What do you think about pre Adamites?

[goor_de]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Fingerprints are not determined by your DNA.

However, if you look more closely, you realize that the genetic material of identical twins is in reality not 100 percent identical.

A fingerprint does not depend solely on heredity. Numerous factors play a role, but not all of them are known yet
So nothing specific you know

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, goor_de said:

However, if you look more closely, you realize that the genetic material of identical twins is in reality not 100 percent identical.

Your own DNA from one part of your body is not 100% identical with that from another part of your body.

For all reasonable intents and purposes, most monozygotic twins share a common genome. To claim otherwise is either false or hair-splitting.

[goor_de]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Your own DNA from one part of your body is not 100% identical with that from another part of your body.

For all reasonable intents and purposes, most monozygotic twins share a common genome. 

the DNA is not 100 identical. thanks

[person0]

2 hours ago, mirkwood said:

The dinosaurs died, no need for the planet anymore.

That still seems incomplete to me.  If the dinosaurs died on the planet, and if the planet was not living, what would cause the biological processes of decomposition?  For decomposition to have occurred, there would have to have been living organisms involved in the process.  Even if the dinosaurs were dead, other living organisms would still be required.

Edited September 28, 2018 by person0

[mirkwood]

12 minutes ago, person0 said:

That still seems incomplete to me.  If the dinosaurs died on the planet, and if the planet was not living, what would cause the biological processes of decomposition?  For decomposition to have occurred, there would have to have been living organisms involved in the process.  Even if the dinosaurs were dead, other living organisms would still be required.

OK.  The theory works for me.

[Lindy]

Isn't it amazing that we have the ability to share, debate and elaborate questions, answers and opinions that we will never know the answers in this lifetime? 

Me.... I can just put it on my list of things I will find out when God does His Q&A class.

I love this country!  :-) 

[Rob Osborn]

On 9/28/2018 at 1:05 PM, Traveler said:

500 years ago they (humanity) did not know that dinosaurs ever even existed.  It was about then that common people would be put to death for reading the Bible by the very religious institutions that claimed the Bible to be G-d's word - and it was that same mentality that determined that the world was 5,500 years old.  Even according to prophesy recorded in scripture it was a time of apostasy from light and truth - thought the foundations of restoration of truth were being set though the restoration would not be for a few hundred years - it was not a time of shining human intelligence and achievement.  

 

The Traveler

Oh they knew. They called them dragons back then. But hey, we shouldn't believe them should we, we didn't have "empirical" science back then... 

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Oh they knew. They called them dragons back then. But hey, we shouldn't believe them should we, we didn't have "empirical" science back then... 

No they did not.  The earliest honest and truthful reference to any dinosaur relic that anyone can say for sure was 1824.  You should get your facts straight before making up pretended fantastic unsubstantiated notions just to fit your paradigm and thinking it to be  empirical.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

No they did not.  The earliest honest and truthful reference to any dinosaur relic that anyone can say for sure was 1824.  You should get your facts straight before making up pretended fantastic unsubstantiated notions just to fit your paradigm and thinking it to be  empirical.

 

The Traveler

And you need to go do some dictionary reading. Start with the word "empirical". Somehow you are absolutely misusing it.

[Traveler]

I do not have to look it up - it is evidence that can be experienced through our physical senses.  However there are extensions - for example - sounds and light frequencies beyond human capabilities are still considered empirical by extending capabilities through "instrumentation".     But since the evidence is physically sensed  - the same evidence is sensed regardless of who (capable of sensing).  Thus anything that cannot be replicated is not empirical.   This is all based in the concept that the principles and laws of our universe are isotropic.  Which means uniformity regardless of time and place.

I believe all this is reflected in spiritual things as well.  For example the principles that define what is holy and sacred or evil and sinful are the same regardless of place or time.   In short this means to understand something - they must understand the principles that govern or define it.  I have tried to extend this thought many times - with the expression that it is not the conclusion that makes something right or wrong but rather the process through which the conclusion was arrived.

I will give a little example - when someone says they believe something to be true because it is so in scripture.  I am convinced that such an individual does not understand very much about scripture.  Why - because there are thousands of religious sects - all claiming to be truthful based upon scripture - in addition there is hardly a single point of doctrine upon which all Christians (or those claiming to be Christians) agree - all based on scripture.  Thus, it does not take a genus to realize that there must be another parameter to spiritual truth beyond the literal reference of scripture.  So if the only parameter a person is using to determine truth is scripture - since there are thousands of divergent interpretations of scripture - the probability (I would add empirical probability) of being  correct is less than 100th of 1 percent.  A broken clock with motionless hands has a greater empirical probability of being correct.

Now I will add something - part from my personal observations (empirical) and part from spiritual (non-empirical) impressions.  This is that those that are not loyal to spiritual covenants are never going to be spiritually correct about anything.  This is why I believe Mormoni chapter 10 is such an important scripture.  It speaks of a process that requires that others and their differing spiritual inputs are critical to spiritual understanding.

 

The Traveler

Edited October 1, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

"Empirical: Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic."

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/empirical

You stated- ". For 75+ years the bulk of empirical evidence (with new discoveries and methods) are trending towards evolution, billions of year old earth and that intelligent humanoids using tools walked the earth before the Scriptural account of the fall of Adam and Eve was revealed - and that these humanoids had our same DNA and are no more genetically diverse from modern humans than modern humans are from each other". 

As to your original statement it is more correct to say- ". For 75+ years the bulk of scientific opinion and theory (with new discoveries and methods) is trending towards evolution, billions of year old earth and that intelligent humanoids using tools walked the earth before the Scriptural account of the fall of Adam and Eve was revealed - and that these humanoids had our same DNA and are no more genetically diverse from modern humans than modern humans are from each other. 

[Traveler]

On 10/1/2018 at 12:14 PM, Rob Osborn said:

As to your original statement it is more correct to say- ". For 75+ years the bulk of scientific opinion and theory (with new discoveries and methods) is trending towards evolution, billions of year old earth and that intelligent humanoids using tools walked the earth before the Scriptural account of the fall of Adam and Eve was revealed - and that these humanoids had our same DNA and are no more genetically diverse from modern humans than modern humans are from each other. 

I will try again - for the past 75+ years mankind have discovered a preponderance of empirical evidence and methods that scientist have used to validate theories and opinions that the earth is billions of years old and that intelligent humanoids using tools walked the earth before the Scriptural account of the fall of Adam and Eve was revealed.  Using these theories Scientist have advanced technology that allows DNA samples to prove crime and parental; parent - child relationships.  Also such scientific technology that has reduced hunger and advanced medical treatments (including organ transplants) and saved billions of lives.  Modern science has advance technology that has given us understanding of electricity and sub-atomic particles.  The fact that we are not using computers is a direct result of scientific achievements.

Some of religious individuals have notions that scriptures is the only authority of understanding everything and anything - despite the fact that interpretation of such scriptures have divided humanity and directly caused more wars and death that any other single influence in recorded history.  Such believers have denied scientific advancements - except when it benefits them or those they love but that science has failed to advance any technology because their theories and opinions are completely flawed and worthless, without any value or merit - assuming that human enlightenment of the Dark Ages to be far in advance - and that human knowledge of the universe, our world even political systems have failed humanity for the last 1500 years and more.  That humans would be better off with the science determined anciently.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I will try again - for the past 75+ years mankind have discovered a preponderance of empirical evidence and methods that scientist have used to validate theories and opinions that the earth is billions of years old and that intelligent humanoids using tools walked the earth before the Scriptural account of the fall of Adam and Eve was revealed.  Using these theories Scientist have advanced technology that allows DNA samples to prove crime and parental; parent - child relationships.  Also such scientific technology that has reduced hunger and advanced medical treatments (including organ transplants) and saved billions of lives.  Modern science has advance technology that has given us understanding of electricity and sub-atomic particles.  The fact that we are not using computers is a direct result of scientific achievements.

Some of religious individuals have notions that scriptures is the only authority of understanding everything and anything - despite the fact that interpretation of such scriptures have divided humanity and directly caused more wars and death that any other single influence in recorded history.  Such believers have denied scientific advancements - except when it benefits them or those they love but that science has failed to advance any technology because their theories and opinions are completely flawed and worthless, without any value or merit - assuming that human enlightenment of the Dark Ages to be far in advance - and that human knowledge of the universe, our world even political systems have failed humanity for the last 1500 years and more.  That humans would be better off with the science determined anciently.

 

The Traveler

 

The Traveler

You really need to stop using "empirical evidence" in your claims, It's not correct. Empirical evidence cannot be applied to the past of which is not observed nor able to be tested. Those parameters must be met for something to be empirical.

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Some of religious individuals have notions that scriptures is the only authority of understanding everything and anything - despite the fact that interpretation of such scriptures have divided humanity and directly caused more wars and death that any other single influence in recorded history. 

Off topic and not really related to what you wrote...but I thought I'd post in...

I'd say disease and plague have caused more death than any other single influence recorded in history.  

If we are talking about human caused deaths, that is probably governmental shifts (ala...atheism and communism), though I suppose one might be able to technically call that religious.

And of course, this is just me being a nit...I might say the same thing as you just did in various conversations.

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You really need to stop using "empirical evidence" in your claims, It's not correct. Empirical evidence cannot be applied to the past of which is not observed nor able to be tested. Those parameters must be met for something to be empirical.

Empirical evidence exist independent of any particular observer.  For example the evidence by which modern science uses to determine the charge of a single electron - has always existed, it has always been available.  As long as electrons have existed and wherever electrons have existed - the empirical evidence of their charge has existed.  Empirical evidence do not disappear or cease to exist because some individual will not or cannot consider it.  It does not matter that someone existed before science developed methods to define and explain electrons - if struck by lighting they would still be shocked - which is empirical evidence that electrons carry charge.   It is the opinions and theories that will determine weather or not someone will be able to learn from the empirical evidence and allow them to utilized the forces for their benefit. 

As a side note - it is a scientific definition that the ability to learn and change behavior is empirical evidence of intelligence.   All empirical evidence is evidence - but not all evidence is empirical evidence.  The difference is that empirical evidence is isotropic.  I would add the greater the intelligence the more likely there will be discernable change in behavior and the more likely that the change will be beneficial.  I also purport that the more intelligent the theories and opinions concerning the evidence - the more the changes applied will be beneficial and useful.  That the best way to discern the correctness of a theory or opinion - is in the results of such theories and opinions.  Or as said in scripture - A tree is known as good or evil by the fruit it bears.   That is why I suggest we consider the benefits science and technology has brought to mankind compared to those that oppose science and technology.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Empirical evidence exist independent of any particular observer.  For example the evidence by which modern science uses to determine the charge of a single electron - has always existed, it has always been available.  As long as electrons have existed and wherever electrons have existed - the empirical evidence of their charge has existed.  Empirical evidence do not disappear or cease to exist because some individual will not or cannot consider it.  It does not matter that someone existed before science developed methods to define and explain electrons - if struck by lighting they would still be shocked - which is empirical evidence that electrons carry charge.   It is the opinions and theories that will determine weather or not someone will be able to learn from the empirical evidence and allow them to utilized the forces for their benefit. 

As a side note - it is a scientific definition that the ability to learn and change behavior is empirical evidence of intelligence.   All empirical evidence is evidence - but not all evidence is empirical evidence.  The difference is that empirical evidence is isotropic.  I would add the greater the intelligence the more likely there will be discernable change in behavior and the more likely that the change will be beneficial.  I also purport that the more intelligent the theories and opinions concerning the evidence - the more the changes applied will be beneficial and useful.  That the best way to discern the correctness of a theory or opinion - is in the results of such theories and opinions.  Or as said in scripture - A tree is known as good or evil by the fruit it bears.   That is why I suggest we consider the benefits science and technology has brought to mankind compared to those that oppose science and technology.

 

The Traveler

I'm not opposed to science and technology, especially that which advances our technology and lifestyle. What I am opposed to is people running around claiming things such as evolution from a common ancestor as "empirical", or, claiming dinosaurs lived and then died off millions of years ago as "empirical. The only thing empirical in all of the evidence is the fossil record. That's the only part that can be "empirical". Theories as to how long ago they lived and dating methods believed is not "empirical".

[Searching]

On 9/4/2018 at 8:18 PM, Scott said:

Here's another one:

Joseph F Smith said that Adam was born of a woman.  I don't know if that fits either category unless #1 implies that people outside the garden gave birth to Adam before he was placed in the garden?   Or the birth took place in the garden?  Or somewhere outside earth?   I admit that don't know what he meant.

Here is the exact quote:

Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I.

 

 

So.... Jesus was not the "only" begotten son?

[Searching]

On 9/4/2018 at 2:43 PM, BJ64 said:

Given the fact that there exists upon this earth the remains of pre-humans where do you think they fit in the scheme of things?

Moses 1:35
.... For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand,

Adam and Eve brought a new era to an old world in my opinion...

[Anddenex]

33 minutes ago, Searching said:

 

So.... Jesus was not the "only" begotten son?

It appears you may have misunderstood Scott's response. The quote mentions Adam being born of a woman.

The title of "only begotten" is that Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father. Adam was not begotten of the Father. These two ideas do not contradict. Now if Scott's quote said Adam was born of God the Father, then the question makes sense, but he didn't.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm not opposed to science and technology, especially that which advances our technology and lifestyle. What I am opposed to is people running around claiming things such as evolution from a common ancestor as "empirical", or, claiming dinosaurs lived and then died off millions of years ago as "empirical. The only thing empirical in all of the evidence is the fossil record. That's the only part that can be "empirical". Theories as to how long ago they lived and dating methods believed is not "empirical".

Beyond carbon dating there are a number of geologic episodes that help to establish time periods:

Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Mesozoic, Permian, Late Triassic, Late Jurassic, Cenozoic and Paleogene.    These geologic times are well defined, not just by fauna fossilization  but flora fossilization as well.   Besides carbon dating there is strata dating based on the different layers created globally at parallel matching times.   Do you think, from the raw data, that it is possible to conclude that several eras of fauna and flora classifications previously existed globally?  Do you think that geological projections based on current era stratification creation projections are reasonable to establish preceding era stratification creation?  For example, how long would it take to create similar organic strata in the current wettest existing tropical rain forest – then using such projection to measure stratification?

Another example – In Alaska, it is very visible (empirical) to see recent glacial recession and how quickly with ample rain fall various flora can alter an eco-system.  In other words how long before moss and likins growth can produce enough soil for sufficient trees to establish a forest with old growth trees?

It is my impression that your opinion that all such geological stratification that include fauna is possible within the time period that man (Adam) has existed on earth (roughly 6,000) years.  Do you have any reference to justify such rational?

Thanks

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

13 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

It appears you may have misunderstood Scott's response. The quote mentions Adam being born of a woman.

The title of "only begotten" is that Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father. Adam was not begotten of the Father. These two ideas do not contradict. Now if Scott's quote said Adam was born of God the Father, then the question makes sense, but he didn't.

There exist a very different variant reading of ancient scripture text concerning the phrase "only begotten".  This variant reading refers specifically to the heir of the supreme Suzerain of an ancient Kingdom.  Under such context it is possible for a King to have many biological offspring and yet still refer to his heir apparent to the kingdom as his only begotten.  It is also interesting that the heir apparent was anointed to their position.  The term Messiah (Hebrew) or Christ (Greek) means very much the same thing - anointed.  So  we have several terms also including including Son of G-d that seem to reference that same concept.  It is also interesting that Jesus called himself, "The Son of Man" which is perhaps a different discussion - but I would add just a tad as a play on words in reference to a name of G-d which is "Man of Holiness" that some scholars think is a reference in  the term "Amen" used to end prayers and recognition of divine blessings.

 

The Traveler

[BJ64]

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

It appears you may have misunderstood Scott's response. The quote mentions Adam being born of a woman.

The title of "only begotten" is that Jesus is the "only begotten" of the Father. Adam was not begotten of the Father. These two ideas do not contradict. Now if Scott's quote said Adam was born of God the Father, then the question makes sense, but he didn't.

Jesus was the only begotten of The God The Father conceived by a mortal woman into mortality. 

Luke 3:38 tells us “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

Adam was also a son of God begotten as Brigham Young teaches us 

"And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them."

I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works and given them the same attributes which He Himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. (Journal of Discourses, 11:122)

[Anddenex]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Jesus was the only begotten of The God The Father conceived by a mortal woman into mortality. 

Luke 3:38 tells us “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.”

Adam was also a son of God begotten as Brigham Young teaches us 

"And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness.... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them."

I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works and given them the same attributes which He Himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. (Journal of Discourses, 11:122)

I am not seeing in this quote where Adam was born "begotten" by Heavenly Father and a mortal woman. What part of these statements do you find that implied?

[BJ64]

18 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I am not seeing in this quote where Adam was born "begotten" by Heavenly Father and a mortal woman. What part of these statements do you find that implied?

I didn’t attempt to imply that Adam was born to a mortal woman. Why would anyone even think that was the case? Adam was born as an immortal being and as such his parents had to be immortal.

Jesus in the other hand was born of a mortal woman. The “only begotten” by God in such a manner. Jesus was born half immortal and as such could die or not, it was his choice to die as a sacrifice for our sins. 

Adam however was immortal until the fall at which time he became mortal and subject to death. 

[mikbone]

Moses 6:59 could be intrepreted to state that adam was born with blood.