JohnsonJones

I followed the directions, now to see if this worked. Excellent, or at least I think this is excellent. I see the picture, does anyone else see the picture?

So there we have it, but what do I do with it. Gotta go to correlation and church, but after that I can try something (maybe this evening). How do I get it from that post into an avatar status?

Angry? I'd absolutely be delighted. That would be an awesome blessing. If you could be a Christian and have no challenges that it was a straight path from A-B...that would be a WONDERFUL blessing. For the righteous that would mean a much easier time to get to Heaven. I think that would be wonderful!!! Unfortunately, I think it really isn't the Lord who throws these obstacles in our lives. I'm not a Calvinist, so I have slightly different beliefs. I think the Lord wants all of us to get to heaven and has made it possible so that we all can. He does not try to stop us and I think he would have it as a straight path from A-B. However, because he loves us he has given us free agency, so we are able to choose. This same principle applies to the people around us as well, they all have free agency. IN addition, we have the adversary who wants to drag us down to hell. I think he puts a LOT of obstacles in our way, as well as temptation to us and to others around us. This is what creates those obstacles and makes it so that we do not have that straight path from A-B. But if I were blessed with a straight path from A-B without obstacles, I would definitely NOT be angry with the LORD. I'd be praising and shouting hallelujah's all the way back to heaven. That's more of a blessing than anything else I'd think...In MY PERSONAL opinion.

@Vort Definitely not the Ballerina guy. The person with the Red Shirt first made me think of Target employee rather than Star Trek. LoL. I'd probably prefer some actor from a Western, but the closest of the pictures could be young Russell Crowe knitting. I looked up Russell Crowe movies with Westerns, but realized why I hadn't seen any of them when I saw what they were rated. Maybe a Louis L'amour book cover? Here's a bunch of them Google search of Louis L'amour book covers But I have no idea how to get them from there to the avatar status... Sackett was a great cover, so was Hondo. It also reminds me I recently read some non-westerns with the Louis L'amour short story collections that came out (they had the cover of volume 6 part 1 which are the first part of his crime stories. I've been slowly reading through the short story collection.

I've only dated one woman for decades (my wife), and I hear things are very different these days (it used to be men would ask women out, and when they did it was far more formal then how I hear people ask each other out today). I think some things probably stay the same, even as some things change. 1. Many women would not admit it, but the very first thing they look for (though not the only, and many times not the most important, but this is normally the FIRST thing they see) is how someone looks. They are very similar to guys. They want someone they think is handsome. I can't tell you what a woman thinks is handsome (for one, I am not a woman, and second, it may vary from woman to woman). Unfortunately for us guys, some are more handsome than others. If one has gotten on the bottom of that list, fewer girls are probably going to look their way. There are some things one can do to offset that, such as what @Carborendum stated above. Dress nicely, Take Baths, Groom yourself, Hygiene, etc. are all good things which can improve how women perceive your looks. 2. Have a solid foundation in the Gospel and the scriptures. Now, I'm not sure if this still applies, but back in my day the GOOD girls always were looking for someone who had a strong faith in the gospel. This could be exhibited in many ways (and from the latter end of the 20th century I'm certain many have heard the suggestions that girls look at dating return missionaries...though that is not the ONLY way for them to tell if one has a strong faith in the gospel). They will notice if you go to church or not. 3. Be nice to everyone. Many women notice if someone is nice to others or are just acting. They notice the small things. 4. Be a Gentleman. Once again, not sure if this still applies today. Back in my day when I was in the dating world before I was married, which was a while ago, being a gentleman was VERY important. Open the doors for them, use table manners (chew with your mouth closed, elbows off the table, etc), use thank you and your welcome to servers and others as well as your date, and in general be on your best behavior. 5. Listen to her. I think this one would stay the same. Many guys just want to impress the girl and so they start bragging or talking all about themselves and what they want. Many women may listen to you, but they have things to say as well. Listen to them and ask them questions about themselves. Today I understand the youth have different things they are interested in , but I think some of the things I listed above are universal things for women in the church and things that they look for. Obviously not all of those things (for example, maybe a girl in today's modern society isn't really looking for chivalry and hence being a gentleman may be a turn off. Personally I might avoid that type of woman, but I'm old fashioned in that way). Be patient and perhaps if you do not seem to have success with the girls you want to go out with, perhaps take a look at those girls that may have

Well, if I had my druthers, instead of representing my name it would be more of my interests or tastes. So something perhaps with John Wayne or maybe Jimmy Stewart. I grew up as a boy Watching Gene Autry and Roy Rogers...Gene Autry was actually my favorite when I was younger. If you make me an avatar though, I probably will need step by step instructions on how to put it in my profile. I'm a tad tech illiterate in many areas.

This is guess on another idea which might apply. Moriancumer COULD actually be a place, thus would be similar to a last name. There are different origins of various last names, for example, someone who has the last name of Johnson may have been [First Name Here] Son of John as their full name in the past, but John's son, then shortened to Johnson eventually came to be. Another could be a Family name so lets say the Johns were a Family name...then a Son of John would identify the family the person was in (and still be like the last name). Last names could also come by profession so if someone was a Blacksmith, the last name may be Black. Or, if one was a Silversmith the last name may be Silver (makes you wonder if Long John Silver's ancestors were Silversmith's in the past...probably not though as he was a fictional character). Yet, another way would be in regards to a location. You could be...John from Lexington....which may be eventually shortened to John Lexington. In this instance, they have a location that they called Moriancumer and lived there for at least 4 years (Ether 2:13). Now it could work two ways, they may have named the location after Moriancumer (which is similar to what Lehi did with several locations they went through naming some places after his sons for example), or it may be something significant happened to the Brother of Jared here. If it was the latter, it may be that from thence on the Brother of Jared was also identified with that location, hence his first given name being Mahonri, but then also calling himself...Mohonri from Moriancumer. Thus, shortened would be Mahonri Moriancumer. Of course, as we do not actually know, it could be anything. I would hazard a guess that Moriancumer would be more of like the last name, and Mahonri was the first name. In truth, we do not know a TON of the cultural ideas that were floated back in those days (thousands of years ago, literally), but there are various ideas that we have gathered through the years in relation to those times and how they acted and behaved.

Mohonri Moriancumer. Here's another interesting thing to look up. See how often John refers to himself in the Gospel of John. We do not know why his name was not given, though Moriancumer is mentioned. Several theories are out there. One I think it could be was that it was hard for Moroni to actually put it down in his own language, so did not. Another would be that it was a book relating the the family of Jared rather than his brother. In truth, we do not know.

I've heard some interesting things about those studies and some of the flaws with them. Perhaps someone who has more personal experience or knowledge can fill that in. I understand that the original sample size was INCREDIBLY SMALL, as in they had less than 50 individuals and almost all of them were from the same tribe. The other flaw I've heard is that in another study they automatically discarded anything that said something they didn't want, so if it showed Middle Eastern DNA they decided it had to have come from the European colonists rather than any other source. From what I understand though, it IS operating on one idea that I probably would support. It is the idea that ALL the inhabitants of this continent were descendants of the Nephites/Lamanites. There are some flaws with that supposition. Though I think the populations are descended as such, other theories from Book of Mormon Scholars say it could have been that it was far more localized, meaning that inhabitants of most of North America were descendants of them, while those of Central America were not (or vice versa, or other combinations of such). In addition, IF (and that's a big if) it was a very small population of Hebrews (Nephites, Lamanites, and Mulekites) that mixed in with a much larger population, it doesn't take that into account (so if you had 100 some odd individuals mixing in 10 million inhabitants, DNA testing may or may not actually show that result). However, I've only heard bits and pieces, I'm certain there are those who have FAR more knowledge of this. PS: Of interest, I ran into a bunch of Japanese that claim that they are the direct descendants of a tribe of Israel, to the point that if you look at their family name (I don't read Japanese) they said that it actually is very similar to one of the tribes (I think it was the tribe of Manassah). Just an interesting side point that sometimes could make someone go...hmmmm...

It's a nice picture. With the extra information you gave, I'm glad it is not one of you smiling. Even if we are Mormons and believe people go to a better place...it just seems creepy to have a picture from a funeral with people having a lot of smiles. I am technically inept in this department (comes with age I guess). I can download pictures from my phone or tablet to the computer, but I don't know how to get it as an avatar, or even how to put an avatar on my profile. Even if I could figure out how to do the avatar, can't figure out how to adapt a picture or photo to put it as one. I suppose I could get one of the TA's or students to help me, but that seems to be an abuse of work, as well as inappropriate in regards to my position with them. My kids would rather kick me off the internet and use it (they use all the bandwidth when they are around at times, I do not know what they need to use so much of for) rather than help me figure out this computer stuff. I'm good with the standard circle of a silhouette though, as long as people can still recognize names. Still, nice picture there. Handsome fellow. More appropriate as well I think.

Hmm, I tend to get news from a Variety of places. Strictly online would be Yahoo and Fox News. Occasionally I read CNN. I also read Forbes occasionally, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and USA. IF I'm really wanting to read more, I'll even read the New York Post. Occasionally when reading online they have a link takes me to the Guardian. I also listen to the BBC and Public Radio. If the News is on the TV it is normally FoxNews or CNN. If elsewhere it would be via the BBC or Skynews (outside the US normally on the otherside of the world). If there is nothing else I have watched JSC/Al Jezeera.

Autocorrect always messes up what I type also. Many times I mean to say one thing and do not even notice that the autocorrect has made me say something entirely different.

I absolutely agree. The Savior even mentioned some of this in his statements regarding divorce. It is basically almost like adultery, especially if they get remarried once again. However, he points out that it was allowed due to the weaknesses of the people. Divorce in the LDS church has been gaining ground is getting more and more common. The cancellation of sealings have been getting EASIER to get. I think this is due to the weakness of the membership in our time. I think the allowances for these things are getting easier simply because the world (and even members) are getting more wicked, and thus our weaknesses are getting larger. Just like the Jews of the Old and New Testament, divorce (and temple sealing cancellations) are getting to be easier. I don't think this is a good thing, but as we get closer to the second coming men and the world will continue to grow in wickedness and holy things will be seen as naught, until, like with the Nephites before the Lord came, those who are left will NOT BE RIGHTEOUS, but merely those who were not as wicked as everyone else.

In that light, I AM lucky. I don't live in Chicago or Baltimore either.

On a connected but different idea. With Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society both in the three hour block, what would your thoughts be if it was reduced to...let's say...2 hours? Or if it was reduced to 2.5 hours with 1 hour in Sacrament, and 40 minutes for Sunday School and then Priesthood/Relief Society or some variation in between? I'm thinking that perhaps Sunday School should remain about Scripture discussions, but with Priesthood/Relief Society it is more about business and perhaps repeating Sunday School stuff is not really necessary. Though the time has not been reduced, perhaps that is a big part of why the change in curriculum...because PH/RS has become a LOT like Sunday School over the past decade and this is a move to get it more like a quorum or society where discussion takes place and the needs of the quorum or ward are discussed instead rather than having it just like a second Sunday School lesson.

Well, if this doesn't put salt in the wound, I'm not sure what would. That's a pretty salty response from them, and rather insultive. I actually have MORE problems with their excuses than I did the original article! I didn't have too many problem with the original article to be honest (for my reasons, see Vort's response above), but their response...it's still to be expected but it is kind of disgusting.

A LOT of questions there. I think I have answers to them, but unsure if that's what you are really wanting. In addition, I'm not sure how much of it I would want to go into here, as there are many that do not even understand some of the basic ordinances, and as some of this deals with temple ordinances, I'm unsure how much is even appropriate to discuss here. A side point, I think John 14:23 is also talking about having the Gift of the Holy ghost, as is revealed in his answer to Judas in verse 26 in continuation of this. It may also mean the second comforter, but I also feel it is discussing that gift which any one who loves the Father and the Son and have followed their commandments of baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy ghost may have. it will also teach us all things, and help us to know the truth within them. Calling and Election made sure (in this life) is an interesting topic, but ironically I do not believe it requires one to personally know the Father (In my opinion) as a person of and in the flesh in physical contact. One can receive this as ordinance in the temple, though it is not practiced nor given as often today as it has in time past. This may be off topic though and going a little too far off into the hinterlands to really be something we should discuss.

I don't think it is R-rated (R ratings are graphic in what they show or explain), with a few exceptions (song of Solomon taken literally may be R or X rated). In general, most of the Bible probably falls within the realm of G rating to that of PG rating. Even in death such as when David slew Goliath it doesn't exposite how much blood there was, with the locations it splashed or the tendrils of the neck and muscles or any other explicit detail (an R-rating would probably go into at least a paragraph or two of explanation of the blood and gore...while an X-rated one would probably utilize twice that much to an entire chapter!). It can be quite action packed though at parts.

I go to extremes most times and try to only use the Lord's English versions of the name of the Savior, or that of the Father when I am talking about it in a respectful or holy fashion. Even in Normal speech or writing I normally will refer to them as the Lord or the Son, and the Father rather than how we refer to them when in holy settings. I'm probably just more paranoid about avoiding even the chance of breaking the commandments than I need to be.

Have you seen what people get with SS these days? People who try to live only on their SS ARE in the poor house already. Why do you think someone who should be in their retirement (though I also admit I was very UNWISE with money when I was younger and spent it all rather than investing like I should have) is still working when they should be enjoying their "golden" years (also, I tend to enjoy it, which I suppose may also be part of why I am still a historian. Also to be honest, there are OTHER reasons that I am still doing the stuff I do which have nothing to do with money, but additional money definitely helps. If I was to try to live ONLY on what SS would bring in, my quality of life would be greatly decreased).

Well, comparatively to most on these boards I am EXCESSIVELY Liberal. Probably considered to the FAR Left...which I will point out in many situations so people won't make any mistakes in that. However, I view myself more as a centrist, neither really left nor right, neither truly liberal or conservative. I might even say I probably lean a little more conservative than liberal, but comparative to the politics many Mormons seem to have these days, I'm probably decidedly Liberal in comparison.

We've seen provable micro evolution from what I know, but never the entire macro evolution where man is descended from Apes. From what I see, it is merely conjecture similar to finding similar shaped rocks and saying that all those rocks are connected or related in some way. Mind of course, though I talk to Biologists (and others at the university in other departments) I am by no means a scientist in that arena. Those Biologist DO treat evolution more as a LAW rather than a theory (nevertheless it IS a theory) in regards to not just micro evolution, but also macro evolution. I am a historian and as such normally deal with things AFTER the advent of mankind, and even moreso after the advent of writing and record keeping that we are aware of. If one does feel that this form of evolution is FACT though, how do they correlate it with the story of Adam and Eve. Some say it is symbolic, but if you take it that Adam and Eve were literal individuals, how do you recompense that between the story of Adam and Eve and the ideas behind evolution. You'd have to have two separate groups there, which eventually would have to intermix in some way (and perhaps if that were the case, those who are the children of Abraham are the TRUE descendants of heaven, whereas those who are not are those that are counted as the children of the apes...or something like that)? How does one correlate the two together if they believe both? (and obviously I'm an ape>human skeptic, but I'm interested in what ideas people would postulate who do think in that manner).

This is a difficult situation, and I am sorry that you are dealing with it. In some instances I would suggest (if you were on good terms with them) to contact her parents and get them involved to some degree, but as that is not possible, it is not a path that you can take. I would advise some marriage counseling from an LDS counselor if possible. I think she is experiencing a mid-life crisis (though not in middle age yet) where she regrets actions she took previously and wants to live life how she thinks she could have lived it if she were not with the "good girl" image. It is one of selfishness and self-centeredness. This can be extremely tough on a marriage. I am NOT a marriage counselor, and what they would advise is probably ten times better than what I am thinking. Perhaps the time is not right to try to push your own thoughts on your wife, but perhaps focus more on your children. Bring up to your wife your children's love and ask her how much she loves them. Find out if she wants to hurt them, or what she would do for her children. Children need their mother, they need both parents in a committed relationship. There are many that do not have this in today's modern era of broken homes, but we know from revelation and from messages (Proclamation to the Family for starters) in our day that a Father and a Mother are important. See if she is willing to sacrifice for her children and to love them with all the love of her heart, even if she cannot love you presently. Ask to start saying daily family prayers, both morning and night. See if she is willing to say couple prayers together both morning and night with you. Spend time cuddling. When I say cuddling I do not mean anything further than that, I mean time where you put your arm around her shoulders and sit close to her or hold her close and just talk. Make time for it each day. A much tougher thing to do, but if she is willing, perhaps one of the more important. See if she will spend just five minutes (more if possible, but five minutes at least) each day just reading from the Book of Mormon outloud with you. Another step, if it is possible, is go to a one income home. This is NOT possible in many instances, but it seems that she has a weakness in the world currently. Using your children as a focus, have it so that she will spend time at home raising them. This means that your household income will decrease greatly, but if she spends time at home with the children, perhaps the worldly temptations will diminish and her spiritual being will be uplifted more. If you can have her focus on your children and the needs of your children, I think she may be able to overcome the self-centeredness that seems to have pre-occupied her character. Perhaps it will bring the best out of her as she tries to bring them up the best she can because she loves them. That's the important thing to dwell on in regards to the children, is her love for her children (which I hope that she has). By sacrificing for others, it can bring the best out of us. In addition, stop thinking about the things of yourself, but focus on her and your children yourself. Try to set an example of selflessness. Put all your labors and love towards helping and furthering what they need in life. I don't know the solutions to your problems. I, like anyone, can offer advice, but advice is a dime a dozen comments. Advice is cheap, it's much harder to find an actual solution. It sounds like a hard situation that you are going through and I do not know the answers that you seek. I pray that you can at least find solace and comfort from the Holy Spirit in this time of trial.

This came up in another thread, and I found the idea so fascinating that I wanted to keep track of it (no idea how to keep track of something on these forums overall for the long term, they seem to disappear off my page at some point...but I do keep track of this thread...sooooo.... That other thread discussed the Garden story of the Creation and other aspects and brought some interesting ideas to mind that I wanted to keep around just so I could think about it and perhaps reference...but NOT because I actually think there's actually merit to what I'm stating below. Okay, some of what was written in that other thread is a little confusing, but I am wondering about some items which seem to have been brought up. People have mentioned science in the context of the Creation story, or the idea that the Creation story is symbolic, or that scientific ideas of the creation of the universe and the earth co-exist in confliction at times with the Creation story which makes me wonder if people are suggesting the following? If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law), would that mean that there were men already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created? If that is so, what does that mean. Does it mean that Adam and Eve and their children were the children of God (as Adam was the Son of God) and that there were other men on the Earth? In that light, would that mean that Adam's children, when it says they went off with the children of men, it is talking about his children marrying, instead of those related to the descendants of Adam, those who were from the evolutionary scale on this planet? Is that what people are stating? That could have some interesting ramifications in regards to what we think and understand. It paints things in an entirely different context. I think I'll post this in my personal thread. I'm not sure I'd believe something like this, but it could have some fascinating ideas stemming from it. Things like the spiritual man descended from Adam verses the animalistic man that comes from evolution. It would explain one scientific difficulty with the creation story. We generally think that in order for a species to actually continue to propogate, you need at least 50 individuals so that you have enough genetic variation. That is a minimum, and without that, your species stands a high chance of dying without some extraordinary measures. Less than that and you stand an even greater chance of genetics simply causing the entire species to die off. If you have only TWO of a species, in theory it would be impossible to resurrect the species on it's own (If I recall the biology from many decades ago). Adam and Eve being only two, would in theory mean the entire species should have died off rather quickly. If there were other men around for their children to marry, it could explain many things. For starters, genetic variation that is needed to continue a species. Perhaps that is also where we get our animalistic tendencies which we have to suppress and overcome...that while the Adamic man was enlightened in those temptations, those who have mixed with the evolutionary man have those animal tendencies in their genetics. In that same light, one could extrapolate a similar story to the Book of Mormon. We typically think of Lehi's family, and we do not know the exact numbers. By extrapolation we could postulate that there were Four Brothers and their wives, Zoram and his wife, and then two Daughters and the Sons of Ishamael for a genetic pool of 14, not including Joseph and Jacob. Of course that pool is lessened because it is almost strictly from 3 families, with a majority from two of the families. What if there was a large population here in the Americas to a degree already which they met and married into? We know that Nephi states that they had already had wars before the end of his life...however with the numbers that appeared to be in the Book of Mormon at first, those would be more like skirmishes than wars. War indicates a LARGE number of individuals, or at least larger than a dozen on each side. Could it be that they also intermarried? In regards to Genetics and temptation by our animal instincts, it could also explain why the Lord could be perfect. He still inherited the downfall of the evolved man, but since he had a father that did NOT have those genetic defects, he inherited the perfected genes of man before that interbreeding? Hence he had more of a perfect man than the fallen man we had become. As I said, I don't really believe any of this, but when it came up, it brought some very interesting thoughts to mind. It's pure nonsense, sure, but an interesting exercise to think about. What puzzles me though, are those who profess the belief in science and faith who also say evolution is something they adhere to. How exactly does that work when related to the Creation story. A LOT of biology these days is based upon the principles of evolution (which, though just a theory had a huge revolution in regards to biology and it's theorums), as I understand it from a colleague who also is a professor in Biology. If we are bringing in the ideas of science in regards to the Creationist story...how does that play out. Is it like what I describe above? How does one correlate evolution with the Creation story? I for one do NOT adhere that the idea of macro evolution (is that the term for it, where man descended from Apes) is something that actually occurred, being more of a Bible literalist and thus I suppose a Creationist...though I do accept the ideas of micro evolution (I think biologist have shown that beyond any doubt at this point), but how does someone who is a Biologist and accepts the current ideas of biology correlate that with the Creation story. I hardly think one could say it was purely symbolic, for if it were, a LOT of the scriptures get tossed out along with that idea if we accept that take. What exactly are people saying when they say science should be accepted in how we view things and the Bible is more symbolic. Like something above? I find this idea puzzling, though intriguing.

Okay, some of what was written in this thread is a little confusing, but I am wondering about some items which seem to have been brought up. People have mentioned science in the context of the Creation story, or the idea that the Creation story is symbolic, or that scientific ideas of the creation of the universe and the earth co-exist in confliction at times with the Creation story which makes me wonder if people are suggesting the following? If we believe in the scientific Theories (I bolded that to stress that evolution IS actually just a theory, not a law), would that mean that there were men already on the earth when Adam and Eve were created? If that is so, what does that mean. Does it mean that Adam and Eve and their children were the children of God (as Adam was the Son of God) and that there were other men on the Earth? In that light, would that mean that Adam's children, when it says they went off with the children of men, it is talking about his children marrying, instead of those related to the descendants of Adam, those who were from the evolutionary scale on this planet? Is that what people are stating? That could have some interesting ramifications in regards to what we think and understand. It paints things in an entirely different context. I think I'll post this in my personal thread. I'm not sure I'd believe something like this, but it could have some fascinating ideas stemming from it. Things like the spiritual man descended from Adam verses the animalistic man that comes from evolution. It would explain one scientific difficulty with the creation story. We generally think that in order for a species to actually continue to propogate, you need at least 50 individuals so that you have enough genetic variation. That is a minimum, and without that, your species stands a high chance of dying without some extraordinary measures. Less than that and you stand an even greater chance of genetics simply causing the entire species to die off. If you have only TWO of a species, in theory it would be impossible to resurrect the species on it's own (If I recall the biology from many decades ago). Adam and Eve being only two, would in theory mean the entire species should have died off rather quickly. If there were other men around for their children to marry, it could explain many things. For starters, genetic variation that is needed to continue a species. Perhaps that is also where we get our animalistic tendencies which we have to suppress and overcome...that while the Adamic man was enlightened in those temptations, those who have mixed with the evolutionary man have those animal tendencies in their genetics. In that same light, one could extrapolate a similar story to the Book of Mormon. We typically think of Lehi's family, and we do not know the exact numbers. By extrapolation we could postulate that there were Four Brothers and their wives, Zoram and his wife, and then two Daughters and the Sons of Ishamael for a genetic pool of 14, not including Joseph and Jacob. Of course that pool is lessened because it is almost strictly from 3 families, with a majority from two of the families. What if there was a large population here in the Americas to a degree already which they met and married into? We know that Nephi states that they had already had wars before the end of his life...however with the numbers that appeared to be in the Book of Mormon at first, those would be more like skirmishes than wars. War indicates a LARGE number of individuals, or at least larger than a dozen on each side. Could it be that they also intermarried? In regards to Genetics and temptation by our animal instincts, it could also explain why the Lord could be perfect. He still inherited the downfall of the evolved man, but since he had a father that did NOT have those genetic defects, he inherited the perfected genes of man before that interbreeding? Hence he had more of a perfect man than the fallen man we had become. As I said, I don't really believe any of this, but when it came up, it brought some very interesting thoughts to mind. It's pure nonsense, sure, but an interesting exercise to think about. What puzzles me though, are those who profess the belief in science and faith who also say evolution is something they adhere to. How exactly does that work when related to the Creation story. A LOT of biology these days is based upon the principles of evolution (which, though just a theory had a huge revolution in regards to biology and it's theorums), as I understand it from a colleague who also is a professor in Biology. If we are bringing in the ideas of science in regards to the Creationist story...how does that play out. Is it like what I describe above? How does one correlate evolution with the Creation story? I for one do NOT adhere that the idea of macro evolution (is that the term for it, where man descended from Apes) is something that actually occurred, being more of a Bible literalist and thus I suppose a Creationist...though I do accept the ideas of micro evolution (I think biologist have shown that beyond any doubt at this point), but how does someone who is a Biologist and accepts the current ideas of biology correlate that with the Creation story. I hardly think one could say it was purely symbolic, for if it were, a LOT of the scriptures get tossed out along with that idea if we accept that take. What exactly are people saying when they say science should be accepted in how we view things and the Bible is more symbolic. Like something above? I find this idea puzzling, though intriguing.