Science will kill Christianity, as it is already doing because religion is for the unreasonable.
I don't agree with this and I don't find that study as being conclusive evidence of the decline of religion. To me, this aligns with the nature of modern youth to be less and less concerned with spirituality until later in life. Societal pressures have far more pronounced effects on religion amongst youth than science will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Science doesn't push conformity nor does it lash out at you for being different; social norms do. As a 22 year old Mormon, my beliefs are rarely challenged by science. Instead, my beliefs are challenged on a daily basis by those who find my decision to reject profanity, alcohol, drugs and sex as contrary or "silly." None of which have anything to do with scientific advancement.
Religious beliefs tend to become more important when the question of raising a family surfaces. Given that this is also becoming less of a priority for modern couples (get married later, don't always have kids), it is logical that religion is also taking a back seat to personal interests. This ALSO relates to societal pressures considering that there is a rise in the "need" to be independent. Science isn't telling people to postpone having a family in favor of pursuing self-interests.
We're living in a fairly selfish age where youth are encouraged both to conform and focus on their own needs. Those needs being ones that align with social expectations such as sexual reputation. Being a virgin past high school is taboo. What does that have to do with science? Drug use is moving towards legal recreational consumption. Science for the win? Nudity is quickly becoming an acceptable form of family entertainment. Is that science too? The world is all about "does it feel good? Great!" It can be difficult to find religion in the midst of that.
To me, science is more likely to affect the middle-aged person's religion conviction than a twenty-something. I think this particular statement is one of your less thoughtful remarks.
Bible God precedes time. Time was created at the big bang. It works a long the dimensions of the universe(again, its more like an illusion) By definition anything prior is some infinite and eternal energy and the common name is God.
I disagree here. I don't consider the common name to be God. That is an assertion made by you that isn't as common as you suggest. I believe present-God came after the Big Bang. I also believe Evolution was a tool used by God in his creation(s). I find the Bible supports Evolution more than it does Creationism given that most of the support for Creationism comes from assumptions made through interpretations of the Bible that I disagree with.
I support Intelligent Design, but I don't consider it exclusive to Evolution. Is it not logical to assert that Evolution was made possible as a direct result of life being designed to support it? I don't believe our current understanding of Evolution is entirely accurate, however, as I don't believe we all started as single-celled organisms.
I feel that you're trying too hard to prove that only one can be right when in my mind, they are both reliant upon the other to function.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
Macro evolution is more a group of bubbles/circles that form from and connect with each other. The branching of that, well, it can be anything and in any direction/format. Micro evolution is studying specific bubbles. Its reductionist yes, as you say macro evolution is simply lots of micro evolution added together. But the processes of Macro evolution and the study of that(As in, our current theory of human evolution), is where things go bad and things break because it doesn`t add up. Which means we simply have the macro part of it wrong. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg/300px-Mutation_and_selection_diagram.svg.png
So using the very basic image above, Macro study would be of the lines
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Just no.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
It is that simple. It really is just that simple.
Micro-evolution is one, or a handful of mutations.
Macro-evolution is the above on a larger scale.
They're the same thing on different scales, as the name implies. It's literally (and I mean the literal definition of literally);
One step: micro evolution
Lots of steps: macro evolution
The terms really aren't mysterious. There's no hidden, separate-to-normal meaning behind "micro-" and "macro-" here.
I disagree here. I don't consider the common name to be God. That is an assertion made by you that isn't as common as you suggest. I believe present-God came after the Big Bang. I also believe Evolution was a tool used by God in his creation(s). I find the Bible supports Evolution more than it does Creationism given that most of the support for Creationism comes from assumptions made through interpretations of the Bible that I disagree with.
I support Intelligent Design, but I don't consider it exclusive to Evolution. Is it not logical to assert that Evolution was made possible as a direct result of life being designed to support it? I don't believe our current understanding of Evolution is entirely accurate, however, as I don't believe we all started as single-celled organisms.
I feel that you're trying too hard to prove that only one can be right when in my mind, they are both reliant upon the other to function.
Oh, I meant common name among religious people. It can be called different things by different people, but the fundamental meaning of it would be the same.
I believe present-God came after the Big Bang.
Why is that?. By present God, you refer to the biblical God?. Thats almost a Gnostic teaching. But I would like if you explained your view on this further.
I find the Bible supports Evolution more than it does Creationism given that most of the support for Creationism comes from assumptions made through interpretations of the Bible that I disagree with
Creationism is a bad word. I dont like using it. The bible and science are one and the same. Misinterpretation of the bible can lead to stupid assumptions.
Evolution as far as the plants, and vegetation, fruit, trees, etc. Yes there was obviously some process to it and it could have been many millions of years (By the way, who has a link on the development of fruit and vegetation and its origins?).
But man`s evolution is different, and I dont support the current view that we were apes at one point and magically next we are making pyramids and stuff. Findings of cave drawings and primitive tools hardly bridges the enormous gap between that, and there is a lot of evidence why the old fossil records do not prove as a reliable link in anyway(I can show you this later).
Adam had to have been created a man with our basic intelligence, almost instantly or very fast, and-like wise God created Eve from him. Adam just, could never have been a baby `human`.
Apes also had no reason to evolve. However you look at it. If we did evolve from apes, then when did God ever talk to us, When did the Garden of Eden occur?. Did god wait for us to develop from Apes?. No, definitely not. That does not match with the biblical account. And of course, its not real science(which can be proven I might add).
Is it not logical to assert that Evolution was made possible as a direct result of life being designed to support it?
Hmm. The code in evolution is all pre-built into it. It has to have been. We can talk mutations and stuff, but the options are defined in the organism. Now the mechanism of choice can be random or guided, We cant explain how its guided but even random is not really `random` when we factor in environment and stimuli and whatever other conditions that can lead to these mutations.
I don't believe our current understanding of Evolution is entirely accurate
Pokemon.
I feel that you're trying too hard to prove that only one can be right when in my mind, they are both reliant upon the other to function.
They are both reliant on each other. I cant stress that point well enough though.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
It is that simple. It really is just that simple.
Micro-evolution is one, or a handful of mutations.
Macro-evolution is the above on a larger scale.
They're the same thing on different scales, as the name implies. It's literally (and I mean the literal definition of literally);
One step: micro evolution
Lots of steps: macro evolution
The terms really aren't mysterious. There's no hidden, separate-to-normal meaning behind "micro-" and "macro-" here.
Alright. Be ready to explain all the faults in the theory when I post it. The simple walk becomes crippled a long the way and, it never reaches the end point. It might never have been able to stand on its own. After all, it is 100% fact like you said, and you being a biochemist must have reasons behind and for it.
Besides, I get bored when you post nothing interesting , but your chance is coming.
Why is that?. By present God, you refer to the biblical God?. Thats almost a Gnostic teaching. But I would like if you explained your view on this further.
I've actually talked about this a few times already, but my posts tend to get lost in the scuffle of link/meme wars.
I'm really getting tired of the image walls. Start turning them into descriptive links or I'm going to edit them into links for you. It's one thing to post 1-3 pictures with commentary and another to just spam images without any explanation at all.
I can't believe a pretentious coward like yourself actually became a moderator on this site. I'm glad I turned Sixen down when he asked me to be one - I wouldn't want to work with someone like you.
What? Can't you guys understand embryonic morphology, cladograms, fossil morphology, electrophoretic analysis, and genetic distribution/migration maps? Even the pictures have words and descriptions (if you can't read them, learn how to view the image in another window that allows you to expand the image). The first link is a simplified explanation and the pictures are used to visualize the text format of science that you religious people can't seem to comprehend.
All I see is jumping the gaps. What does the similarity of the pelvis between a chimp and human have anything to do with it?. Oh wait..Evolution. Nice try. The skulls are false and I`ll show it later.
Lorenzo Snow, one of our Prophets, once said, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be."
“As man is God once was” refers to the belief that the Plan of Salvation is part of a greater cycle that God went through before us. Specifically, God was once a spirit that became a man to get a physical body in accordance with the plan of his father. Through his actions, he achieved the status he maintains now allowing him to continue the cycle through his own spiritual children. As such, God is more accurate as a state of being than a singular individual. We often refer to God as our Heavenly Father because of this.
This also means that we believe God has an eternal partner, our Heavenly Mother, with which he created us
Oh hell no.
Ok..
Firstly , does the bible mention that any prophet can be NOT of Israel?. Also, the definition of a prophet according to the bible, has to do with them making predictions and judgments from God which will come to pass. If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.Deuteronomy 18:22
The self styled prophets of the mormon faith, predicted anything that happened(aka fitting the bill of description) or?
You have this very mixed up. Jesus , is the spirit that became man, that ascended to the father. Simple, and finished. No confusion , for god is not the author of confusion. God has no father lol. God also has no eternal partner(Aka we dont have a separate Godly mother up there).
This is like bad catholicism of worshipping Mary, the mother of Jesus. Not the same, but like that.
So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.Genesis 1:27
God is male and female. The qualities of his creative power are made separate in male and female.
We often refer to God as our Heavenly Father because of this.
Heaven is his throne, and a created throne it is.
I used to study Jewish kabalah and mysticism. But you know, the bible is the only reference book you need. The prophets all share testimony and witness from the Holy spirit. You risk your knowledge in trusting obscure sources(Like I did, until I left the extension, and just had the bible 100%)
The fact that you only saw chimp and human is just more evidence showing how limited your understanding of evolution is; research Australopithecus. As Eiviyn says, "Google is your friend." You don't have the ability to show the skulls are false or evolution as false, otherwise you would have posted them already (since page 30ish) instead of keep repeating "I'll post them later".
I can't believe a pretentious coward like yourself actually became a moderator on this site. I'm glad I turned Sixen down when he asked me to be one - I wouldn't want to work with someone like you.
Why are you so angry?. I was writing my reply to you as we speak. I will give you some good news in the mean time, God loves you. Ok?. Dont struggle. All in good time, or not?. Drop your arrogance and stupidity. I know this is not your real character. There`s a reason I did not reply to you, which I will explain in my post.
The fact that you only saw chimp and human shows how limited your understanding of evolution is; research Australopithecus. As Eiviyn says, "Google is your friend." You don't have the ability to show the skulls are false or evolution as false, otherwise you would have posted them already (since page 30ish) instead of keep repeating "I'll post them later".
Ok I`ll research that. Im compiling all that stuff now. You can look at it too, and maybe try to correct me if Im wrong.
"Drop your arrogance and stupidity." <- Coming from EW LOL
We all have that to a degree. I like when someone can point that out with knowledge and facts. Only Gradius has been able to do that properly and in the right way with our discussions on the flood and stuff.
Oh and,
God loves you too. As ignorant as you are about it <3.
See, skulls alone to me is hardly a way to justify evolution.
The article on it has everywhere words like:
`most likely`
'was likely'
`suggesting`
`However`
`still debate on the subject`
`Although opinions differ`
`One theory suggests`
`if we assume`
You see now why I dont view this as cold hard science?. And how, its more like a belief type of thing. Might be right or wrong(and we`ll get to that point), irrelevant, but it doesn`t really warrant being called a science. Testable or otherwise. Is that a fair assumption?.
Quick question
What type of communication did the above monstrosity use? and how is it different from past evolutions?, and when exactly did our `common language` begin to develop and under what conditions?
I don't think you understand science. Science takes a probabilistic approach, because there could be infinite valid possibilities, but the most probable explanations have more supporting evidence and the least probable explanations have little to zero supporting evidence (evidence must be able to be reproduced/verified by other people; personal experiences/visions/dreams are not evidence because they can not be verified/reproduced). The probability distribution curve for possible explanations shifts as scientists gather more evidence. (This was already discussed in previous posts.)
Human evolution isn't just supported by general skull shape. Evolution is supported by teeth development (such as the molar teeth and the bicuspids, indication of possible diet), the jaw size, size of skull ridge and cranial volume (indicating evolution of brain), the scapula, pelvic, lumbar, femur, and feet bones (and location of eye orbits, and base of skull/orientation it attaches to cervix) (indicating evolution of bipedal gait), the hand bones (indicating evolution of prehensile hands). Flat skull base indicates bipedal gait because of the biomechanics of the skull attaching to the cervix.
Human evolution is also supported by the appearance vestigial organs, parts: male nipples, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, ear lobes, ear ridges, etc (again, this has already been discussed in previous posts). Vestigial organs have a diminished or zero functionality, but are relics of the traits of our evolutionary ancestors. Our ape-like ancestors (i.e. Australopithecus) had large enough jaws to accommodate wisdom teeth, but most modern humans have smaller jaws that cannot accommodate those wisdom teeth. (The shrinkage of jaw size and increase of cranial volume are related, larger jaws required larger muscles, and since the muscles are attached to the skull ridge at the top of the skull, larger jaw muscles required larger skull ridge, and for the skull to support larger skull ridge and larger jaw muscles, the cranial capacity needed to be smaller ).
We have genetics to support evolution. Genetic mutations and inheritance and distribution of genetic mutation (this was also discussed in previous posts). In short order, scientists have found genetic material in other Homo and other hominid remains and have been able to analyze the DNA. Geneticists can compare the DNA sequences of different species, related species (species that share a "very recent" ancestor) will have similar DNA patterns. From the available genetic material that archaeologists and anthropologists have found modern modern humans are related to several extinct species in the Homo genus (at one time several species (species is NOT ethnic groups/tribes/nationality) of humans co-existed). Anthropologists are always trying to find remains that contain genetic material, but Africa, the cradle of humanity, does not have an environment that is conducive to preserving organic material the way that glacial and bog sites do. Note that fossils are rock and do not contain DNA; whereas actual bones may or may not contain DNA depending on the environment.
Geneticists have also tracked the path of evolution by determining the rate of genetic mutation and using that to approximate dates of when species divergence and speciation occurred. Those dates usually conform with the dating of fossils and organic remains (organic remains use carbon-14, fossils are rocks and unstable iridium or uranium or other isotopes are usually used for the area around the fossil location since mineralization that creates the fossil occurs at a later date than the dates when the creature died).
It's very improbable for an ape-like ancestor to give birth to a modern human (that's probably how you think evolution occurs). The traits of modern humans didn't appear all at once. From the available evidence, scientists think bipedal gait evolved first (we still don't know if the pelvis evolved first or the foot), then several million years later the refinement of bipedal gait allowed cognitive abilities to evolve (bipedal ancestors may have had advantage in obtaining 'softer' foods requiring weaker/smaller jaws, which may have inadvertently gave rise to cranial volume). However, the vast majority of scientists agree and KNOW humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.
Evolution is supported by multiple disciplines of science (i.e. biomechanics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and unfortunately, I probably left out some things that would have been helpful in understanding evolution better. Evolution is a dynamic process that is still occurring in modern humans because genetic mutations still occur, but due to science (particularly medicine) some individuals born with "deleterious" traits are able to survive and have children; those children may also inherit those traits.
We don't know whether Australopithecus could 'talk' or write in the modern sense, but it could have communicated in similar manner that modern apes communicate (sounds, dance moves, sign language, and other behaviors don't really get preserved; currently, we can only guess about Australopithecus social behaviors). I don't know what you mean by "different from past evolutions". However, Australopithecus is significant to human history because it is currently the earliest discovered hominid to show evidence of bipedalism. Australopithecus may have also created and used stone tools, but the widespread usage of tools is associated with Homo. Languages have developed independently of each other. Language development may have began with Homo, which may have allowed different groups of Homo to communicate more efficiently than previous ancestors and may have help caused the explosion of tool use.
New discoveries may push dates further back in time.
Are you trying to make the language connection to the tower of babel story? As humans migrated across the globe, different groups would have developed shortcuts/styles to make communication easier in the same way that American English consists of California dialect, New Jersey dialect, Appalachia dialect, Ebonics, etc. all sound different from British English, and even then, they sound different from Medieval Old English, and so on.
What? Can't you guys understand embryonic morphology, cladograms, fossil morphology, electrophoretic analysis, and genetic distribution/migration maps? Even the pictures have words and descriptions (if you can't read them, learn how to view the image in another window that allows you to expand the image). The first link is a simplified explanation and the pictures are used to visualize the text format of science that you religious people can't seem to comprehend.
I don't care what the images are about. Posting 13 images (30+ the time before) in succession without any commentary to explain why you are doing so is wasteful as I have to load your images each time I navigate to this page. I happen to read this thread primarily through my phone making your posts (which frequently have a slew of random images) incredibly annoying and time consuming.
So again: if you're going to use a lot of images, reference them through links instead. If you continue to post walls of images I will edit your posts and remove them.
You have this very mixed up. Jesus , is the spirit that became man, that ascended to the father. Simple, and finished. No confusion , for god is not the author of confusion. God has no father lol. God also has no eternal partner(Aka we dont have a separate Godly mother up there).
This is like bad catholicism of worshipping Mary, the mother of Jesus. Not the same, but like that.
I don't have anything mixed up. I am quite clear in my understanding of my beliefs. Don't make the mistake of assuming that because I disagree with you I am incredulous of what you "believe" to be true. What you're saying is not fact, it is your interpretation and therefor merely your opinion. I happen to believe my interpretation is the correct one, but I'm not about to demean you for it because I understand that it is no more factual than your beliefs.
I think it's cute that you're trying to "correct" my understanding of the Bible, but I have no interest in throwing verses back and forth when you don't believe in the sources I trust in and I don't believe in the interpretations of the Bible you trust in. It is a fruitless argument because my conviction in my faith is equal to your own.
I'm not here to argue you into adopting my faith, merely provide information for those interested. Doing so provides others with the ability to choose for themselves what they will without my influence. I feel as though your attitude is that you can argue someone into believing the Bible in "your way." For someone boasting conviction and knowledge in Christianity, I feel as though you are missing many of the key tenets for being Christ-like. You certainly aren't very tolerant of beliefs you disagree with.
I'm not interested in continuing a discussion with you about Mormonism if you are unwilling to maintain a neutral perspective in which you can entertain the idea that you might be wrong. I have no problem questioning my beliefs in such a way, but I expect reciprocity in the matter.
Core issues that need to be discussed in the first place:
1. Whether the default must be (of origin of things) either nothing or something.
Nothing in my view is only something because of perception. Nothing as an entity or value is just a result of the perception that absence of something is presently true.
Therefore, since the laws we are subjected to as agents of perception always dictates that nothing (granted the above description apply) cannot create anything, it becomes necessary that something must always be existing in order for another something to exist.
The rule then must always proceed (also because of the laws we perceive or observe or are subject to):
Pre-existing complexity but in a different form which leads to the emergence of different systems under another form emerging after the prior (but in a way has always existed because of inevitability due to an overriding law that determines the interactions):
An arching process that as the degradation of one dominant force reaches its stable form (whereby such a process has resulted in the creation/organization of other forms and systems), where stability means that such a force is now in its irreversible and indestructible state but is necessary foundation for others to proceed or remain as they do, another dominant force emerges... eventually all of these will stabilize and only a cycle persists.
In a way it is an ever changing recycling machine but whose function remains as is. Thus the input and output of it is the same, but its own form is constantly morphing or having an internal transformation that will eventually reach a point where it doesn't allow for it to go beyond or fall inadequate. It becomes perpetual motion of changes which is the process by which recycling occurs, but itself is not allowed to diminish or increase in itself.
The overriding law in the beginning here reaches its ultimate condition, which means it can no longer affect in a way it did before due to what it has brought out or created. Like how a blender can no longer crush and mix at a certain point, but can keep running in the background. (This is too simplistic an example though)
--------------------------------------------------
more mind-fuck:
Number 914 is made up of the attributes and energies of the numbers 9, 1 and 4. Number 9 brings its vibrations of inner-wisdom, serving humanity as a Lightworker, your life path, Universal Spiritual Laws, endings and conclusions, leading by positive example. Number 1 resonates with new beginnings, striving forward, creation, intuition and inspiration, attainment, fulfilment and happiness. Number 4 resonates with hard work, building solid foundations, practicality, worthiness, traditional values and dependability, passion and drive.
Angel Number 914 indicates that you have been working towards making important life changes that will bring about stability and new opportunities that will help you to achieve the successes you desire. These changes have been manifested through your devotion to your passions and Divine life purpose, and will bring you many blessings and rewards. Trust that all will turn out for your highest good.
I don't agree with this and I don't find that study as being conclusive evidence of the decline of religion. To me, this aligns with the nature of modern youth to be less and less concerned with spirituality until later in life. Societal pressures have far more pronounced effects on religion amongst youth than science will likely ever have in our lifetimes. Science doesn't push conformity nor does it lash out at you for being different; social norms do. As a 22 year old Mormon, my beliefs are rarely challenged by science. Instead, my beliefs are challenged on a daily basis by those who find my decision to reject profanity, alcohol, drugs and sex as contrary or "silly." None of which have anything to do with scientific advancement.
Religious beliefs tend to become more important when the question of raising a family surfaces. Given that this is also becoming less of a priority for modern couples (get married later, don't always have kids), it is logical that religion is also taking a back seat to personal interests. This ALSO relates to societal pressures considering that there is a rise in the "need" to be independent. Science isn't telling people to postpone having a family in favor of pursuing self-interests.
We're living in a fairly selfish age where youth are encouraged both to conform and focus on their own needs. Those needs being ones that align with social expectations such as sexual reputation. Being a virgin past high school is taboo. What does that have to do with science? Drug use is moving towards legal recreational consumption. Science for the win? Nudity is quickly becoming an acceptable form of family entertainment. Is that science too? The world is all about "does it feel good? Great!" It can be difficult to find religion in the midst of that.
To me, science is more likely to affect the middle-aged person's religion conviction than a twenty-something. I think this particular statement is one of your less thoughtful remarks.
I disagree here. I don't consider the common name to be God. That is an assertion made by you that isn't as common as you suggest. I believe present-God came after the Big Bang. I also believe Evolution was a tool used by God in his creation(s). I find the Bible supports Evolution more than it does Creationism given that most of the support for Creationism comes from assumptions made through interpretations of the Bible that I disagree with.
I support Intelligent Design, but I don't consider it exclusive to Evolution. Is it not logical to assert that Evolution was made possible as a direct result of life being designed to support it? I don't believe our current understanding of Evolution is entirely accurate, however, as I don't believe we all started as single-celled organisms.
I feel that you're trying too hard to prove that only one can be right when in my mind, they are both reliant upon the other to function.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Just no.
Its not simple like that. Comparing it to a short and long walk is a bad example.
It is that simple. It really is just that simple.
Micro-evolution is one, or a handful of mutations.
Macro-evolution is the above on a larger scale.
They're the same thing on different scales, as the name implies. It's literally (and I mean the literal definition of literally);
One step: micro evolution
Lots of steps: macro evolution
The terms really aren't mysterious. There's no hidden, separate-to-normal meaning behind "micro-" and "macro-" here.
Oh, I meant common name among religious people. It can be called different things by different people, but the fundamental meaning of it would be the same.
I believe present-God came after the Big Bang.
Why is that?. By present God, you refer to the biblical God?. Thats almost a Gnostic teaching. But I would like if you explained your view on this further.
I find the Bible supports Evolution more than it does Creationism given that most of the support for Creationism comes from assumptions made through interpretations of the Bible that I disagree with
Creationism is a bad word. I dont like using it. The bible and science are one and the same. Misinterpretation of the bible can lead to stupid assumptions.
Evolution as far as the plants, and vegetation, fruit, trees, etc. Yes there was obviously some process to it and it could have been many millions of years (By the way, who has a link on the development of fruit and vegetation and its origins?).
But man`s evolution is different, and I dont support the current view that we were apes at one point and magically next we are making pyramids and stuff. Findings of cave drawings and primitive tools hardly bridges the enormous gap between that, and there is a lot of evidence why the old fossil records do not prove as a reliable link in anyway(I can show you this later).
Adam had to have been created a man with our basic intelligence, almost instantly or very fast, and-like wise God created Eve from him. Adam just, could never have been a baby `human`.
Apes also had no reason to evolve. However you look at it. If we did evolve from apes, then when did God ever talk to us, When did the Garden of Eden occur?. Did god wait for us to develop from Apes?. No, definitely not. That does not match with the biblical account. And of course, its not real science(which can be proven I might add).
Is it not logical to assert that Evolution was made possible as a direct result of life being designed to support it?
Hmm. The code in evolution is all pre-built into it. It has to have been. We can talk mutations and stuff, but the options are defined in the organism. Now the mechanism of choice can be random or guided, We cant explain how its guided but even random is not really `random` when we factor in environment and stimuli and whatever other conditions that can lead to these mutations.
I don't believe our current understanding of Evolution is entirely accurate
Pokemon.
I feel that you're trying too hard to prove that only one can be right when in my mind, they are both reliant upon the other to function.
They are both reliant on each other. I cant stress that point well enough though.
Alright. Be ready to explain all the faults in the theory when I post it. The simple walk becomes crippled a long the way and, it never reaches the end point. It might never have been able to stand on its own. After all, it is 100% fact like you said, and you being a biochemist must have reasons behind and for it.
Besides, I get bored when you post nothing interesting , but your chance is coming.
I've actually talked about this a few times already, but my posts tend to get lost in the scuffle of link/meme wars.
@EternalWraith: Go
1) Your god doesn't exist in the first place, therefore it never spoke to humans.
2) Your garden of eden doesn't exist.
3) Biblical account is not real science, as even your own words seem to state.
4) It gets boring when you keep posting nothing interesting.
5) [Regarding your fairy tale faith] it is 100% fact like you said, and you being a christian must have reasons behind it and for it.
6) http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Primates.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29
IMAGES
Richardson Embryos
Carnegie Stages of Human Development
Human Tree of Evolution
Another Human Tree of Evolution
Primate Chart
Evolutionary Path
Pelvis Bone Comparisons
More Pelvis Bone Comparisons
Even More Pelvis Bone Comparisons
Too Many Pelvis Bone Comparisons
Monkey DNA
Y Chromosome Migration Map
Another Migration Map
@FDFederation: Go
I'm really getting tired of the image walls. Start turning them into descriptive links or I'm going to edit them into links for you. It's one thing to post 1-3 pictures with commentary and another to just spam images without any explanation at all.
Wow. You won't even respond to me EW?
I can't believe a pretentious coward like yourself actually became a moderator on this site. I'm glad I turned Sixen down when he asked me to be one - I wouldn't want to work with someone like you.
@ProzaicMuze: Go
What? Can't you guys understand embryonic morphology, cladograms, fossil morphology, electrophoretic analysis, and genetic distribution/migration maps? Even the pictures have words and descriptions (if you can't read them, learn how to view the image in another window that allows you to expand the image). The first link is a simplified explanation and the pictures are used to visualize the text format of science that you religious people can't seem to comprehend.
@FDFederation: Go
All I see is jumping the gaps. What does the similarity of the pelvis between a chimp and human have anything to do with it?. Oh wait..Evolution. Nice try. The skulls are false and I`ll show it later.
Lorenzo Snow, one of our Prophets, once said, “As man is God once was, as God is man may be."
“As man is God once was” refers to the belief that the Plan of Salvation is part of a greater cycle that God went through before us. Specifically, God was once a spirit that became a man to get a physical body in accordance with the plan of his father. Through his actions, he achieved the status he maintains now allowing him to continue the cycle through his own spiritual children. As such, God is more accurate as a state of being than a singular individual. We often refer to God as our Heavenly Father because of this.
This also means that we believe God has an eternal partner, our Heavenly Mother, with which he created us
Oh hell no.
Ok..
Firstly , does the bible mention that any prophet can be NOT of Israel?. Also, the definition of a prophet according to the bible, has to do with them making predictions and judgments from God which will come to pass.
If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him. Deuteronomy 18:22
The self styled prophets of the mormon faith, predicted anything that happened(aka fitting the bill of description) or?
You have this very mixed up. Jesus , is the spirit that became man, that ascended to the father. Simple, and finished. No confusion , for god is not the author of confusion. God has no father lol. God also has no eternal partner(Aka we dont have a separate Godly mother up there).
This is like bad catholicism of worshipping Mary, the mother of Jesus. Not the same, but like that.
So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.Genesis 1:27
God is male and female. The qualities of his creative power are made separate in male and female.
We often refer to God as our Heavenly Father because of this.
Heaven is his throne, and a created throne it is.
I used to study Jewish kabalah and mysticism. But you know, the bible is the only reference book you need. The prophets all share testimony and witness from the Holy spirit. You risk your knowledge in trusting obscure sources(Like I did, until I left the extension, and just had the bible 100%)
The above passage is not biblical truth.
@EternalWraith: Go
The fact that you only saw chimp and human is just more evidence showing how limited your understanding of evolution is; research Australopithecus. As Eiviyn says, "Google is your friend." You don't have the ability to show the skulls are false or evolution as false, otherwise you would have posted them already (since page 30ish) instead of keep repeating "I'll post them later".
Why are you so angry?. I was writing my reply to you as we speak. I will give you some good news in the mean time, God loves you. Ok?. Dont struggle. All in good time, or not?. Drop your arrogance and stupidity. I know this is not your real character. There`s a reason I did not reply to you, which I will explain in my post.
@EternalWraith: Go
"Drop your arrogance and stupidity." <- Coming from EW LOL
Ok I`ll research that. Im compiling all that stuff now. You can look at it too, and maybe try to correct me if Im wrong.
@EternalWraith: Go
Sure, no problem.
We all have that to a degree. I like when someone can point that out with knowledge and facts. Only Gradius has been able to do that properly and in the right way with our discussions on the flood and stuff.
Oh and,
God loves you too. As ignorant as you are about it <3.
@EternalWraith: Go
See, skulls alone to me is hardly a way to justify evolution.
The article on it has everywhere words like:
`most likely`
'was likely'
`suggesting`
`However`
`still debate on the subject`
`Although opinions differ`
`One theory suggests`
`if we assume`
You see now why I dont view this as cold hard science?. And how, its more like a belief type of thing. Might be right or wrong(and we`ll get to that point), irrelevant, but it doesn`t really warrant being called a science. Testable or otherwise. Is that a fair assumption?.
Quick question
What type of communication did the above monstrosity use? and how is it different from past evolutions?, and when exactly did our `common language` begin to develop and under what conditions?
@EternalWraith: Go
That's all you have to 'disprove' evolution?
I don't think you understand science. Science takes a probabilistic approach, because there could be infinite valid possibilities, but the most probable explanations have more supporting evidence and the least probable explanations have little to zero supporting evidence (evidence must be able to be reproduced/verified by other people; personal experiences/visions/dreams are not evidence because they can not be verified/reproduced). The probability distribution curve for possible explanations shifts as scientists gather more evidence. (This was already discussed in previous posts.)
Human evolution isn't just supported by general skull shape. Evolution is supported by teeth development (such as the molar teeth and the bicuspids, indication of possible diet), the jaw size, size of skull ridge and cranial volume (indicating evolution of brain), the scapula, pelvic, lumbar, femur, and feet bones (and location of eye orbits, and base of skull/orientation it attaches to cervix) (indicating evolution of bipedal gait), the hand bones (indicating evolution of prehensile hands). Flat skull base indicates bipedal gait because of the biomechanics of the skull attaching to the cervix.
Human evolution is also supported by the appearance vestigial organs, parts: male nipples, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, ear lobes, ear ridges, etc (again, this has already been discussed in previous posts). Vestigial organs have a diminished or zero functionality, but are relics of the traits of our evolutionary ancestors. Our ape-like ancestors (i.e. Australopithecus) had large enough jaws to accommodate wisdom teeth, but most modern humans have smaller jaws that cannot accommodate those wisdom teeth. (The shrinkage of jaw size and increase of cranial volume are related, larger jaws required larger muscles, and since the muscles are attached to the skull ridge at the top of the skull, larger jaw muscles required larger skull ridge, and for the skull to support larger skull ridge and larger jaw muscles, the cranial capacity needed to be smaller ).
We have genetics to support evolution. Genetic mutations and inheritance and distribution of genetic mutation (this was also discussed in previous posts). In short order, scientists have found genetic material in other Homo and other hominid remains and have been able to analyze the DNA. Geneticists can compare the DNA sequences of different species, related species (species that share a "very recent" ancestor) will have similar DNA patterns. From the available genetic material that archaeologists and anthropologists have found modern modern humans are related to several extinct species in the Homo genus (at one time several species (species is NOT ethnic groups/tribes/nationality) of humans co-existed). Anthropologists are always trying to find remains that contain genetic material, but Africa, the cradle of humanity, does not have an environment that is conducive to preserving organic material the way that glacial and bog sites do. Note that fossils are rock and do not contain DNA; whereas actual bones may or may not contain DNA depending on the environment.
Geneticists have also tracked the path of evolution by determining the rate of genetic mutation and using that to approximate dates of when species divergence and speciation occurred. Those dates usually conform with the dating of fossils and organic remains (organic remains use carbon-14, fossils are rocks and unstable iridium or uranium or other isotopes are usually used for the area around the fossil location since mineralization that creates the fossil occurs at a later date than the dates when the creature died).
It's very improbable for an ape-like ancestor to give birth to a modern human (that's probably how you think evolution occurs). The traits of modern humans didn't appear all at once. From the available evidence, scientists think bipedal gait evolved first (we still don't know if the pelvis evolved first or the foot), then several million years later the refinement of bipedal gait allowed cognitive abilities to evolve (bipedal ancestors may have had advantage in obtaining 'softer' foods requiring weaker/smaller jaws, which may have inadvertently gave rise to cranial volume). However, the vast majority of scientists agree and KNOW humans evolved from ape-like ancestors.
Evolution is supported by multiple disciplines of science (i.e. biomechanics, chemistry, genetics, etc) and unfortunately, I probably left out some things that would have been helpful in understanding evolution better. Evolution is a dynamic process that is still occurring in modern humans because genetic mutations still occur, but due to science (particularly medicine) some individuals born with "deleterious" traits are able to survive and have children; those children may also inherit those traits.
We don't know whether Australopithecus could 'talk' or write in the modern sense, but it could have communicated in similar manner that modern apes communicate (sounds, dance moves, sign language, and other behaviors don't really get preserved; currently, we can only guess about Australopithecus social behaviors). I don't know what you mean by "different from past evolutions". However, Australopithecus is significant to human history because it is currently the earliest discovered hominid to show evidence of bipedalism. Australopithecus may have also created and used stone tools, but the widespread usage of tools is associated with Homo. Languages have developed independently of each other. Language development may have began with Homo, which may have allowed different groups of Homo to communicate more efficiently than previous ancestors and may have help caused the explosion of tool use.
New discoveries may push dates further back in time.
Are you trying to make the language connection to the tower of babel story? As humans migrated across the globe, different groups would have developed shortcuts/styles to make communication easier in the same way that American English consists of California dialect, New Jersey dialect, Appalachia dialect, Ebonics, etc. all sound different from British English, and even then, they sound different from Medieval Old English, and so on.
I don't care what the images are about. Posting 13 images (30+ the time before) in succession without any commentary to explain why you are doing so is wasteful as I have to load your images each time I navigate to this page. I happen to read this thread primarily through my phone making your posts (which frequently have a slew of random images) incredibly annoying and time consuming.
So again: if you're going to use a lot of images, reference them through links instead. If you continue to post walls of images I will edit your posts and remove them.
I don't have anything mixed up. I am quite clear in my understanding of my beliefs. Don't make the mistake of assuming that because I disagree with you I am incredulous of what you "believe" to be true. What you're saying is not fact, it is your interpretation and therefor merely your opinion. I happen to believe my interpretation is the correct one, but I'm not about to demean you for it because I understand that it is no more factual than your beliefs.
I think it's cute that you're trying to "correct" my understanding of the Bible, but I have no interest in throwing verses back and forth when you don't believe in the sources I trust in and I don't believe in the interpretations of the Bible you trust in. It is a fruitless argument because my conviction in my faith is equal to your own.
I'm not here to argue you into adopting my faith, merely provide information for those interested. Doing so provides others with the ability to choose for themselves what they will without my influence. I feel as though your attitude is that you can argue someone into believing the Bible in "your way." For someone boasting conviction and knowledge in Christianity, I feel as though you are missing many of the key tenets for being Christ-like. You certainly aren't very tolerant of beliefs you disagree with.
I'm not interested in continuing a discussion with you about Mormonism if you are unwilling to maintain a neutral perspective in which you can entertain the idea that you might be wrong. I have no problem questioning my beliefs in such a way, but I expect reciprocity in the matter.
Core issues that need to be discussed in the first place:
1. Whether the default must be (of origin of things) either nothing or something.
Nothing in my view is only something because of perception. Nothing as an entity or value is just a result of the perception that absence of something is presently true.
Therefore, since the laws we are subjected to as agents of perception always dictates that nothing (granted the above description apply) cannot create anything, it becomes necessary that something must always be existing in order for another something to exist.
The rule then must always proceed (also because of the laws we perceive or observe or are subject to):
1. Degeneration
2. Organization
3. Both
---------------------------------
Bonus mind-fuck material:
Pre-existing complexity but in a different form which leads to the emergence of different systems under another form emerging after the prior (but in a way has always existed because of inevitability due to an overriding law that determines the interactions):
An arching process that as the degradation of one dominant force reaches its stable form (whereby such a process has resulted in the creation/organization of other forms and systems), where stability means that such a force is now in its irreversible and indestructible state but is necessary foundation for others to proceed or remain as they do, another dominant force emerges... eventually all of these will stabilize and only a cycle persists.
In a way it is an ever changing recycling machine but whose function remains as is. Thus the input and output of it is the same, but its own form is constantly morphing or having an internal transformation that will eventually reach a point where it doesn't allow for it to go beyond or fall inadequate. It becomes perpetual motion of changes which is the process by which recycling occurs, but itself is not allowed to diminish or increase in itself.
The overriding law in the beginning here reaches its ultimate condition, which means it can no longer affect in a way it did before due to what it has brought out or created. Like how a blender can no longer crush and mix at a certain point, but can keep running in the background. (This is too simplistic an example though)
--------------------------------------------------
more mind-fuck:
post 914. Googled, "914 numerology" and ta-da!
http://sacredscribesangelnumbers.blogspot.com/2012/01/angel-number-914.html
Number 914 is made up of the attributes and energies of the numbers 9, 1 and 4. Number 9 brings its vibrations of inner-wisdom, serving humanity as a Lightworker, your life path, Universal Spiritual Laws, endings and conclusions, leading by positive example. Number 1 resonates with new beginnings, striving forward, creation, intuition and inspiration, attainment, fulfilment and happiness. Number 4 resonates with hard work, building solid foundations, practicality, worthiness, traditional values and dependability, passion and drive.
Angel Number 914 indicates that you have been working towards making important life changes that will bring about stability and new opportunities that will help you to achieve the successes you desire. These changes have been manifested through your devotion to your passions and Divine life purpose, and will bring you many blessings and rewards. Trust that all will turn out for your highest good.
Coincidence? Heresy? or Simply Mind-fuck?
Or is there stuff they don't want you to know....
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.