DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
Now your talking! This is the fun stuff..... the stuff we most likely won't know until the other side. You are not the first to ask the question. Many LDS scholars and prophets have asked the Lord. Sadly, the answers get us into lots of trouble with our critics. But, from my vantage point the ideas thus far seem pretty fascinating.
I'm not saying that it "proves" anything, I'm just saying that using our complexity as an argument for a creator is rediculous because it gets you no where since that creator needs an even more complex creator and so on. At some point you have to accep that something just exists and saying it is God is no better logical argument than saying it is the universe and the rules that govern it.
-
"Similar DNA does not evolution make..." -Yoda
Living things have DNA, that there are similarities doesn't indicate trans-species formation over eons.
I wasn't just talking about "similiarities" in DNA, I was talking about DNA that we know was inserted by a virus at an essentially arbitrary point that serves as a genetic marker passed on only to children. Passing that off as just a similarity in design is an intellectual cop out, ask any biologist.
Bacteria mutates based upon its' surroundings, yet it never ceases to be bacteria. It doesn't become another species.
Given enough time, we have no reason to think it wouldn't become another species.
All species were created by GOD. The variation within species is not evidence for trans-species formation.
There are many millions of species that have existed and then been extinct. Does GOD just snap his fingers and create a new species whenever he feels like it, curiously recycling virus ridden junk DNA from existing species just for fun?
Think it through friend. Think of the complexity of mutation, etc., necessary to go from simple organisms to even the simplest of creatures, the gnat. If, anyway along the way the mutation was "wrong" the organism would cease to promulgate.
I believe it is you that needs to think it through my friend. The vast majority of mutations are nuetral to survival, some are negative, some are benificial. benificial mutations allow the organism to have a better chance at reproduction thus passing on at a greater rate than the negative mutations. This can be seen in organisms that breed quickly like bacteria. The logical extension of these observed changes is evolution and the formation of new species. Calling it "absurd" simply because you can't comprehend the time periods needed for such a system to work does not change the evidence that is for it.
What you asking me to believe is akin to giving a person an immensely complex map (with quintillions of paths) and telling them they need to get "there" without telling them where "there" was, and if they make one wrong turn they're dead. And you expect that over time someone would get "there". And you find this theory more rational than saying that the Creator made us as is, and we (each species) can adapt with that species....
There were indeed many genetic "wrong" turns which is why there are so many extinct species.
The enormous complexity of just a single cell is beyond the understanding of all of the fields of science combined, to date. Yet you'd have me believe that from inanimate material arose these immensely complex systems that continued to develop in even more unfathomably complex ways, until voila, here we are...
And you'd have me believe that because we don't yet fully understand the workings of a cell we should all toss our hands up in the air and say "God did it!"
Another hole in the evolution swiss cheese is that no in-between-a-species has ever been found....and this is BIG....you expect me to believe that not a trace exists of the "failures" anywhere in the world, after billions of years of such things going on? Why have we only found the successes in the fossil records?
I have no idea what you are on about, but the fossil record is far from complete and really has not much to do with commonly accepted evidence of evolution. There were trillions of species that existed over billions of years, just because we only have bits and pieces of the puzzle since so few animals are completely fossilized means nothing.
I shy from the (in my opinion) overly simplistic analogy of dropping the parts for a watch from the top of a building and having them assemble and begin to function when they hit the ground, but it is a simple means of showing the utter absurdity of "evolution"...
Our bodies are trillions, if not multidudes of trillions of times more comples than a simple watch, yet we are to believe we got here by happenstance?
NO!
Alright, I'll bite. Let's say for a moment that we are so complex there is no explaination other than that we were created by an even more complex being. Where does that leave us? Who created the being that created us? An even more complex being? Gee, that got us really far. You can say that God just IS and I say that if God just IS then why can't the universe and the set of rules governing it just BE?
-
I am having problems getting posted So here goes again.... DS I am sure I have oversimplified things and will be sure to view the propaganda which alot of these films are and see what your gripe is. Your last comments to me made me realize I need to know more of what i Speak..... I was speaking in general and forgive me if I offended you as I have respected your comments on many subjects for some time.
Don't worry, no offense was taken. I am actually very difficult to offend. I occasionally get riled up about things but I don't hold any grudges and usually end up enjoying the spirited discussions :)
-
Most of the people who are going to this film are basically of the "preaching to the choir" type. They already think bad things about legitimate science and would have continued to whether this film was made or not.
I believe you are probably correct. Good point :)
-
I wouldn't get to worked up about it Digital Shadow..... those who espouse creationalism will still be creating career suicide if they make an issue of this within science education. And I know I've mentioned this sort of thing on this board before so people shouldn't surprised. Legitimate education doesn't suffer mythology within science venues gladly. This documentary won't change this fact.
This is as it should be because if folks want the "Biblical" theory of creationalism taught, I have a whole slew of other creationalist theories that should also get equal time. All of which could have a clever person come up with legitimate science to suggest they are true. There are so many of them it would be impossible to attempt to do the science for them. It would be absurd.
Now if somebody wants to touch on all this stuff in a humnities class..... they can knock themselves out.
I agree with you completely. This documentary will pass by and science as a whole will remain unaffected and go on with business as usual.
But what bothers me is not the impact on the scientific community but the impact on the public's perception of the scientific community as dogmatic atheists feeding the public false information. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but when I hear people laughing about the "theory of evolution" and how there is no evidence behind it, it seems only to confirm my fears.
-
I guess this is one of those no brainers for me I see that evoulution cound not be without creation and visa versa. I have read many a scientist that believes in both but your free to belive what you choose. I wasn't trying to rile you I just don't understand how or why some people get so worked up on one side or the other and they both hold truths. Thats all.
I'm not riled up about what other people believe, I'm riled up about the movie's portrayal of the scientific community and the utter crap it is spewing about the theory of evolution causing The Holocaust. I got slightly annoyed when someone claimed there was NO evidence for evolution and implied it was laughable to think that there was, but that was just a tangent.
-
Ok but for me I see the truth in both. They work in some ways hand in hand. Its not one or the other. Your very worked up but can you do something about it ???? If I can't do something it is a total waste of time to rant about it. Satan loves for us to all be worked up and rant at each other. I respect your freedom to believe all you want. If there is good I choose to see it.
Evolution has shown its truth to me through evidence and experiments, so far Creationism has shown me nothing. If my view is a little one-sided it is because God hasn't seen fit to weigh in on the subject for me, so you can call it foolish if you like, but evidence is all I have to go on and evolution is where the evidence points.
Yes, I am a bit worked up over the movie, but all I can do about it is post here and maybe one or two people see the movie with a slightly more balanced view. Does it help the overall public view of science? Probably not, but it's all I can do and it does make me feel somewhat better to talk about it rather than to just let it stew in my mind.
-
Isn't it foolish for us to just believe one or the other theory. I believe in creation but evolution is a part of it or do I oversimplify things???
It isn't foolish to believe one side or the other or both. People have felt "spiritual" evidence for Creationism and people have seen physical evidence for evolution. You can believe whatever you want but telling blatant lies in an attempt to sway the public to your side is bad form no matter which side you're on.
-
All the more reason for the need of revelation from God. Everyone has an agenda. And where there isn't an agenda there is limited understanding.
And I must say that praying to God is much more efficient than going to school for decades and reading long winded, hardly understandable science books. Which is really good for people like me who don't have scientific wiring!!
I can kneel, ask, and receive. God is my Father. He created me. He told me so. And I believe. See? Simple. So the rest of the world can go on and on about creationism and or evolution. And I can sit back with my perfect knowledge sipping on a lemonade.
The only problem is that God seems to tell everyone different things so while it is certainly an "easier" method to just ask God everthing, I don't know how anyone can call it a "reliable" method
-
Wow sounds like now that the shoe is on the other foot all the liberal "do gooders" are all up in arms. How dare we use sensationalism to try to sway public opinion? Tell that to Michael Moore!
I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative and yes, I find Michael Moore equally offensive. In fact on the Expelled website, in the same sentence their call their own movie a documentary, they compare it to the documentaries of Michael Moore. Sensationalist crap is sensationalist crap no matter who is spewing it or what their agenda is.
-
I can understand why you might feel a little disturbed. The reaction of some to dismiss evolution all together perhaps seems too extreme. I think that some feel that the doctrine of evolution eliminates God and His ability to create man. I am not sure that is what the evidence of evolution is saying. I do think that is what some of its interpretations are leading some to believe and I think that alarms people of faith.
I for one believe in evolution......at least in principle. I am not convinced that every conclusion that is made as a result of the evidence is accurate. I think God uses evolution as one of his creative tools. But it isn't the only one. I think that closing ones mind to other possibilities just because we don't see all the evidence of it, is all just as much of an exaggerated response as the above.
This is actually one of the reasons I love the LDS church so much. Science is viewed as a harmonious part of earth life and religious understanding. To us it helps us to understand God and the world he created. It is all about truth and finding truth in all of its areas.
Whether or not people accept evolution was not the point of the post. I will correct misconceptions about evolution (such as there being no evidence for it) on this thread, but what is bothering me is this growing anti-science attitude the public is getting and the fact that they're more likely to be swayed by a shoddy sensationalist "documentary" than by evidence and experiments and critical thinking.
There is no such thing as a "Darwinist agenda" or massive consortium of scientists that go on Creationist witch hunts. But do people investigate the stories before buying into the nonsense? No, they hear someone who they think is a smart guy ranting about a nonexistant conspiracy and they're absolutely convinced. Ben Stein is an actor / gameshow host / ex-Nixon speech writer/ Visine salesman. He isn't even a part of the scientific community and the producer lied to all the scientists they got to speak in the movie, then took out of context clips to make them look bad.
-
Hmmmm.....
Would you be willing to show me a single piece of evidence for evolution?
I would LOVE to see some.
As to "Creationist", I think you're missing their point. Scientific observation leads to me thinking that the premise of "Evolution" (trans-species) is absurd. I think that science actually shows that the reasonable conclusion based upon the evidence is that there was an initial, intelligent design behind the appearance of Man / Earth in the Universe.
But, again, if you'd be so kind as to show me any evidence whatsoever for evolution, I'd be happy to re-evaluate my position.
When we remove GOD from the equation of life, then we are teaching our children that we don't have God-given rights (because God had nothing to do with our creation, etc). And we are teaching the ultimate in relativism, where there is no actual source for what is right and what is wrong. This is the danger behind "evolution" and "darwinism" in general. The scientific danger is great as well. It is such trumped up "science" that results in the absurdity of "Global Warming" etc...
I eagerly await your response.
Have you ever even talked to a biologist? Let's start with the simplest example I can think of.
Have you ever been to a doctor, found out you had a bacterial infection (like strep throat) and been given antibiotics? They tell you to make sure that finish all of them and keep taking the antibiotics even if you start feeling better. Do you know why? Because if you don't kill the entire bacteria population there is a chance that since bacteria breed so quickly the mutations in their DNA combined with the strong selective pressure of the antibiotic could create a new strain resistant to the antibiotic you're taking.
Is that not enough for you? Are you one of those people who pretends there is "microevolution" but a magical barrier preventing it from becoming "macroevolution" over millions of years of change and that there is no such thing as speciation? Here, I'll give you more conclusive evidence.
You can use the DNA evidence and find ancestry between different species in existance today through common endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) embedded in our DNA through the eons. Basically a class of virus called a retrovirus embeds its own DNA into an arbitrary place of the cell it infects. Sometimes, very rarely, it manages to infect a sperm or egg cell which manages to get carried to term and then that organism and its children will now have this virus DNA as a part of every cell in their body and pass it on to their children as well. It turns out that roughly 8% of our DNA is from these viruses and essentially 'junk DNA' we carry around. It is however useful in tracking when the divergence of species occurred and which species are more closely related. This is direct evidence that seperate species can share a common ancestor and it has been confirmed that we (humans) do indeed share several ERVs with chimpanzees.
This is the strongest piece of evidence for evolution I've seen so far and I have yet to hear any theory that offers an alternate explaination for these shared ERVs. We've seen how they get into the gene pool, we've seen how they are transferred from parent to child and we've seen that we share them with other species. I don't see how any intellectually honest scientist can casually disregard this evidence and believe that speciation through evolution is impossible.
If you have an open mind and truly want to learn more about the subject I suggest starting here: Evolution
I eagerly await the re-evaluation of your position.
-
I don't know how many of you have heard of Ben Stein's upcoming "documentary" called Expelled, but I have heard quite a bit about it in the forums that I frequent. The basic premise is that "Big Science" (I kid you not, that is the phrase he uses) is unfairly discriminating against creationist scientists who do not fall in line with the "Darwinist" (I have never heard a scientist use that word) agenda. The movie highlights a few tales of such "injustice" and then goes on to claim that the theory of evolution directly caused The Holocaust and then shows clips of famous atheist scientists talking spliced with images of Nazi concentration camps.
For those who are interested, here are a few links: Expelled, Expelled Exposed
I'm not sure how this movie can be classified as anything other than anti-evolution propaganda promoting the growing anti-intellectualism in America. It acts as if Creationism is a superior competing scientific theory that is not looked at because scientists are "dogmaticly" following Darwin. The problem with their claim is that Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief. There is nothing wrong with believing in it, but it offers no predictions, testable conditions or insight into anything. It simply has nothing to do with science and has no place in a science class or anywhere but a church really. What would Creationism research and experiments even look like anyway?
Evolution is the generally accepted theory because there is ample evidence for it and many experiments have supported the conclusion. If there is evidence for another theory that explains life on earth so well, then it will be looked into but so far, no such theory has even been proposed. It is true that in science sometimes good theories are stifled by the status quo, but in those cases experiments are done and evidence is presented and finally the paradigm shifts; science in general is a self-correcting system. Crying foul to the public and presenting no evidence to back up your claims does nothing to further the cause of science and can only be seen as a blatant politcal move serving to only further divide America.
Why am I ranting about all this? Because I've already seen people blindly eating up this propaganda who are outraged at science in general. The success of this movie deeply depresses me and almost makes me wish I lived in a more secular country.
-
I received all of my education in Iowa schools. Iowa is generally in the top 10 of the states, education-wise.
I found it extremely lacking, and getting progressively worse.
Now, I can't speak too much for junior high, except for the lack of attending to my educational needs in a behavior disorder classroom.
But in high school, this is what I find:
Classes are often geared towards the "learn it now, forget it after the test," and "if you do all your homework, you'll still pass, even if you get most of it wrong," styles. I HATE these.
Actual absorption of information isn't really encouraged, because students usually don't have to take comprehensive exams. (That is, semester exams that cover ALL of the material gone over so far that term.) And, when I DID have to take them, they were always geared to be easier for the students, because "boo hoo we haven't done that work in 3 months"
The majority of my semester exams were just normal chapter exams. There was no need to remember anything beyond the current chapter.
I had way too many teachers who would give you credit just for doing all of the homework. They'd give copious amounts of busywork, and if you did it you got points... even if EVERY answer was wrong... so long as you showed your work.
That's ridiculous. It coddles to those who don't study properly, or don't seek out further help.
I also had a fair number of classes that had CUT AND PASTE and POSTER projects. What grade am I in? It seems like 3rd, but I thought it was 12th...
Classes should be test-oriented, and the tests should be harder and more comprehensive. For those who have test anxiety, there needs to be a system in place for them to still be able to take the test to their ability.
As far as silly rules... I believe the no self-defense was one we had, too. If you got into a fight, you were both suspended. If you defended yourself, then they couldn't press charges, so long as you didn't become the aggressor. But the school system would still punish you for fighting back.
The parents generally don't care. For instance, if a guy grabs a girl anywhere inappropriate, all she's allowed to do is report it. The parents I know would say she should give him hard kick between the legs. She'd end up suspended, and the parents would take her out for ice cream for a job well done.
I'm an artist... I doodled on EVERYTHING during class. It helps me focus, or lets me complete ignore what the teacher is going on about. Anyway, for awhile I was on a sci-fi kick and was drawing some laser guns. Just... non-firing, laser guns, not aimed at anything, not even held in a hand. I got called into the office about my completely unrealistic designs, because a teacher was "worried." About... what? My depraved future-self time traveling back to high school with laser weapons?
The "zero tolerance" policy should not be a "zero sensibility" policy, as well.
Abuse? No. Intellectual neglect? Yes.
I agree with you completely. I've had issues with school my whole life, not because I was a bad or disruptive kid (I've never had so much as a detention) but because it was boring. It was all about busywork and rote memorization rather than emphasizing actual learning, applying skills and critical thinking skills. Memorization was easy for me, homework was pointless and tests were easy.
I ended up dropping out and getting my GED (I could have passed the test when I was 6, it was pretty rediculous). I fiddled around with community college for a while before moving to Utah to go to a tech school focused on software development which I had already taught myself quite a bit of. I was bored there too, and paying way too much money for it, so I ended up dropping out since I was recruited for a full time job in software development using my self-taught skills.
It is true that if I had finished my degree I would get probably 10k - 15k more per year starting out, but I'm confident I can more than prove my worth at any company once they hire me and quickly climb up the ranks.
The moral of the story? Well, in my opinion school and learning are not necessarily connected. Many people go through school learning almost nothing and many people learn quite a bit without the help of school. No one can make you learn, if you have the desire to learn, you'll find a way, especially given the wealth of resources available to kids today through the internet. What I find both depressing and amazing is that schools today seem to be killing the natural instinct for kids to WANT to learn and turning it into a horrible chore that is to be avoided. To me, that is the real abuse and it is what caused the blatant anti-intellectualism you see in America today.
-
I don't think you have ever offended me personally, but I very much admire your honesty, courage and determination to bring the Gospel into your life.
-
So we're supposed to make believe that God didnt and doesnt make known His will through His chosen prophets in order to make ourselves look "gooder" to outsiders? You know, God's will isnt always popular with man. Like when the Lord told his people to kill everyone including women and children and livestock.....
Now, there is a difference between a prophets opinion or beliefe and when he is acting in the name of the Lord. A lot of quotes are of opinion.
No, you can make believe whatever you want, including that none of your prophets ever had any racist tendencies. All I'm saying is that they're still human with their own biases and predjudices even if they receive divine revalation. I'm not saying the church should go back and say that they weren't really prophets, just admit that they are capable of "mistakes" rather than claiming that God did not want black people to have the priesthood, which is an especially hard claim to defend given that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to the first black man in 1836.
Thank you for demonstrating the exact attidue that makes me not want to join the church.
-
Okay, I'm going to venture the personal opinions of a white guy, non-LDS church member. My guess is that it was widely believed by most LDS members and leaders for much of the church's history that blackness was the mark of Cain, and that it was a mark of curse, more than blessing.
My own church, with an even shorter history than yours, also has some sadly racist elements to its history. In fact, one of the early pioneers of our distinctive doctrine is known to have lambasted the famed Azusa St. revival, when he visited, cursing it as N****r religion. Horrible stuff...very much a product of his time.
BUT, another key difference--my church has repudiated its errors, and fully admitted that they were such. There was no, "Well...God released us to fully embrace our Black bretheren." No, it was, "We were wrong, the racism was wrong, we repent." There have even been reconciliation services, at which white leaders washed the feet of black leaders.
What we hear repeatedly from this church is that God allowed the separation, the withholding of the priesthood for his timing, that the leaders were not wrong, just typical of their age, and, of course, that black members have no interest in apologies etc. Such may satisfy members, but comes across as a very tepid response to many on the outside.
As a non-LDS minority (not black either), I will say that some of the remarks I've seen from church leaders such as Brigham Young have seemed offensive to me (though understandable given the timeperiod) but the attitude that the church takes of this actually being God's will instead of the error in judgement of someone who is clearly human bothers me much more.
I think part of what drives this attitude is that the church leader is believed to be literally a prophet of God and while not strictly inerrant, presumably has a higher standard of morality and no one wants to imagine something as ugly as racism existing in a recognized prophet.
I don't mean to offend anyone because I know this is a touchy subject, all I'm saying is that from an outsider's point of view the racist remarks that were made don't bother me as much as the attitude taken by the church reguarding the issue.
-
I am not a member and I was brought up in a family where a drink or two is really no big deal and often times we would have wine with dinner. I think I've only really been "drunk" once and that was enough to convince me not to do it again.
Since moving to Utah and marrying a Mormon woman I have given up drinking out of respect to her beliefs, not that it's a big deal to me since I only really drank socially and here in Utah there is not much social drinking (go figure).
I had always heard that alcohol was strictly prohibited by the Word of Wisdom, but I've now heard a couple people challenge this claiming that it is only hard liquor that is prohibited and I'm curious if there is any specific doctrine regarding this or if the "no alcohol period" rule is an unsupported personal interpretation of doctrine, like not eating chocolate because of caffeine content.
I ask this because no one here has pointed to any scripture or doctrine that disputes the quote in the original post from the Word of Wisdom appearing to say that beer is okay to drink.
-
No big deal. I just want to keep it focused. This is not about the validity of Brigham's Young's prophetic mantle or his racist remarks, but about the Church's collective decision to disallow / allow "Blacks" to have the priesthood -- the actual origins. If you are to provide quotes, provide links as well.
I was only 8 years old when this announcement was made. I've grown-up never really understanding it.
Since it ended, I assume it had to BEGIN at some point as well. I was just trying to understand the OFFICIAL, ACTUAL beginning of this "policy" by the Lord. Did it come through revelation? Was it cultural?
I know for many years African Americans, and I think other minorities, have been dealt with in a manner repugnant to the tender feelings of God (for which there will be an accounting). Was it merciful on God's part to withhold the priesthood for a season, given the cultural climate in America?
Once again -- my questions are filled with faith. I am not interested in any negative commentary regarding the leadership of this Church or it's policies. I ask in faith, and I want faith-filled answers in return -- ideally with links to where I can verify the statements made.
Thank you,
Tom
All the quotes I posted were found here and I believe they have refernces cited and you can verify the validity of the statements yourself. The page also has an extensive history of the policies of the church regarding blacks and those have references cited too. If you're still curious I suggest visiting the wikipedia page I linked and if there is anything inaccurate I would suggest attempting to correct it so that people don't get the wrong idea.
-
We weren't ready. Maybe some were, individually, but we weren't collectively.
I didn't post because I wanted "well-meaning, sincere" individuals to cast doubt on the prophetic mantle of Brigham Young or insinuate that he was somehow a racist. Those discussions should be moved to another thread.
This has been answered to my satisfaction.
I was not attempting to cast doubt, only to allow others to possibly shed light on the doubt that was already cast in my mind. If this discussion is not welcome here, I will take it to another thread or even forum if this is not the place to discuss it. I apologize once again.
-
-
Given my predisposition to science and the scientific method, if I were to accept the Bible, it would most likely be as allegory.
-
All-powerful and perfect are 2 separate qualities, to start.
Being all-powerful means able to do all that can be done. It doesn't mean being able to make a triangle a circle and such.
(Just to be clear)
This is true, we can leave out the "all-powerful" from my argument if you like, it was only added for emphasis and does not really affect the conclusion.
I don't believe, as tomk is saying, that the mechanism is perfect (any longer). As part of the Fall we became imperfect beings. That's why we have chemical imbalances.
Weren't we always imperfect beings? Since a perfect being cannot do anything wrong (I believe that is the definition of perfect), if we were made as perfect beings, then either there would have been no fall or the fall would not be our fault, making the word "fall" being used to describe the event a bit of a misnomer.
Why don't some people get answers? Why aren't all answers through the method I've mused on above?
I don't know. It bears researching.
I agree.
-
This is faith.No. From what you guys tell me it will be through thoughts and feelings, but I'm open to however He feels like communicating with me.
I believe you are confusing "faith" with open mindedness.
P.S. Hey, I didn't know you could do a quote within a quote here, I like it!
Today is Earth Day!
in General Discussion
Posted
To blindly believe that humans are changing the climate of the earth is stupid, but it is just as stupid if not more so to blindly believe that it is impossible for our presence to change the climate of the earth. Weather is a chaotic system, throwing more energy into the mix can have various affects including spikes of warm AND cold.