Johnnie Cake Posted July 19, 2016 Author Posted July 19, 2016 50 minutes ago, snowflake said: Agreed Johnnie Cake....great place to bounce ideas off each other. I was raised LDS,....then went to college as a biology major and was completely submerged in biology and chemistry. There is no place for any other explanation of humans at the university except evolution. I Absolutely knew that evolution was "truth" and would laugh at Christians and thought they were bat SH** crazy to believe that a man rose from the grave, the flood, Noah's ark etc. I was an atheist for probably 10 years because I knew evolution explained everything. It wasn't until I realized that evolution is completely based on "belief" as well. The explanation of the origin of life, as a biology major was a huge problem with naturalism, it is still is unanswered today, the Urey Miller experiment that won those gentlemen the Nobel prize and supposedly proved the origin of life turns out to be a dead end. There was not getting around the racemic mixture problem, (and many other problems as well). The origin of life is just one of many problems involved with the "naturalism" worldview. What I am getting at is that many assumptions in the naturalistic worldview theory is that they are based on lies and just blind belief (just like many other religions). Once I finally realized that naturalism was a religion (based on a ton of faith with not a lot of evidence to back up the claims). Now you can believe that Neanderthals and Humans mated, how can you prove that by experiments and observation? Way to many assumptions to truly call that science. Webster's definition of science: Simple Definition of science : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc. Yes I'm aware of the deficiencies in our understanding of Abiogenesis and exactly how LIFE began...but once it did...we do know that we are one of its results. As for: Quote Now you can believe that Neanderthals and Humans mated, how can you prove that by experiments and observation? Way to many assumptions to truly call that science. Until proven wrong, I trust the science 1
UtahTexan Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Its nice we don't have to choose between them isn't it... Religion plays an important roll in the daily lives of millions of humans...I recognize that and respect it. It's not going away. I'm just glad that we have science and all of the advances and knowledge that it has benefitted our lives with...without it, I wouldn't have known I had Neanderthal ancestors There are just things I do not understand and that I do not care that I do not understand..if that makes any sense. It has no effect on my Salvation. I have my beliefs......And if they do not meet with someone's approval, or if I cannot explain them scientifically, I truly do not care....I am comfortable where I am. I do not bash the beliefs of others unless they use their beliefs (or lack of them) the bash or be negative about mine.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 19, 2016 Author Posted July 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: There are just things I do not understand and that I do not care that I do not understand..if that makes any sense. It has no effect on my Salvation. I have my beliefs......And if they do not meet with someone's approval, or if I cannot explain them scientifically, I truly do not care....I am comfortable where I am. I do not bash the beliefs of others unless they use their beliefs (or lack of them) the bash or be negative about mine. Always feel comfortable to call me out if I ever cross a line...as Richard Bushman has said : "I wish we could find ways to be more generous and understanding with one another." 1
UtahTexan Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: Always feel comfortable to call me out if I ever cross a line...as Richard Bushman has said : "I wish we could find ways to be more generous and understanding with one another." Deal. I believe that we need to be tolerant. But, I confess, I am not as tolerant here when I see the constant flow of negative as I should be. I simply do not understand it. I am not happy with the Catholic Church...I have decided to not go to Catholic Boards to have discussions.....there is not need to go someone's home and bash their cooking. If you are in Utah....now or in the future...we should have lunch sometime.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 19, 2016 Author Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) 7 minutes ago, CountryBoy said: I believe that we need to be tolerant. But, I confess, I am not as tolerant here when I see the constant flow of negative as I should be. I simply do not understand it. I am not happy with the Catholic Church...I have decided to not go to Catholic Boards to have discussions.....there is not need to go someone's home and bash their cooking. If you are in Utah....now or in the future...we should have lunch sometime. I'd enjoy that...I've got a lunch date in hibernation with Stemelbow too...we should just set a date and time and do it. Edited July 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
UtahTexan Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I'd enjoy that...I've got a lunch date in hibernation with Stemelbow too...we should just set a date and time and do it. you are in Utah? I recently moved to SLC from Texas.....
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yes I'm aware of the deficiencies in our understanding of Abiogenesis and exactly how LIFE began.. but our church teaches that our universe (or multiverse) is infinite, that means Abiogenesis happens all the time without the need of a creator. Edited July 19, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
Storm Rider Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: With all due respect Storm Rider...can you show me a single post where I have demeaned a viewpoint that conflicts with my own? I've certainly disagreed with viewpoints that I don't share but I do my hardest to do so respectfully...and to suggest that I consider "Everyone that takes a contrary view to [my] own [as] stupid at worst and at best severely lacking in intelligence." seems a bit hyperbolic and an exaggeration of anything I've ever said regarding someone else's positions. Are you perhaps confusing me with some other poster? I could easily be given my rather swiss-cheese brain and memory, but let's take a stab at it: "... I feel that I've failed as a father. Why are so many so afraid of knowing the truth." " And if you can accept that Shakespeare is the lone author of his works, why not Smith? Which is more likely, that he dictated them himself or that the churches narrative occurred? Seriously this seems to be a no brainier." These are just two that I recall off hand. So a person of faith is afraid of the truth (whose truth?) and it is a no brainer to see through the obviously stupid claims of a old Joe Smith and his weird claims. Johnnie, I think you are more often than no respectful, but you do have a penchant to set yourself up as superior to the rest of us lesser beings. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 Aren't we all descended from Adam and Noah?
JLHPROF Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 14 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Aren't we all descended from Adam and Noah? Yes.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 19, 2016 Author Posted July 19, 2016 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Storm Rider said: I could easily be given my rather swiss-cheese brain and memory, but let's take a stab at it: "... I feel that I've failed as a father. Why are so many so afraid of knowing the truth." " And if you can accept that Shakespeare is the lone author of his works, why not Smith? Which is more likely, that he dictated them himself or that the churches narrative occurred? Seriously this seems to be a no brainier." These are just two that I recall off hand. So a person of faith is afraid of the truth (whose truth?) and it is a no brainer to see through the obviously stupid claims of a old Joe Smith and his weird claims. Johnnie, I think you are more often than no respectful, but you do have a penchant to set yourself up as superior to the rest of us lesser beings. Well I'm always willing to be knocked down if I come off as superior...so let me make this absolutely clear...."I KNOW NOTHING" *anything I post is my own opinion and or rantings which is worthless in the grand scheme of things...all are more than welcome to quote me on this any time. Now with that disclaimer: My daughter was and is afraid of the truth regarding humans mating with Neanderthals...she told me its not true...she told me its just one of my apostate beliefs...I asked her if she'd be willing to read anything on the subject to perhaps give her some additional information to help her understand why I believe it to be true...she said NO she has the truth. I don't believe that her dismissal of humans intersecting with Neanderthals is an isolated event within the LDS faith. To some it undermines faith and so it is dismissed out of hand without ever examining's the overwhelming evidence to support why this is a true part of human history. So when I say afraid of the truth yes I believe that some believers are afraid of the truth. With respect to Smith...yes I believe it makes more sense to believe that the Book of Mormon is man made and fiction...but that just my opinion* *see above Thanks for your reply. Please note that in the examples you've provided I was neither Demeaning nor do they imply that alternative opinions were stupid or lacked intelligence...just to make things clear thanks Edited July 19, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
mapman Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 I've just got to say that if one of my (hypothetical) children were to tell me that they found a genealogy all the way back to Adam and Eve, I would be pretty bemused at my failing to teach them critical thinking skills. Regardless what you think about the historicity of Genesis and the reality of evolution, there simply are no actual historical records that could trace your genealogy back that far. Hopefully people are educated enough to ask basic questions like "where did this genealogy come from?" before accepting it and realize that it is bunk. I'm willing to bet that Johnnie Cake's daughters genealogy she found includes some kind of royalty being descended from pagan gods (most of these genealogies were invented by European royalty to show how the king was descended from Odin or whoever) and then have that genealogy grafted into the Bible genealogies. People should be able to pick up on the fact that these genealogies aren't actually supported by any kind of evidence like real genealogies. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, mapman said: I've just got to say that if one of my (hypothetical) children were to tell me that they found a genealogy all the way back to Adam and Eve, I would be pretty bemused at my failing to teach them critical thinking skills. Regardless what you think about the historicity of Genesis and the reality of evolution, there simply are no actual historical records that could trace your genealogy back that far. Hopefully people are educated enough to ask basic questions like "where did this genealogy come from?" before accepting it and realize that it is bunk. I'm willing to bet that Johnnie Cake's daughters genealogy she found includes some kind of royalty being descended from pagan gods (most of these genealogies were invented by European royalty to show how the king was descended from Odin or whoever) and then have that genealogy grafted into the Bible genealogies. People should be able to pick up on the fact that these genealogies aren't actually supported by any kind of evidence like real genealogies. Haha...pretty much what mapman said. I blame Familysearch.org for propagating this myth among believers. If your family line Link's to royalty, like mine supposedly does, familysearch.org automatically links you back to Adam. It's really a disservice to members to propagate this myth Edited July 20, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
mapman Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Haha...pretty much what mapman said. I blame Familysearch.org for propagating this myth among believers. If your family line Link's to royalty, like mine supposedly does, familysearch.org automatically links you back to Adam. It's really a disservice to members to propagate this myth I have a relative that will sometimes pull out a big chart that shows are family's supposed genealogy back to Adam and Eve, and I just have to roll my eyes that they can believe this stuff because trying to convince them otherwise is pretty useless. This particular genealogy goes back to English and then Anglo-Saxon royalty and then back to Woden (Odin). When they converted to Christianity the kings still had to promote their genealogies in order to claim legitimacy, so they just kept the traditional genealogy and grafted it into the Bible genealogy, making Woden the grandson of Noah (if I remember correctly). It's pretty interesting, but obviously not a real genealogy. In familysearch's defense, it is designed to be open to whatever members put in, which has similar pros and cons as other similar projects like Wikipedia, where you can get an incredible amount of information gathered in one place but you can't really vouch for the accuracy of information without checking the primary sources yourself. I think it is to familysearch's credit that in the new system there is a big focus on attaching sources to individuals so that people can easily check the accuracy of the information presented. Familysearch has issues, but I think it is often undervalued, and truly is something incredible. Also, I know that the church doesn't allow you to do temple work before a certain date (I think it's like 1300 or something like that) because they know that there aren't reliable records from before then. 1
Storm Rider Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Haha...pretty much what mapman said. I blame Familysearch.org for propagating this myth among believers. If your family line Link's to royalty, like mine supposedly does, familysearch.org automatically links you back to Adam. It's really a disservice to members to propagate this myth It is one of the reasons I don't attempt to follow several of my lines back further than I have. I don't see value in it beyond a certain point and I am not impressed with royalty. I have heard of genealogists make such claims of going back to Adam before and I am just nonplussed by hearing such claims. Blaming Familysearch for forcing royalty to track their lineage back to Adam seems an odd deduction. I would have looked to royalty for those claims. It seems the most one can accuse familysearch of doing is reporting what others have claimed or documented. I guess I am just weird. Johnnie, perception is in the eye of the beholder rather than in the eye of the perpetrator. Why would you think that you are the best judge of your actions rather than someone else that is just observing your actions? That seems a little self-centered, but then again I am weird so you have to discount my opinion. It may be that your daughter is not interested in falling into the same traps that have destroyed your testimony. Some would think that was a heroic act of humility. The easiest thing in the world is to forfeit one's faith. It is not demanding and requires little effort. I wonder what it is like for a loved one to observe your life and determine they are fearful of following you down your well-trodden path? I suspect that I can relate in some ways because my children know their father has feet of clay and is more than a weak vessel. Thankfully, our daughter still thinks I am special, but in my son I have noticed the look of sadness and disappointment because he as learned I am among the weakest of men. It can be painful to have children grow into responsible, independent adults. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: It is one of the reasons I don't attempt to follow several of my lines back further than I have. I don't see value in it beyond a certain point and I am not impressed with royalty. I have heard of genealogists make such claims of going back to Adam before and I am just nonplussed by hearing such claims. Blaming Familysearch for forcing royalty to track their lineage back to Adam seems an odd deduction. I would have looked to royalty for those claims. It seems the most one can accuse familysearch of doing is reporting what others have claimed or documented. I guess I am just weird. Johnnie, perception is in the eye of the beholder rather than in the eye of the perpetrator. Why would you think that you are the best judge of your actions rather than someone else that is just observing your actions? That seems a little self-centered, but then again I am weird so you have to discount my opinion. It may be that your daughter is not interested in falling into the same traps that have destroyed your testimony. Some would think that was a heroic act of humility. The easiest thing in the world is to forfeit one's faith. It is not demanding and requires little effort. I wonder what it is like for a loved one to observe your life and determine they are fearful of following you down your well-trodden path? I suspect that I can relate in some ways because my children know their father has feet of clay and is more than a weak vessel. Thankfully, our daughter still thinks I am special, but in my son I have noticed the look of sadness and disappointment because he as learned I am among the weakest of men. It can be painful to have children grow into responsible, independent adults. point of clarification:. My children adore me...but they are all believers...I am not. I don't think it is unusual for believers to put up a defensive wall around their beliefs rather than expose the foundations of their beliefs to examination, scrutiny or a willingness to examine ideas that undermine their traditional beliefs. This board is made up of Internet Mormons not traditional chapel Mormons..in my opinion these two groups believe in two completely different church narratives Edited July 20, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
Teancum Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 8 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I guess that evidence seems to change rather often in the world of science. That is the real problem with those that put their faith in science - they don't know that they don't know and yet they speak as if they know the facts. They only know as much as a man can know; a rather limited standard to live by. This is a miscontrual of how science works. Yes new evidence is often found in scientific endeavors. In fact doubt and critical thinking is encouraged in science. Doubt everything and do your best to support your hypothesis and theories or overturn them. can you say that religion approaches its claims of truth in a similar manner.?
Teancum Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 4 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Aren't we all descended from Adam and Noah? No. 1
Storm Rider Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: point of clarification:. My children adore me...but they are all believers...I am not. I don't think it is unusual for believers to put up a defensive wall around their beliefs rather than expose the foundations of their beliefs to examination, scrutiny or a willingness to examine ideas that undermine their traditional beliefs. This board is made up of Internet Mormons not traditional chapel Mormons..in my opinion these two groups believe in two completely different church narratives I agree that the LDS we meet on this Board are not typical LDS or similar to the normal LDS we meet in Church. Yet, I also think that many, if not most, humans examine their beliefs as a matter of course as they grow in the Gospel and as they get older. Some get to the point where they have a testimony and don't feel the need to examine any further. That makes sense to me because I think at some point one must make a choice will I believe or not; do I want to be a person of faith or not. At that point the decision is made and they stop trying to find another answer. I am glad your children adore you; you are blessed. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 23 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yeah I know in another post I said good bye but I have no where else to share this. Today my daughter stopped by to share some amazing news. She has evidently traced my ancestry back to the very first human beings, Adam & Eve 6,000 years ago. She was effervescent when she told my wife and I the great news. Knowing that nearing 3% of my DNA is descended from my Neanderthal ancestors I asked her if she was going to continue her research so that our 40,000 year old Neanderthal ancestors might also receive their blessings? She looked at me like I had two heads and said there weren't any humans before Adam and Eve. I feel that I've failed as a father. Why are so many so afraid of knowing the truth I was recently asked about just such a seeming paradox by a PhD who was genuinely interested in my assessment. I responded that the Earth is indeed billions of years old, and that there were hominids here in the paleolithic just as anthropologists say in the textbooks -- including Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc., hundreds of thousands of years ago. So, what of claims that Adam & Eve lived about 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden? No problem, I said: The creation had begun billions of years before that ritual held in the Garden -- the same sort of ritual held by Mormons (and their predecessors) in temples or other sacred sites. Since non-Mormon scholars consider the biblical Creation and Garden stories to be temple texts, one need only conjure up a special ritual and covenant-making occasion involving stand-ins for Adam & Eve (just as we do for a live endowment). Thus, the ritual event certainly took place, and all of the human family is therefore obligated by proxy. So your daughter is wrong about there not being humans before Adam. You haven't really failed as a father, and your daughter must find out eventually for herself that there never was a First Creation, but only infinite repetitions of Creation as a ritual forever. Just another witness couple ad infinitum. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 5 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: but our church teaches that our universe (or multiverse) is infinite, that means Abiogenesis happens all the time without the need of a creator. .................................................................... The LDS Church teaches the theory of transmission of life, rather than abiogenesis. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I was recently asked about just such a seeming paradox by a PhD who was genuinely interested in my assessment. I responded that the Earth is indeed billions of years old, and that there were hominids here in the paleolithic just as anthropologists say in the textbooks -- including Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc., hundreds of thousands of years ago. So, what of claims that Adam & Eve lived about 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden? No problem, I said: The creation had begun billions of years before that ritual held in the Garden -- the same sort of ritual held by Mormons (and their predecessors) in temples or other sacred sites. Since non-Mormon scholars consider the biblical Creation and Garden stories to be temple texts, one need only conjure up a special ritual and covenant-making occasion involving stand-ins for Adam & Eve (just as we do for a live endowment). Thus, the ritual event certainly took place, and all of the human family is therefore obligated by proxy. So your daughter is wrong about there not being humans before Adam. You haven't really failed as a father, and your daughter must find out eventually for herself that there never was a First Creation, but only infinite repetitions of Creation as a ritual forever. Just another witness couple ad infinitum. Interesting perspective Robert, thanks for sharing Edited July 20, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The LDS Church teaches the theory of transmission of life, rather than abiogenesis. I though you were an expert in LDS doctrine. The LDS church has no official position on abiogenesis, the scriptures don't say anything about the first life (cell, bacteria, whatever) on Earth. Everything that is possible happens in an infinite universe, even worlds with life created by chance.
thesometimesaint Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Storm Rider said: I guess that evidence seems to change rather often in the world of science. That is the real problem with those that put their faith in science - they don't know that they don't know and yet they speak as if they know the facts. They only know as much as a man can know; a rather limited standard to live by. The evidence doesn't change. Our understanding of it does. SEE I don't put any faith in science. Science isn't based on faith. Only what can be demonstrated to people intent on disproving you. Science is the search for a specific type of knowledge(Knowledge of the Natural world). What can be demonstrated to people intent on disproving you. The Supernatural can play no part in science. That is the best we can do so far. Personally I'd rather live in the 21st Century than some Bronze Age horror story. Edited July 20, 2016 by thesometimesaint 1
BCSpace Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 23 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: LDS doctrine is pro-evolution when you see it as pro-evolution, it is all interpretation. It is not hard to get creative. Except that I don't have to get creative to show it. It's there in plain sight.
Recommended Posts