threepercent

great! but this didnt answer my question, and really no matter what you answer I will not be happy with it unless you stated that evolutions public definition is not even close to a scientific definition, and that very few scientific definitions will agree. for example "In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 so even though you are talking about Biological evolution and not stellar evolution, you are still talking about cellular myosis vrs heritable changes in a population that require some sort of selection to take place. (not that i disagree) so you also basic said the same thing as Dr. Futuyma, that really "evolution is merely change." lets say that again: evolution is merely change. its hard to argue with change, and change is readily observable, and change is also readily observable over large measures of time, so thats hard to argue against as well. and here is a problem, evolution is merely change, but it claims more than change. the next big claim it makes is on time. Im not talking about the relativity short time you posted, but vast amounts of time for their outcomes to take place, and thats stupid. Science has shown that millions of years go by with virtually no "change" then in a geological (i use this term because this is where the record is) blink of an eye, an entire change in the earths biodiversity. so time itself is not a mechanism. the next thing equated with evolution is "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" selection is easy to define, as it is the trait that continues. "fittest" is impossible to define. but how do we define natural? I see the process as being the pressures or vacuums of the environment. Darwin called artificial selection things like selective breeding, well, how about ants that keep herds of aphids? is that natural or artificial? anywho, I am getting sick of typing. the main point is that evolution morphs into whatever it needs to at the moment to say its true, and that if it is going to claim to be "truth" then it needs to be defined. Evolution has turned to the federal courts to protect itself, not to science, nor to answering questions. Evolution is guilty of the same things it claims are reasons creation science or cataclysm theory or ID are not scientific. its statements like this:To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation. only with your personal definition of evolution. I am not promoting any of those btw. I am just saying evolution has huge holes in it. like it cant be defined.

so how can evolution be "proven" when it is not even defined?

so tell me, what does science say about "how life began"?

mostly from the PofGP 22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; and a little from the d&c: 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. there is more, lots more. but you know, I'm not a prophet, like Skousen.

thats a great article.

sure, I would love to. I would be more interested in the discussion if you would entertain adding doctrinal study in as well, to try to reconcile the two. because I suspect that that is where the truth is. I liked your point concerning the body healing itself. thats a good angle. I do telecommunications, I have worked on some of the most advanced systems out there. they dont hold a candle to prayer, and as prayer is to us, so our telecommunications is to smoke signals. this is partially how I view evolution, its kinda a smoke signal. my bigest beef I have stated, Evolution predicts both ID and Gods. my next beef is uniformitarism. and because they are related, using time to say "these things are possible over time." seems like a good place to stop for now. would you agree that these things are foundational to the theory?

I think you misunderstand my position. I know how to make wine. that does not mean that Christ did not make water into wine. I know how to administer first aid, and even how to stitch someone up, that does not mean that Christ didn't heal a sword cloven ear. I can be a doctor, and still acknowledge the power of the priesthood to do things outside of my learning. for some reason, when we speak about evolution, this goes right out the window. I think thats stupid. I believe there is more than one way to skin a cat. I think we are currently involved in ID, and like I said, evolution predicts gods. so to exclude those from the realm of possibility just astounds me. kinda like what your previous post says. I dont expect to understand right now exactly how Christ turned water into wine, but i can do it via other channels. I can learn to bake bread and how to fish without negating that miracle. I can debate the merits of ID without thinking that is how it was done. evolution can be a true law, and it may still not be how it happened. I have not figgured all that out yet, and when i do i promise to let you know. but in the mean time, I would like to be able to learn, line upon line, precept upon precept. Science and religion, if they are pure, and the same. they are just two different approaches to learning law. I dont want to negeate either tool for my personal learning. not all religion is true, neither is all science. true religion makes mistakes, so does true science, newton was correct right up until e=mc2. im ok with all that. I have to discern truth for myself. There is a lot about modern ID and Creationist views that is utter bull. there is a lot about evolution that is utter bull. im just trying to sort it out as best I can, because I really love knowledge.

first, let me say i am a creationist, in a lds sense, that believes that the world was built by us following natural law. I also believe we can do more than we currently understand via the priesthood, that also follows natural laws. just to get that out of the way. so here is my next question... you just sated that ID and evolution reject each other, then in the next statement, you say ID is currently underway, in progress, proven, and may i add has been via selective breeding for a long time. and I agree with your assessment that time is the only thing needed for us to breach Abiogenises as well. this is ID to me. we are doing it. and if evolution is a natural law, then it is a natural law everywhere, and it if its a natural law everywhere, then all you need is other instances of Abiogenises to spark evolution on other planets. we accomplished ID in 4.5 ish billion years, and the universe is 13.someting byo. so we got lots of time to have the two produce a species that is indistinguishable from gods to us. ergo, evolution predicts ID and gods, so they cannot be exclusive in my book. so, some of the other problems i have with evolution is "common ancestor" i believe in micro evolution, but not macro, at least not yet. if abiogenises is separate from evolution, thats fine, but it opens the door to a complex cell being the "father" of all life, in that all the dna (info) needed is contained in the original cell and so life does not have to become more "complex" in order to evolve. but if its a prion, then life does have to mutate into more complex forms. I have never had anyone explain this to me in adequate form, and i am asking these questions because i homeschool and want to be able to teach evolution as accurately as possible. my eldest son is 6, and we watch discovery all the time together, and its going to start generating questions I cannot answer. so, thanks for the continued help.

Can someone explain this to me: 1. Science in general will not entertain the idea of ID. yet evolution itself predicts life so advanced from us that they would be indistinguishable from gods, opening the possibility of ID (on this earth). 2. how can abiogenesis be excluded from evolution, with the related questions of how does life become "more" complex, if that life form is a simple as say, a prion, and if as complex as a single cell, then really you are saying it started with all the building blocks of all life.

almost. we get to choose ONE of the two, an action or a consequence (or outcome). if we choose the action, the consequence is dictated to us. if we choose the outcome, the course of action is dictated. its an important distinction.

It was not submission, it was choosing the outcome of redeeming man and his deep love for us his children that was the deciding factor. it is quite clear that the price of the atonement sucked big time. it hurt. it caused pain beyond what we can comprehend. it is quite clear that Christ, if there had been another less painful way, would have taken the route that did not require such vast pain. but it is also clear that there were not other options available, while retaining the desired outcome of providing us a route back to our Father. it is beautiful beyond words. it is love. it is the fulfillment of the law. the law is simple, come follow me, do this and receive joy.

justice, I am glad to see you understand this.

like I said: the level of law we choose to obey marks the glory and truth we can inherit. ok, so here is how this works, lets say i want to fly, and i am on earth. to do so I have to break the laws of gravity right? nope, just apply the laws of aerodynamics and thrust and bingo, i got flight, course I need an atmosphere, and that is held in place by gravity, right. and so lets say I leave the atmosphere? now what, now applying the laws of aerodynamic aint helping at all, but still understanding the laws of gravity allows me to archive a geosynchronous orbit. this is how law works. its two things action and outcome. I can chose an action (this is what most of us do) and the outcome in now dictated to me. or I can chose an outcome, and the action is now dictated. this is a HUGE key to understanding all law. EVERY law given to us is to help us understand this concept. EVERY law we have (from God) teaches us how to choose the action that will have the outcome of joy. In old Anglo-Saxon law, to be an OUTLAW meant you were not just someone who broke the the law, but that you were cast out of the protection of law, or you became OUTside of the LAW. by failing to abide a social law, you were cast out of the protections of it. in ancient times this was a near death sentence. this is kinda what this is saying, but more than that, you will not WANT to live in a celestial law kingdom if you do not love and understand its laws. you will feel restrained and fettered. ergo the freedom we have to choose the level of law we will abide. its not freedom of consequence, its freedom of choice, to choose action or outcome.

to answer your original question, it is the atonement more than any other act that shows us that god must follow law. if god COULD have taken another route, and still provided us with agency, and not had to pay such a price, they would have. but there was no other way. the level of law we choose to obey marks the glory and truth we can inherit. God the Father is obedient to the highest levels of law. What came first the law or the law giver is moot, as the point is that God is subject to law as we all are, although it is interesting to note that all laws given to us are spiritual, and for our good, like gravity. Miracles are done through and by laws. for example, the greatest miracle any of us will ever experience, forgiveness, comes through the application of the laws of mercy to the law of justice. to understand law is to understand the nature of God. I highly recommend you study it.

a (proper) fast does a few things 1. weakens the body (the natural man) 2. it teaches how to control the natural urges and desires of man 3. it strengthens the spirit 4. it is an operative of the law of sacrifice. 5. it is an operative of the law of obedience. 6. it is an operative of faith. 7. it is a prayer. if chewing gum is done to satisfy the urges of the natural man, it is breaking the fast. this is how partaking of the sacrament is not breaking a fast, its feeding the spiritual side to make it stronger while starving (or denying) the natural side to make it weaker. only each person can decide for themselves what the basis is for chewing gum. the problem is that most people cannot be brutally honest with themselves. is it to satisfy the natural man or is it to strengthen the spiritual man?

did you see this?

Thats why its a pet peeve of mine, I like SOME of them, like jenamarie stated, but its not the time or place per the first presidency. Also, in my old ward, our bishop read that letter for 6 months at every fast and testimony meeting... and asked that people would comply. they never did. so it became a sore spot for me. Its not so bad in my current ward, in fact there is a young man about 7 who gives a great testimony about every 3 months or so. way better than about 1/3 of the adults who get up and give a "self called" talk.

I have two: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/16368-sacrament-pet-peeves.html#post297260

speaking of wayward children and poor parenting in sacrament..... I thought I would expand this to include all the unbelievable stuff like the clipping of nails in sacrament.. wow that one astounds me. I have two: 1. GET OUT OF THE DOORWAY! Hello! Not the place to catch up! 2. Children under 8 should give their testimony in Primary, not Sacrament meeting. you know who you are.

I think the question is off. perhaps you should ask yourself, what is a fast, then you could answer your original question.

The gold standard isnt about gold, its about "real money" all "real money" is just something that meets the standards put forth by a train a few pages back. gold has always met all the standards of money fairly well. look at the times when tobacco has been used as money to get a good understanding of what "money" is. the main things it needs are portability and intrinsic value. http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=3051024550497129264&hl=en to understand money, you first need to understand money. and you need to understand just what the federal reserve is and what it has done to us, our children, and the world. there is a reason the truth will set you free and a reason that armies and navies are not raised but bought. war is really what this thread is about.

you are 100% correct zoo. note who the 3 exceptions are directed at. It is not legislative in nature.

wingnut, get a grip. 1. in the "Hypothetical scenario" I presented no rape took place. 2. in the "Hypothetical scenarios" you presented only rape took place. I stated that IF you made abortion illegal (aint happening) and kept the 3 "exception rules" you would have many women stuck with either accusing their partner of rape or carrying the child. that is a fact. another problem with the 3 exception rule is the "health of the mother rule", in that its easy to show that pregnancy in general is hard on a woman body. now we are back to abortions of convenience. how do you argue that the mental health of the woman would not suffer if she was required to carry full term? the standard 3 exception rule is for a moral society. we don't have that. I didn't say I think there should be no exceptions. I don't support making abortion illegal unless it is returned to a states rights issue. there is no such thing as medical proof of rape, there is only medical proof that a sexual act took place. had you bothered to read my posts, you would know I have already argued that if the woman did not make the choice to get pregnant (rape) then she should have the option. if you wanna get all huffy, I also think that an abortion should not be granted if the father is known and wants the child, but this couldn't happen either because there would have to be a rape exception here as well. what I am saying is don't make a law that requires a woman to claim rape as the only avenue to get an abortion.

I would recommend you rethink this. those who would kill their own offspring to prevent the inconveniences of parenthood would also most likely have no trouble sending a one night stand to jail for rape for the rest of his life for the same reason. in other words, if you make abortion illegal in this environment, you would have to have some sort of protection other than "he said she said" to keep women from falsely accusing men of rape so they could qualify for an abortion. i mean compared to infanticide, whats a little false witness?

ya know, I understand you have your opinion, but the fact is, you don't have the courage to just come out and say you prefer murder over the other alternatives. that is what it comes down to. its not about "whos body it is" or "clean sanctioned murder by licensed professionals vrs a back alley murder" its not about how you personally define life so it fits into your desire to kill. on the one hand you have a child, that is defiantly alive, although I concur we don't know exactly all the ins and outs of when that happens. on the other hand you have all the things that really don't matter in life at all, the things that having a baby would "ruin your life" over. and with those two considerations placed before you, you would choose to kill a person rather that suffer the least degree of inconvenience. that is the baseline. murder vrs inconvenience. you made your choice. have the courage to at least stand by it instead of trying to redefine it into nobility of some twisted sort like "rights" or "saving the world" or "poor teenage girls"