until they prove otherwise. I agree it may sound confusing until you consider that as a scientist it is against the rules of science to use God as the explanation for how things works in our natural world/universe. it would be like using a baseball and hockey sticks, on a tennis court, in a game of football. You can do it, but it is no longer football.SEE I believe God is the father of my Spirit, not that he created it. Our Spirits are eternal, our bodies in this life not so much. So I'm comfortable with science telling me HOW God did it, and my religion telling me WHY he did it. But that doesn't mean there isn't plenty more to learn about both. What we know is but a tiny thimble in the vast oceans of our ignorance. Be aware these simplistic videos start with some assumptions that may or may not be valid.
Ringil Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Hello Mormon friends! Here is a good video presenting an Orthodox reading of Genesis per Fr. Rodert Barron, a pretty mainline and doctinally sound presenter. http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/video/misreading-genesis/174/
thesometimesaint Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) Be aware these simplistic videos start with some assumptions that may or may not be valid. Never said they weren't simplistic in that the complex ideas are presented in such a way as to help the non-scientist understand them. If you want to I can get into the really complex ideas behind them. But that would loose a lot of interest real quickly. The most basic of assumptions of science is that our natural world/universe is understandable, and that we can make accurate logical predictions about it. Without that capability we're better off hiding in caves being afraid of things that go bump in the night. Edited November 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Evolutionists on the other hand hide out in caves, hear things that go bump in the night then invent ways to explain them. You do have to be careful where you get your information. Evolutionists have this atheist approach where they somehow have proven that God is some supernatural being that defies all laws in nature and has a magic wand that "poof" things into existence. Thus, they then kindly dismiss him and continue on with the atheist mantra and continue to hide out in caves inventing explanations for the things going bump in the night.
Recommended Posts