Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tower of Babble (a bunch of baseless babble)
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 22 of 198 (4756)
02-16-2002 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 6:17 PM


[QUOTE][b]1) so what did we evolve from? from what i was aware evolution still claimed to have started from single celled primordial goo or did that mechanism change too?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Actually that's not evolution, but the Theory of Abiogenesis. And there are several different ideas out there but most of them do involve various amino acid solutions ("goo").
Actually I think you are talking about multicellular life evolving from a single celled animal, as opposed to "goo".
And there may have been several times when multicellular life evolved from single celled life. Single cellular life ---> multicellular life isn't so extraordinary. Fungi can be either single celled (yeast) or multicellular (molds, mushrooms) but they're still fungi. Protists can be single celled (Trypanosomes) or can be colonial (Volvox) but they're still protists.
[QUOTE][b]2) why does the bible need to have divine nature? its about god written by different men's experiences. thats what it is.[/QUOTE]
[/b]
A common premise in creationism is that the Bible is inerrant throughout, ie, the Bible itself is on its way to having its own cult following. Since you seem to imply that you worship God and not the Bible we won't have much of a problem on that point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 6:17 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 6:55 PM gene90 has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 55 of 198 (5253)
02-21-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by joz
02-21-2002 7:17 PM


Umm, Godismyfather, didn't it say in the Bible, quite explicitly, that they built their ziggurat to prevent themselves from being "scattered all over the Earth", and that God confounded their languages to limit their accomplishments? Apparently it was expedient for God to interfere with their plans, perhaps their arrogance did play a role...but look what we did in the latter half of the 20th century. We put people on the Moon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by joz, posted 02-21-2002 7:17 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by joz, posted 02-21-2002 7:26 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 57 of 198 (5257)
02-21-2002 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by joz
02-21-2002 7:26 PM


[QUOTE][b]Oh dear looks like God just voted free will off of the island....[/QUOTE]
[/b]
Hah, yes...if we assume that the Bible is literally correct and inerrant throughout. Genesis 11:6 outright says that Godidit to limit the accomplishments of man. Clearly this cannot be the case, because we've done a lot without divine intervention. I think this is another part of the Mesopotamian Creation-myth that fills the earlier part of Genesis and may be partly allegorical or even complete fiction.
Oh yes the Tower might have existed, and it might have fallen. God might have made it fall for His reasons. But I find the motive exceptionally unlikely. Maybe the this is a story of a ziggurat that fell a long time ago and killed a lot of people, and religious causes were invoked to "justify" the disaster. Or maybe I'm completely wrong (I try to tread lightly when discussing the motivations of God, but I think that Biblical interpretation is a valid subject of discussion). By the way, how do we know what God was thinking when it happened? (Through the same sources of the Flood story apparently)
But G**ismyfather's interpretation is completely inaccurate because the tower was not intended to reach Heaven, it was intended to reach "the heavens" (as in, "stars in the heavens"). Frankly the description of the thing makes it sound like a civic project of strictly cultural significance to me. ("Let us not be scattered", ie, bring unity)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by joz, posted 02-21-2002 7:26 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by wj, posted 02-21-2002 8:59 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 59 of 198 (5261)
02-21-2002 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by wj
02-21-2002 8:59 PM


[QUOTE][b]Well it may be interesting to speculate on divine motivation and postulate a real historical event which may have given rise to the story, but does this provide evidence of the historicity of the event?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by wj, posted 02-21-2002 8:59 PM wj has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 67 of 198 (5615)
02-26-2002 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Cobra_snake
02-26-2002 9:39 PM


[QUOTE][b]Ok, but does d93ncimecofmsj8; have a meaning?[/QUOTE]
[/b]
What does it matter? Meaning is context-sensitive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-26-2002 9:39 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 73 of 198 (13858)
07-20-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by William E. Harris
07-20-2002 3:43 AM


William, apparently you missed my message about LDS perspectives on mainstream science, history, and archeaology. I think a whole thread is in order for the subject. Concerns I have about the views of the Church are this:
(1) Catastrophism in North America as recorded in 3 Nephi -- everytime I ask somebody about BoM geography or archeaology I am always told that the whole landscape shifted so much to make any inquiry there pointless, to the point that the shape of the continent was completely changed. Of course, this rails against geology *and* history.
(2) Presence of paleo-Indian cultures in NA from very ancient times. Surely there must have already been "Lamanites" here when the Jaredites made their landfall.
(3) Apparent lack of Nephite or Jaredite iron or steel implements found in NA.
(4) Nasty comments made by Apostles on geology, evolution and the Big Bang theories. (The First Presidency, in contrast, has been very careful with commentary in this area).
[This message has been edited by gene90, 07-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by William E. Harris, posted 07-20-2002 3:43 AM William E. Harris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by William E. Harris, posted 07-22-2002 10:40 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 76 of 198 (13966)
07-22-2002 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by William E. Harris
07-22-2002 10:40 PM


I have heard Joseph F. Smith's commentary on evolution, and think it is the ideal prospective for the church to have (somehow I'll work that into my testimony). But it is the Twelve I am concerned about.
Even President Hinckley, while an apostle, wrote that he discounted evolution and geology. Whether he has learned otherwise as a prophet or if he has access to that information at all I do not know. But as I have implied, it is interesting that the First Presidency has been very careful about evolution, while the Apostles have not. As for whether the books are canonized or not the difference is vague. As my bishop said yesterday, the church pubs are the most important published material to read, second only to the Scriptures. What is in them concerns all of us.
And the interpretation of Scripture is important as well. For example, Doctrine and Covenants 77:6 can be interpreted in different ways but certainly seems to imply a young Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by William E. Harris, posted 07-22-2002 10:40 PM William E. Harris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by William E. Harris, posted 07-30-2002 7:17 PM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 80 of 198 (14528)
07-30-2002 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by William E. Harris
07-30-2002 7:17 PM


Could you expound on that more? I don't quite understand.
By the way, since our last exchange I have actually found friendly comments on evolution from the Quorum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by William E. Harris, posted 07-30-2002 7:17 PM William E. Harris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by William E. Harris, posted 08-05-2002 3:55 AM gene90 has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 82 of 198 (14869)
08-05-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by William E. Harris
08-05-2002 3:55 AM


Fair enough, that version seems to float just fine with paleontological evidence. My only real difference is that we shouldn't necessarily see genes appearing in populations today under a completely naturalistic scenario because your original estimates didn't compensate for generation lengths. The hypothetical new genes were distributed equally between bacteria and people in that model. I also tend to believe in diffusion between most every human culture at some point or another. Finally, I don't think the rate of evolution is fixed, I think population change has spurts and long periods of stability. Other than that, I think the model is a creative one, I certainly would not have thought of it, and I encourage you to continue refining it.
I also want to point out that genetic modifications would be toward the physical image/species of God, but not necessarily towards "complexity", a term that is relative and difficult to measure. Humans are great, we have opposable thumbs and free agency but most of our *biological* systems are really much like those of chimps. Is the difference in complexity (2% by DNA homology) between us and them the same as the difference of faculty? I don't think it is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by William E. Harris, posted 08-05-2002 3:55 AM William E. Harris has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024