ldsguy422

Members
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by ldsguy422

  1. ldsguy422

    Are Latter-day Saints unified?

    I wrote this a couple weeks ago. I feel like it's relevant to the discussion, especially as it relates to contention: One of the more underrated teachings from the Savior is the admonition to, “agree with thine adversary quickly (Matthew 5:25).” This is a very practical teaching about disarming ourselves, so to speak, from sensitive topics which often arouse negative emotions. It’s natural to want to defend our beliefs and positions. That’s okay. We absolutely should have convictions, and not bend to whatever the popular whims of the day might be. It can become problematic, however, when we become so rigid in our stances that self-righteousness, arrogance, and contention overpower our better senses. Contention isn’t what happens when people disagree. It’s what happens when we lose trust and respect for one another. Contention is what happens when, “the love of many shall wax cold (Matthew 24:12).” Many people naturally enjoy engaging in civil discourse from time-to-time. And many people enjoy discussing a myriad of different topics. Unfortunately, the discourse nowadays isn’t becoming so civil. We are sometimes consumed with the need for being “right.” And we want others to know we’re right. The Savior’s counsel reminds me that there are more important things than being right. We could have peace of mind, we could have mutual respect for others, and we could build on commonalities. The aim of any discussion should not be victory, but progress. A protestant minister once said, “God cares about people more than he cares about truth in the abstract. Jesus didn’t die on the cross to make a point. He died on the cross to save people whom he loves. We too must represent our Lord, with love to God and our neighbor, always foremost in our concerns.”
  2. ldsguy422

    Liberals in the Church

    I feel like the ward I live in is pretty close to 50-50 on Democrats and Republicans. Members bring up politics far too often, IMO. Whenever I'm teaching a Sunday School class and someone interjects with a political comment, I usually respond by saying, "Hey, if you have something political to say, please save it for a testimony meeting." Politically-charged comments are inevitably going to irritate someone in the class. Most people can see that my comment is facetious, and it quickly diffuses an otherwise tense situation.
  3. ldsguy422

    Carb's Take on Racism

    How could defunding the police possibly make the public more safe ? Who is more likely to be impacted by that kind of reform?
  4. ldsguy422

    Carb's Take on Racism

    The poverty level in the United States for a single person is considered $12,490. That would actually put you in the 89th percentile for all salaries around the world. Sometimes privilege is a matter of perspective.
  5. ldsguy422

    Carb's Take on Racism

    We are one of the least racist countries in the world. Yet, you wouldn't know any better if you were watching cable news. If I were from another planet, and I only knew our culture by what I saw on TV, I'd probably think our country has become significantly more racist over the past 20 years. Race, race, race. It's a constant talking point. Why does every bad thing have to be attributed to race? We easily and quickly impute motive on others. And the reality is, no one really knows why someone did something or said something, except the offender - and sometimes they don't even understand their own psychological motives. Sometimes it's just poor judgement. According to this study from two Swedish economists, less than 5% of Americans would be bothered by having a neighbor of a different race. Looks like the OP was correct in that Asian nations are actually significantly more racist than western countries. Japan and China are both in the 15-20% range. India exceeds 40%. That is kind of eye-opening. The study took place in 2013, FWIW.
  6. ldsguy422

    A bunch of memes I just made!

    I've never heard any complaints about cops targeting women. And yet, men are 24 times more likely to die at the hands of a cop. Stop the sexist cops already!
  7. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    With a denominator of 64, we'd be tracing it back to great-great-great-great grandparents. Each individual has 4 grandparents - and those 4 grandparents have 16 great-great grandparents. -If one grandparent is full blood, they would be 16/16. Diluted twice, the blood quantum becomes 16/64 for the grandchild -Another grandparent would be 4/16. Diluted twice, it becomes 4/64 -Another grandparent would be 1/16. Diluted twice, it becomes 1/64 -Another grandparent is white So 16/64 + 4/64 + 1/64 + 0/64 = 21/64 I'm guessing anyway. Seems kind of strange. I just can't imagine the math coming out any other way. But, I've never verified the figures myself. Her grandmother that is 21/64 actually has blood from another tribe. She's more Native American than Caucasian.
  8. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    lol yeah, that's not a typical fraction. So, my wife's maternal grandfather is full blood Cherokee. Her maternal grandmother's Cherokee bloodline is 21/64. So, her mom was then 85/128. Wife is 85/256. My kids are 85/512. That's what it says on the Indian Card, at least.
  9. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    The first reported sighting was in 1771. Why did it take so long? We don't know if they migrated in 1500 AD, or 500 AD, or 2,000 BC. I'll go ahead and assume it's been for several centuries. And I'm already questioning modern humans existing for 200,000 years - so yes, the appeal to authority approach carries little weight to me. How do you know the initial migration had 50 people? It doesn't change much, IMO. But, there's no way of knowing that figure. Noah's Ark would have been a much more ambitious undertaking, and presumably with only 8 individuals. If they were voyageurs who were seeking more fruitful land, they obviously came by boat. If you came by boat, then the logical conclusion is that you can also leave by boat. There easily could have been a small group of defectors at any time (1000 AD, 1000 BC, 3000 BC, whatever). And yes, they absolutely could have reproduced and mixed with others. Blood can become diluted very quickly. My kids are 1/6 Native American (from my wife), and I don't think many people would think they're anything other than completely white. Also, the island is 23 square miles, which is 14,720 acres. If there are 50 households on the island, you're looking at close to 300 acres per family. That is substantial. Do we know if the Indian Authorities have tried to come in from any other entry point? Looks like the Sentinelse were quick to show up on the beach when that crew came with the coconuts. It's sensible that you would want to live close to the beach, as that would make access to fishing much easier. So, I can't help but think more huts are lined up near the coast, meaning it's very, very possible there are many more people on the island. And it's not like we've ever had anyone go up and down the island and take a census. Close to 15,000 acres and we think the group is capped at 200 individuals? That is hard to believe. So in summary, I'm questioning the current population. I'm questioning the number of defectors. I'm questioning the total number of descendants. I'm questioning how long they've been there. You were wanting me to propose some hypothetical for how long I'd be willing to accept that the tribe has been there. Let me just be extremely generous and say 10,000 years And let's say the population has only increased from 50 to 200. Again, skeptical of the time elapsed and the population (very skeptical). But, sure, let's go with these figures. The population has only doubled twice in this scenario. Even still, that means it was doubling every 5,000 years. Are we ready to extrapolate data from arguably the least progressive community in all of mankind, and apply that standard to the whole world - and do so for 190,000 years? The rest of the world wasn't living on an island. In other communities, there would have been inevitable division due to the struggles of maintaining a hierarchy. Migrations would form, and groups would discover new lands. You can't do that on an island. But again, they came on a boat. They could also leave on a boat. I seriously doubt a group that is capable of leaving, would just sit there, and sit there, and not question anything for 55,000 years. Also, doubling every 5,000 years from 200,000 BC to 10,000 BC would lead to 550 billion people. For the math to be more favorable, A LOT of assumptions have to go in your favor. Believing that a group has been stable for 50,000 years with little variance in population is not just a big assumption - it's an astronomical assumption.
  10. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    It's an interesting case. I'll grant you that. The biggest issue here, of course, is no one actually knows how long they've been there. I just read an article from Forbes, and it says that they're related to other groups in the Andaman Islands. So, there have been divisions. But, no one knows how many of the Sentinelese fled to other indigenous groups. No one knows how many integrated into modern society. Or how many got kicked out of the tribe for violating tribal protocol. It's hard to account for a group that doesn't have a documented history - and almost no contact with the outside world. Too many missing variables. Would love to know more about them. But there's very little we can analyze with that. While doing some research on them, I've found that the population estimates ranged from 50 to 400. You took the low end on that number. So, we know there have been divisions, which is important because we don't know how many actual descendants came from the original two. And We don't know how long they've existed on the island. And we don't know what the current population is. Let's go ahead and say the population is 256. That allows the tribe do double exactly 7 times. If they've been around for 6300 years, it means the population would double every 900 years. It's very possible that the total descendants is much more than 400. Could easily be in the thousands. So yeah, still hard for me to believe that any tribe would need 8,950 years to double. And remember it's not just 8,950 years. It's continuing with that razor thin population growth for 190,000 years.
  11. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    You're not grasping how crazy it is for the world's population to double every 9,000 years. Let's just scale it back every so slightly and say 5,000 years. So the example you gave was stable for 1,000 years. Let's say that example was true - nothing happened to the growth for 1,000 years. And then it gets back on track and finally doubles after 5,000 years. And that pattern of doubling every 5,000 years continues 38 more times. Okay, so what happens when you double every 5,000 years from 200,000 B.C. to 10,000 B.C? You get an astounding number of 550 billion. A far cry from 4 million. It's amazing that you're doubling down and not conceding any ground. The numbers are not on your side. And like I said, yes, populations can go relatively unchanged for periods of time - but, not for 9,000 years. That is not feasible.
  12. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    Using a tribe would make sense... if no one ever broke off from that tribe. We're talking about the world's population, not a single group. Divisions have always existed. And knowing little to nothing about the Sentinalese, I'm going to guess they've had members that have left the tribe. Have they been completely in tact for thousands and thousands of years without division? If people have left the group, then your example is completely irrelevant.
  13. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    No one is denying that a civilization can yo-yo back-and-forth and be as volatile as a stock market. But, this doesn't happen time and time and time again for thousands and thousands of years. Since the beginning of dawn, tragedies of all sorts like the ones you just mentioned have been occurring. And they still occur. And yet, populations double quickly. I'm not denying that a population can remain unchanged for an extend period of time. Huge difference between 1,000 years and 9,000 years. And your previous example, with a tribe of 10,000, would absolutely go extinct. No question. I took the demographics of Lesotho and divided them in half, which seems reasonable since the life expectancy of Lesothans is 55. And cavemen allegedly lived anywhere from 25-35 years. So, a 0-7 year-old on my chart, would have been 0-14 years old for Lesotho. 31.84% of their country fits within that demographic. So what happens after a few years? Well, if you lose 1,000 people every year between these four demographics, and death is equitably distributed, then your 0-7 year old group will quickly become the majority... eventually you won't have enough fit men to father children, or defend themselves from other tribes. Time for another theory.
  14. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    The population he provided is going extinct. Just a matter of time.
  15. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    Great. So there must have been wide-scale genocide for thousands and thousands and thousands of years. Yes, tribes and nations can struggle to grow for a period of time. But, not for 9 millenia. What evidence is there for this? Has a nation or tribe ever struggled to grow for such a long period of time? A few generations. Sure. Okay. But it sure as heck didn't last for 9,000 years. And you've yet to touch on how there was little to no progression for 190,000 years.
  16. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    Great. But again, we're talking about 190,000 years of nothing. Little to no progression of any kind. Can that happen for a small tribe over a period of time? Sure. But, this is for 8,000 generations. Not 50. And how did they get to the population of 10,000? I have a hard time believing the capacity to expand came to a screeching halt. People divide into other groups all the time. People travel. People discover. They explore. They don't do the same thing for 190,000 years. Your math takes on a lot of assumptions. And again, every group that has every lived has dealt with terrible tragedies, and they've all grown in spite of them.
  17. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    Okay, let's look at the simple math for a tribe of 100, with an annual birth rate of 10, that doubles every 8,950 years. Original Population: 100 Annual Birth Rate: 10 Time Elapsed: 8,950 Years Births: 89,950 Deaths: 89,750 Net Gain: 100 New Population: 200 Almost 9,000 Years later? In 6,000 years we've gone from a few individuals to almost 8 billion. Yet, a stone-age tribe needs 9,000 years to increase from 100 to 200? The duration of this alleged stable population lasts from 200,000 BC to 10,000 BC; we're talking about 190,000 years. It's hard to believe that some 8,000 Generations did practically nothing except hunt for food an die. 8,000 generations did that? Is that the simple math you're talking about? From Adam to present day we're looking at maybe 200-300 generations. Yet, 8,000 generations couldn't figure anything out? Really? That's the simple math? And these tribes would have had miles and miles and miles of free land to roam and gather food, shelter, and supplies. Every civilization in the history of ever has dealt with war, disease, and famine. That is nothing new. Yet, every documented civilization has grown in spite of all the extenuating circumstances. I mention the bubonic plague because the world quickly recovered. The population doubled within 350 years. And on top of that, the world was dealing with the Crusades, the Ottoman Wars, Byzantine Wars, Ming Dynasty Wars, and dozens of other wars and disasters. The Jaredites went from a small group, who traveled in 16 barges, into a nation of two million. And they did that within 1,600 years. Not 190,000 years. The Jaredites existed from 2200 BC to 600 BC. That's 1,600 years. Even if the numbers are horribly, horribly wrong, it still wouldn't take ANYWHERE near 9,000 years to double in size. Let's say there were 100 people on those 16 barges. And in 1,600 years they grew to only 800. That population is doubling every 533 years. Your math doesn't pass the sniff test.
  18. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    And there it is? It was a question of curiosity more than anything. I've seen you post on here before. I'm more of a lurker than anything else. And you're quite knowledgeable. So, I was mostly curious as to how you see stone-age man of 100k-200k years ago fitting in with Adam and Eve? I mean, I don't talk about evolution with people at church - at all. Topic doesn't really come up. Obviously others share that belief, as we've seen many people side with your position. I've just never met anyone in church that held the belief that modern humans existed before Adam. So yes, curiosity. My biggest objection to the population paradox, as previously stated, is that those assumptions indicate there there was little to no progress in all of mankind for 190,000 years... and a population doubling every 9,000 years does not seem the least bit reasonable. Even if you take the doubling average from 10,000 B.C. to present day, you're left with an AVERAGE of almost 1,100 years before the population doubles. Still, a little high, IMO. I could accept that number if it was for a small slice of time for a paleolithic tribe. But, not the AVERAGE time it takes to double for all of modern history. And honestly, it's fine if you want to believe in evolution. I have nothing against people believing in it. The variations of different kinds is a fact. Just have issues with the evidence on the macroevolution side of things, which proves nothing and is spoken of dogmatically. There are plenty of educated people who don't believe in macroevolution. It's fun to talk about. Not a big deal, really. If it were a big deal, The Church would have taken an official position on it already.
  19. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    There would be almost 10,000 acres per person available for a population of 4 million. That's the estimated population for 10,000 B.C. Is that the lack of a carrying capacity you’re talking about? It blows my mind that anyone could think it would take 9,000 years for a population to double. We lost 75-200 million from the black plague (20-40% of the world population), and the population still doubled in 350 years. Hard to imagine that in a time where women were almost exclusively confined to the home life, bearing and raising children, and where no birth control was present, that it would take nine millennia for a tribe to double. And I find it strange that you completely dismiss the numers from Lesotho. That nation is expected to double in size every 60.7 years. I’m not saying primitive cultures are expected to be anywhere near that, but Lesotho, a country with a per capita GDP of $1,300, isn’t exactly living a charmed life. Access to modern medicine and adequate health facilities is limited. Birth control is limited. Scarcity of food is high. Disease is high. Death rates are high. It’s interesting that you don’t think an African country, living in destitution, having a population growth 150 times higher than the all of the world for 190,000 years isn’t a big deal. That’s very hard to reconcile. Imagining that the world for 190,000 years was essentially 150 times worse than Lesotho. And they never progressed. They never ventured out. They never discovered. Dozens and dozens of impressive ruins were erected in between 3,000 and 4,000 BC. But, not a whole lot of progress before then. That doesn’t add up. Why were there no human advances for such an incredibly length period of time? And how do you reconcile modern humans being around that long when The Church clearly states that Adam was the first man? As far as DNA, no, I don’t know how it all came together. But, I’m 99.99% it didn’t randomly self-assemble in perfect sequence. Seems much, much more likely that God played a part in it. Agreed. And Ether 15 even mentions that two million Jaredites were slain in battle. That is significant. Perhaps that's an estimate and not an actual count. Could easily be calculated, though, seeing how the battle came down to two individuals. Just needed a census of some sort. But still, I don't know what's harder for me to believe - that for 190,000 years, the population doubled, on average, every 9000 years ... or the belief that there were practically no human advances. AT ALL. FOR 190K YEARS. How? Both assumptions are incredibly hard to reconcile.
  20. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    No, I don't assume that at all. I never once said that there was a steady population growth. You're missing the point. The AVERAGE TIME it took for the world's population to double, if humans have existed for 200,000 years, would be 6,250 years. AVERAGE. I clearly did not say the population was doubling every 75 years. If the population was even doubling at a much more conservative number, say every 800 years, the global population would be 8.5 x 10 to the 37th power. So obviously not even close to be in the same ballpark. If the population doubled every 2,000 years, the worldwide count would be 2.5 x 10 to the 30th power. Still, much too large. If we go back to original number of the earth doubling every 6,250 years, we'll have a grand total of 16 people by year 18,750 (181,250 BC). That, of course, is silly. And you're going to maintain that RATE for the next 181,250 years? Let's forego an Adam and Eve example, and say that there was an initial tribe of 1,000 people. To get to 8 billion by the year 2025, you'll need to double 23 times. Over the course of 200k years, the population is doubling, ON AVERAGE, every 9,090 years.... significantly longer than the time from Adam to now. That is silly. The number is fixed. It doesn't matter if there are hundreds and millions of wars. The end number doesn't changed. It's fixed. We're talking about the AVERAGE. All of the catastrophes have already been accounted for in this calculation. Heck, the science records estimate that the population doubled in 4,000 to 3,000 BC, from 7 million to 14 million people. Those were primitive times. And for whatever reason, 7 million people can double its size much faster than a small tribe? I reject the idea that little to no human progression was made over the course of 195,000 years - and that it takes 6 to 9,000 years for primitive cultures to double in size. Not buying it. Lawrence Krauss is the one who expressed that idea, actually. And obviously what he meant is that you can't put God into the equation. He doesn't help us understand how the universe and the laws and natural processes work. And I don't believe science and God are mutually exclusive. But, the scientific community can't really account for him, because they don't know the laws by which he operates. Hence, the process for discovery becomes atheistic. T I have a hard time distinguishing your beliefs from mainstream evolution. So tell me how your views differentiate from the common beliefs of evolution. And feel free to discuss how DNA came to be. I don't know what logic is? What I said was a colloquial way of saying, "That's hard to believe." But feel free to question my intelligence.
  21. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    Your assumptions on population growth are not accurate. I’d even go far as to say that of all the statements that have been made in this thread, the belief that humans have been on earth for 100k-200k years is the easiest one to dispel. My contention is not so much that an ancient tribe would go extinct (although that is a very real possibility if it takes you 6-9 millennia to double in size), but rather that the human population would be MUCH, MUCH greater than it is today if we’ve been inhabiting the planet for some 200,000 years. The scientific consensus also says that there were roughly 4 million people living in 10,000 BC. If that were the case, population would be doubling, on average, every 8,950 years. Remember, pre-1900, there was little to no birth control. And there was a multitude of wars, famine, diseases, holocausts, and natural disasters which have already been factored into the ending average of 8,950 years. So, if the average time it takes to double is almost 9,000 years – and if we’ve been doubling roughly 75 years for the past two centuries, that means there were LONGER periods where it took the population to double. Probably, some 10,000 years in certain eras, just to double. Lesotho has the highest death rate in the world at 15.1 deaths per 1,000. The birth rate is 26.63/1000. The annual growth rate would then be 1.153% (26.63-15.1)/(1,000)). When managing and projecting exponential growth, the rule of 70 is applied. Simply take 70 and divide it by the annual growth rate. So, 70 / 1.153 = 60.7 years before the country of Lesotho is projected to double. Lesotho would be the closest nation to resembling any ancient tribe. The death rate is high due to aids and other diseases - and birth control would be relatively minimal. I’m willing to grant ancient tribes may have taken longer to double in population. Maybe 300 or 400 years? Heck, let’s even say 800 years. Sure. Fine. But, that’s a far cry from 6,000 years or 9,000 years. Look at the time period between 1000 AD and 1800 AD. The population boomed from about 300 million to roughly 1 billion. So, it more than tripled in less than eight centuries. And this in an era that was dealing with the bubonic plague, which wiped out 75-200 million people, or 20-40% of the world. On top of that, wars, genocides, colonization, famine, and many other variables would have made population growth difficult. It’s hard to believe that the world could endure so much calamity in a short period, and triple in size. And yet, a small tribe of 100 or 200 individuals would take 6, 7, or 10,000 years to double? Please. ... And mentioning DNA doesn't really help your organic evolution argument. The genetic code for DNA is amazingly complex. The human genome contains some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Bill Gates has said, “The code in the chromosomes is more complex and holds more information than all the computer programs ever written by man combined.” So, the notion that DNA could evolve, or self-assemble on the primitive sea floor of the earth, with the enormous tides, with huge currents, and with boiling hot seas, defies logic and comprehension. How about the foundation for schools, universities, and hospitals? And obviously the separation of church and state has made it very difficult for religion to get its foot in the door. Evolution is tax supported. Science is an atheistic enterprise. I get it. Lawrence Krauss mentioned that all scientists should be militant atheists. And it makes sense why. They're wired and trained to question everything; they're trying to understand the workings of the universe and of nature. And you can’t simplify any explanation or theory with simply, “God made it that way.” Appeal to authority is anathema in the scientific community. Just seems strange that many believers of science tend to form their own canonized dogma.
  22. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    The limits have already been defined. Variation within a kind. Kind meaning every species that can be traced back to the original ancestor of a group. Thousands of species can come from the same kind. But, not all species share a common ancestor. And yes, most animal life dates back to the Cambrian Period when there was an explosion of complex animals. And fossil records don't prove anything. If you find a fossil the dirt, all you know is, it died. You don’t know that it had offspring. And you sure as heck don’t know that it had any different types of offspring. There are no missing links - the whole chain is missing. Where is the missing link for a woodpecker? A woodpecker’s tongue goes all the way around the back of its head and comes on top of its left eyebrow. What fossils or intermediate species have been found with its tongue going all the way around its head? What evidence is there for this type of evolution? In regards to the Big Bang, if all the particles and matter contained within a dot were expelled from a spinning dot, they would spin out in the same direction. This is consistent with the conservation of angular momentum. Yet, Venus and Uranus spin backwards. And some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backwards around their planets. 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. The Big Bang, by itself, appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics. You have to take on A LOT of assumptions to justify it otherwise. If the Big Bang were true, matter would be evenly distributed. There are clusters of stars – and there are great voids. In regards to stellar evolution, which I alluded to earlier, astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into supernova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 dead stars (supernovas)? There should be several hundred million of them.
  23. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    Right! I mean, no one here is denying that evolution exists. Simply that there are limits to how much variation can occur within each kind (i.e. original ancestor of a group). A common ancestor for all living beings blows my mind. Just look at insects. Scientists say they've been around for 350 million years - and with very minimal changes. So how far back do we have to go back before they share a common ancestor with a dinosaur?
  24. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    I previously asked you all of those very broad evolution questions, because I had a hard time distinguishing your beliefs from mainstream evolution. I mean, I assumed you believed God played a part in it somewhere. But, you're losing me a bit when you say modern humans have been around for 100-200k years. That is wildly inconsistent with any statistical model. Did you have any response to the population pardox that I presented? Also, I still can't fathom the idea that all living creatures share a common ancestor. From my perspective, it defies logic that a tiny insect and a blue whale could possibly share a common ancestor. And, of course, there's no evidence for this either. And how about something like a termite? Termites chew on wood, and swallow it. But, they can’t digest it. There are tiny critters inside the intestines of termites that digest the cellulose. The critters can’t live without those termites. And the termites can’t live without those critters. So, which one evolved first?
  25. ldsguy422

    Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    Certainly the divisions among the people was part of it. But, it seems possible that a catastrophic event like a great flood could have completely changed the landscape of the earth and accelerated the division (and again, almost every ancient culture in the world has its own version of a great flood). It's not like this scripture is discussing plate tectonics or any complex principle. It's speaking in simple terms - the earth divided. A 10-year old could write that. I don't know that this happened. I'm simply speculating. But, in Genesis 11 we see the story of the Tower of Babel. In the book of Jasher, it's stated that Nimrod sought to build a tower because he didn't trust in the Lord's covenant that he would never again flood the earth. Shortly after, the people were dispersed all around the world. So, perhaps the lands were already divided. But the displacement had a wide range in geographic relocation. I'm guessing at least Far East Asia, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. Seems like dividing the lands would be an easier way to separate people, as opposed to physically transplanting someone to another land. I guess you could argue that they simply wandered off in the wilderness and traveled for many miles and many years... This is just a thought. Not going to bet the farm against this idea, but it seems somewhat sensible. Let me just touch on one of the issues which I believe can reasonably be challenged. Humans haven't been around for 100,000 years or 200,000 years. No way. Basically all of progression in human history has happened in the past 2-4 thousand years. What were they doing the previous 100-195k years? The real issue, however, is a population paradox. No sensible statistical model could support the data that humans have been around for 200,00 years. This would mean that the human population was doubling, on average, every 6,250 years (at the current rate, we’re doubling every 75 years). That sort of population increase is simply not sustainable – you can’t have your population double every couple thousand years without the threat of imminent extinction. Remember that 99% of all species have gone extinct. Imagine if you had a moderate tribe of 100 early humans nearly 200,000 years ago. 6,250 years later that tribe would then have a population of 200. The balance that would be necessary to sustain that kind of razor sharp growth is unimaginable. If our imaginary tribe had, say, an annual birth rate of 10 newborns, or 62,250 in 6,250 years, the deaths would have to number 62,050. The death rate for that 6,250 year times span would have to be 99.7% of the birthrate. Lesotho has the highest death rate in the world at 14.9 per 1000. That is not even close to being in the same ballpark.