• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


person0 last won the day on March 8

person0 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About person0

  • Rank
    Please, Sir, I Want Some More

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Religion
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Recent Profile Visitors

8509 profile views
  1. Please take these as they are intended: 100% serious! 😉
  2. I think I may be the exception to the rule on this one. If I were a betting man, I'd say that more than 50% of my face-book friends do not share my beliefs. Perhaps that's why I pretty much never post anything! Haha!
  3. I didn't vote for Trump last time, because I thought he was lying and would actually end up being a leftist, so I went third party. That said, I'm definitely voting for him this time; I feel he has proven enough that he truly cares about our country and wants it to remain the greatest country in the world, and is implementing good policies. Were you planning to vote third party this November? Just curious.
  4. person0

    Faked Protests

    Pallets of bricks being strategically left in areas of riot: Article Video Clip I suspect that this is likely more than what it is being made out to be! Gadianton Robbers come to mind. Remember, the Book of Mormon was written for our day!
  5. person0

    Return to Church Guidelines

    I want them to be safe too. Even if we open church back up, it may be best to invite our older members to remain at home for a while, unless they choose to accept the risk. I don't want people to get sick, I would just rather continue to have our private sacrament meeting and primary class that we have been having at home each Sunday than to return to Church with stringent requirements. A gun protects against a potential threat of known serious severity. Current guidelines protect against a known threat of potentially serious severity. I am not really concerned if someone in my family contracts COVID-19, even if it causes them to die. Given all the information available to me, it is a risk I am willing to take, especially for our demographics. I don't believe that masks are truly effective in preventing the spread of the virus, particularly because my children play with them and take them off and I and my wife end up touching our face even more as we adjust the masks continually to try and alleviate the discomfort of wearing them. As far as other people are concerned; I will gladly keep my distance, as I said before; however, if you choose to shake my hand, come within six feet of me, not wash your hands appropriately, that is not on me at all. If you are at risk and choose to put yourself in a risky situation, that is not my fault. Because of the complications of managing additional restrictions beyond distancing from others, I would prefer to wait to return to church services after such restrictions are no longer required. As a side note, the inherent flaw in your question is that you are assuming I would return to church and not follow restrictions or guidelines put in place by the Church, when in fact, I simply stated that "I would rather wait" until after the restrictions are lifted. Just the same as I don't carry in church, despite the fact that I would much rather do so. I don't break the first rule you mentioned, why would you assume I would break the second?
  6. I understand your point and I enjoyed reading your story; what I don't understand is how that relates to the theory of Adam and Eve being the progeny of an evolutionary line or the actual population growth that has occurred over the course of recorded history. I am trying to figure out how we can mesh all the data together from the supporters of organic evolution in this thread so that we spit out a result that doesn't contradict the following: Even if we assume the 7000 years didn't begin until after Adam and Eve partook of the fruit and became mortal, how do we tie it all together? Are we in agreement that the humanoid creatures who supposedly lived before Adam and Eve were not children of God? I'm sure there are other important questions of note, but alas, my children are calling for me and I must go.
  7. I'm no population expert, but just from the math it seems you didn't subtract the death rate or compound the growth rate. Is your assumption that the birth and death rate is equal? If, for example, the death rate is 9% then couldn't we can effectively compound the 1% net gain over the time period? If so, then the population would double roughly every 70 years. That said, both of those would fluctuate, plus mass extinction vs death events, etc. Even so, with a .1% net compound birth rate, the population would double every 700 years. After 8,950 years that would be a total population of ~1.5 Million.
  8. person0

    Return to Church Guidelines

    I will happily keep my distance, but I'd rather just wait to go back until we aren't expected to wear masks.
  9. If we agree that it cannot be truly proven either way, then we are merely arguing who's theory is more plausible based on our individual interpretations of the facts. So. . . chocolate ice-cream is the best flavor of ice-cream because it tastes the best! Just look at all the EEG scans of people when they were eating chocolate ice-cream; the readings are clear! My perspective: I will adhere as closely to erring on the religious side of the churches 'official' position, which states both of the following things: Two things of note: 1) Emphasis on the word 'official'. It is clear that from the majority of Church resources (even those that are recent), that Church publications clearly steer people away from evolutionary theory and toward a more gospel-centric interpretation of the origins of life. It is obvious from the above excerpt that the Church takes no issue with continuing to promote and steer individuals toward a more religious interpretation of the origins of life and the earth and away from any sort of dependence upon the philosophies of men. This is done by presenting individual opinions as such, while at the same time claiming no official stance. 2) In the very same statement about 'no official position on the theory of evolution' the Church reiterates that, at the minimum, there were no children of God on earth before Adam, and that he and Eve were non-mortal and non-reproductive until after they became mortal. Personally, I prefer to err on the side of what is demonstrably the 'unofficial' position of the Church and to seek explanations that align with that and available scriptural/authoritative sources. Should revelation come from the Lord that directs us more toward a macro-evolutionary understanding of creation, I will happily accept it. Would you accept a revelation to the contrary?
  10. Not sure that follows the insect/whale comparison. Are we not the same species as God (i.e. Man)?
  11. So you disagree with @ldsguy422's interpretation, and then proceed to provide an equally unprovable interpretation? Is it really obvious? Seems to me that based on the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses, at least a few people knew of such things. Isn't Moses the author of Genesis which included the oft disputed phrase about what happened in the days of Peleg? Doesn't the Book of Mormon refer to mass seismic and similar events that changed the face of the earth?
  12. person0

    Simple common-sense physics problem

    Once again, assumptions fail me! This time about the temperature of the ice. Hehehe!
  13. person0

    Simple common-sense physics problem

    Technically this isn't physically possible with room-temperature soda because the initial contact of ice and soda will necessarily melt, at least partially, the first piece of ice with which the soda comes into contact. Until the entire glass is filled with liquid to the extent that all ice-cubes can share in the cooling of the soda, the ice on top that is continuously hit with 'freshly room-temperature' soda, will continue to melt. Test it for yourself, it is pretty much unavoidable. 😞
  14. person0

    Simple common-sense physics problem

    Based on this response from you, I suppose I made one incorrect assumption. As should be clear from a re-read of my answer, I interpreted, "Exactly the amount of ice needed to bring the pop's temperature down to the freezing point of water", to mean INSTANTANEOUSLY (or nearly), as in, 'as soon as the glass is full, it is ice-cold'. However, I suppose you might believe that indicating eventuality in your question could make the question too easy. Oh well 🤷‍♂️
  15. These questions are more plausible as an argument for a 'local flood' than they are for macro-evolution. You are suggesting that biological macro-evolution has occurred at-least since the Great Flood, and yet, you give examples of micro-evolution to attempt to validate it? Because living things reproduce the same kind of living thing. . . which is obvious. I don't understand why you are asking that question. A hybrid is a mix of two different of the same kind. You can mix two different breeds of dogs, but you cannot breed a dog and a monkey to create a new creature; I'm not sure how you thought this argues against my perspective and for yours. Okay so then we don't disagree on this; got it. So this is an interesting statement. You state that there is evidence for macro-evolution, and then on the basis of these evidences jump to the conclusion that it must be true, and then based on that conclusion, you imply that I have indicated somewhere that God would not be involved. I wouldn't consider that an effective argument. While I don't accept organic macro-evolution from one kind to another, if it were someday revealed to be true, God most certainly would be involved in the process. Such is not in conflict with anything I have said. I don't see how anything within your response here is a real counterpoint to my position. That said, since I have answered all your questions, would you please go back and answer the ones I asked in my previous posts?