thesometimesaint Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) Would you say evidence of ancient technologically advanced civilizations would be evidence against a uniformitarian theory like macro-evolution? Nothing that complicated. Just show me a fully modern human skeleton from a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. Edited November 16, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Nothing that complicated. Just show me a fully modern human skeleton from a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. Please answer the question.
cdowis Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Present a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. OK, the D&C and the book of Revelation predicts that this earth will become a crystal. We accept the doctrine that many planets have been exalted (crystal planets). Now, all we have to do is discover a crystal planet.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 (edited) Will you? Yes, if you show me the evidence. What about you? Will you ever change your mind? Please do not ignore my question. Edited November 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted November 16, 2014 Posted November 16, 2014 Yes, if you show me the evidence. What about you? Will you ever change your mind? Please do not ignore my question. Yes if you show me the evidence that overcomes the problems I see with macro-evolution.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Yes if you show me the evidence that overcomes the problems I see with macro-evolution. Good, so are saying that you could be wrong?I could be wrong, I am not 100% certain, but what about you? So what are the problems you see with a Theistic macro-evolution? How do you explain that the whale is related closer to the hippopotamus, than it is to fish? See the evidence for Macro-Evolution, it is clear, it is a well done video. Please see it and try to debunk it. Edited November 17, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Good, so are saying that you could be wrong?I could be wrong, I am not 100% certain, but what about you? My understand is constantly evolving. So what are the problems you see with a Theistic macro-evolution? It has no answer for evidences of very ancient technological civilizations. It is in direct opposition to the fall and atonement and agency. How do you explain that the whale is related closer to the hippopotamus, than it is to fish? But it is neither.See the evidence for Macro-Evolution, it is clear, it is a well done video. Please see it and try to debunk it. It is based on extrapolation of data from micro-evolution that is not valid in their conclusions.
katherine the great Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 OK, the D&C and the book of Revelation predicts that this earth will become a crystal. We accept the doctrine that many planets have been exalted (crystal planets). Now, all we have to do is discover a crystal planet.Uh..that is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) It has no answer for evidences of very ancient technological civilizations. I don't see how that challenges Theistic Macro-Evolution . t is in direct opposition to the fall and atonement and agency. That is not scientific evidence, that is your interpretation of scripture. So no scientific evidence will ever change your mind?Bytheway, where does the teaching "no blood" before the Fall come from? It is based on extrapolation of data from micro-evolution that is not valid in their conclusions. Did you see the video? Many independent evidences confirm that the Whale and the Hippopotamus are cousins. How do you explain that DNA and other independent evidences that prove the Whale is related closer to the Hippopotamus? Please see the video, so you can know what I am talking about. Edited November 17, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
cdowis Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) dup Edited November 17, 2014 by cdowis
cdowis Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Uh..that is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. You are calling me an ignorant fool, and I find that very offensive. The scriptures make a specific prediction, and it is possible to verify that prediction thru observation. That very test has been used to "verify" evolution == "Darwin said such and such, and we have discovered an organism that matches that prediction." I guess that only works for godless atheists. Despite your passionate denials, you appear to be kith and ken with them. Katie, in the future I suggest that you be very careful in how you characterize my statements. You can expect a very sharp response unless you back up your assertions.. You are out of the thread.
katherine the great Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 You are calling me an ignorant fool, and I find that very offensive. The scriptures make a specific prediction, and it is possible to verify that prediction thru observation. That very test has been used to "verify" evolution == "Darwin said such and such, and we have discovered an organism that matches that prediction." I guess that only works for godless atheists. Despite your passionate denials, you appear to be kith and ken with them. Katie, in the future I suggest that you be very careful in how you characterize my statements. You can expect a very sharp response unless you back up your assertions..Talk about "reading in!" In what language did I call you an "ignorant fool?" I never said either of those words. You, on the other hand, just called me a "godless atheist" so you are the one in violation. I think you need a nap. 3
thesometimesaint Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) Please answer the question. I did. You just don't like the answer I gave. Yours is essentially an argument from design. A if I found a watch on the beach argument. Edited November 17, 2014 by thesometimesaint
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 (edited) I did. You just don't like the answer I gave. Yours is essentially an argument from design. A if I found a watch on the beach argument. Question asked: ERayR, on 16 Nov 2014 - 2:47 PM, said:Would you say evidence of ancient technologically advanced civilizations would be evidence against a uniformitarian theory like macro-evolution? Reply by you: Nothing that complicated. Just show me a fully modern human skeleton from a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. The usual song and dance. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS. Edited November 17, 2014 by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 The usual song and dance. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS. I am waiting for you to respond to post 209.
ERayR Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 I don't see how that challenges Theistic Macro-Evolution . Think about it a while before answering. I am sure a bright little lad like you can come up with something That is not scientific evidence, that is your interpretation of scripture. So no scientific evidence will ever change your mind?Bytheway, where does the teaching "no blood" before the Fall come from? Asking for an explanation for evidence of very ancient technological civilizations is a legitimate question that your theory poses no answers. It would help if you meditated a little before coming back with a senseless answer. Did you see the video? Many independent evidences confirm that the Whale and the Hippopotamus are cousins. How do you explain that DNA and other independent evidences that prove the Whale is related closer to the Hippopotamus? So they are cousins. I hope they have enjoyable family reunions.
thesometimesaint Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Question asked: ERayR, on 16 Nov 2014 - 2:47 PM, said:Would you say evidence of ancient technologically advanced civilizations would be evidence against a uniformitarian theory like macro-evolution? Reply by you: The usual song and dance. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with BS. I'm making it very easy for you.. No complicated scenarios about modern day metal artifacts being in multimillion year old coal. Just a simple skeleton.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Think about it a while before answering. I am sure a bright little lad like you can come up with something You should also think about it, Theistic Evolution. So they are cousins. I hope they have enjoyable family reunions. Please respond
Rob Osborn Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Theistic evolution? Thats nothing more than "Intelligent Design". 1
Lukas101 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 For those who want a really good book on the subject I recommend this 'http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Mormonism-A-Quest-Understanding/dp/1560851422 written by mormon evolutionary biologists. It really helps deal with all the topics you are discussing....
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Theistic evolution? Thats nothing more than "Intelligent Design". Not really. So called Intelligent Design says that some organism or part of an organism is so innately complex that only a vastly superior intelligence could have done it. Theistic evolution says that God used evolution in his creation of us and our world/universe.
MormonFreeThinker Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Theistic evolution? Thats nothing more than "Intelligent Design". Okay if you want to call it that, but Theistic Evolution is not falsifiable. I believe in Theistic Evolution, but I cannot scientifically prove that God was involved. Theistic Evolution says that all life is related because life shares a common ancestor, the evidence for common ancestry is very strong. Think about it a while before answering. I am sure a bright little lad like you can come up with something You should also think about it, Theistic macro-evolution. Asking for an explanation for evidence of very ancient technological civilizations is a legitimate question that your theory poses no answers. Again, it is not a problem for Theistic Evolution You believe in intelligent design theory, can you describe how God did it? Does intelligent design theory make predictions? How is it falsifiable? If you cannot answer my questions, your intelligent design theory is not a scientific theory. Again, if Intelligent Design theory is scientific, please describe how God did it? So they are cousins. I hope they have enjoyable family reunions. Please see the video, are you sure you are open minded? Edited November 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Not really. So called Intelligent Design says that some organism or part of an organism is so innately complex that only a vastly superior intelligence could have done it. Theistic evolution says that God used evolution in his creation of us and our world/universe. Theistic evolution is the theory that God directed evolution by his designs. That is Intelligent design.
Rob Osborn Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Intelligent design doesnt propose who or what is the source for the "intelligence: only that it existed and that it was because of this intelligence that life arose on this planet. Predictions include the primary principle that intelligent life cannot arise from non-intelligent sources. So far this prediction has been verified over and over again. It is also falsifiable if we were to find even one case where intelligent life was observed coming from a non-intelligent source. Of course, this too has yet to be falsified. Ironically, the premise of Darwinian evolution, traced back to the first life form must come froma non-intelligent source of the which has never been observed or verified as plausible.
thesometimesaint Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Theistic evolution is the theory that God directed evolution by his designs. That is Intelligent design. Incorrect. So called Intelligent Design begins with a premise that living things are too complex for nature to have produced it.SEE http://web.grinnell.edu/courses/bio/f09/tut-100-04/BAM_%20Finding%20Darwin%27s%20God.pdf
Recommended Posts