I've just gotten back on here and I see that the thread I had on evolution yesterday is now closed.

In the last message there, "anymoo" claims that microevolution is true, whilst macroevolution "seems impossible".

That's basically the same as saying trees are possible by forests are not possible.

Our evolutionary relationship to other animals is proven by the fact that humans are mammals - we are inarguably mammals because the females of our species suckle their babies on milk.

Mammals are animals, therefore humans are animals. We're not "special", separate creations.

The ONLY people who deny evolution are religious fundamentalists, and they do so based solely on religious grounds. Nobody else has a problem with it.

to me, at least, is the notion of the evolution of consciousness, not just physical form. And since I do accept this, I see it as my own present possibility. In fact, it is my imperative, and as I do this, I further the evolution of all consciousnesses...yours included!

It's funny, Mormons believe we can evolve into gods, but not that apes evolved into humans...

Apes didn't evolve into humans.

Some did. Cladistically, humans are still apes.

Yes, Homo sapiens sapiens ie., human beings are primates. It seriously worries me that many people do not know that fact and/or wilfully ignore it.

Why are people so terrified by the fact that we're animals? Oh right, because if we're "just" animals then we aren't god's special snowflakes, here on Earth to lord over the beasts with our righteous dominion. **shakes head in despair**

Agreed. Mormons even believe that the first god evolved on his own from some kind of eternal intelligence. I suppose he created a body for himself, sent himself to a planet that he created, and passed the test that he created for himself.

I'm not a fundy

Why do you deny evolution if you're not a Christian or Muslim fundamentalist?

Also, please explain the biological mechanism that prevents macroevolution (the accumulation of microevolutionary steps) from occurring. Please not that this has to be more than a "gut feeling" on your part.

That's some flawed logic. I'm a christian, I'm not a fundy. And yet, I deny speciation. I'm sorry if that goes against your belief. Maybe there's a problem with your belief? ^.~

anymoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's some flawed logic. I'm a christian, I'm not
> a fundy. And yet, I deny speciation. I'm sorry if
> that goes against your belief. Maybe there's a
> problem with your belief? ^.~


Observed facts (such as "speciation") don't require "belief."
Your claim goes against observed fact. And *it* is a "belief." An irrational, demonstrably false one.

I can't imagine why you would want to willingly "believe" something that's demonstrably false. That's the mormon church in a nutshell...

Maybe I should've been more clear -- The problem with his belief is that I must be a fundy since I don't believe. In regards to that, there must be a problem with his belief since I am a christian, not a fundy and also do not believe speciation.

You walk the walk and talk the talk.

I think you are not a funndy like Ted Haggard wasn't gay.

Please. Do tell me what I believe since you know it more than I do.

I didn't say what you are, I said what I THINK you are based on your behavior.

You do know at least enough to tell the difference between someone say what you are and someone saying what they THINK you are, right? RIGHT?

Don't what people thinking you are a closed minded fundy, don't act like a closed minded fundy.

anymoo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's some flawed logic. I'm a christian, I'm not
> a fundy. And yet, I deny speciation. I'm sorry if
> that goes against your belief. Maybe there's a
> problem with your belief? ^.~

Speciation is a fact. Why do you think there are lions AND tigers AND leopards AND pumas AND tabby cats? And don't tell me that 'microevolution', because all of those animals are distinct species, not breeds.

Evolution is not a belief, it's a biological fact. You've just been told it's wrong by your preacher because it shows that the Book of Genesis is just an ancient fable.

The Bible also says the earth is flat, and we know that's wrong too... well, I hope you do.
"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal' Job 38:14.
Clay seals are FLAT.

We never covered evolution nor creation in my church. I grew up pentacostal so it was all hellfire and damnation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

"Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines, usually understood as a reaction to Modernist theology."

Actually, please do look up the term and/or read the wikipedia article.

I don't hold a literal view of all of the bible. I think that much of it is allegorical; a huge part of the KJV includes cultural biases under the guise of divine inspiration (I have an interlinear so I can look up my own darn greek, hebrew and chaldee); the majority of the pentateuch is a congomeration of various stories that the writers would have run into (mostly from trade and that's just how sharing stories work -- you adapt them into your own world view).

For the most part, I think that I believe in partial preterism (that means I'm not a futurist dispensationalist and I do NOT believe that we are living in the last days. I'm not waiting for Jesus to show up and fix the world.)

I don't believe that we should boycott places because they disagree with my religious beliefs and I think that others who do should stop being hypocrites and no longer buy gas (they sell cigarettes there!).

I don't know what I believe about the creation story. I don't know what I believe about the nature of God. Genesis 1:1 says in the begining GODS created the heavens and the earth. My head is still spinning from that one.

I don't always vote conservative (that alone makes me not even a christian anymore -- ask the fundies, that's how I found out that I'm not a *real* christian)

I believe that the majority of the OT is probably suspect, but I do believe in the NT.

I have many other heretical beliefs, the keep me out of the club.

However, I do believe that Jesus was born, died for our sins and rose from the dead. Yes, those are fundy beliefs, but a lot of other nonfundies believe those things as well.

You sure act like you are.

You base that on nothing more than me saying that I believe in a creator and that I don't believe in speciation. I propose that you look up what fundies believe.

You repeatedly used tired fundamentalist arguments, you made speculative statements about the Russian guy when a single interest search got the facts.

No, I do not believe your claim regarding speculation, believing is a god without evidence is NOTHING BUT SPECULATION. You clearly rely on speculation in each and every one of your arguments.

I think you a fundy because you claim you are on thing but you act and talk like another

Just like ted haggart when he was claiming he was not gay.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2014 08:49PM by MJ.

The whole micro-evolution is possible and macro-evolution is not possible can be debunked by at simple childhood game of "Telephone".

If you play the telephone game with 10 kids, the message at the end is probably still going to have approximately the same meaning or maybe still be exactly the same. Now what if it was 100 kids, 1,000 kids, 100,000 kids; 1,000,000 kids. Eventually that message isn't going to be anywhere near what was originally said. If you think of each kid as a new generation, you then see how micro-evolution would eventually lead to macro-evolution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2014 12:24PM by winklebottom.

Recently I have become interested in a new approach. Having recently read "The Lost Book Of Enki" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" I have been greatly interested in the concepts of these tomes regarding the origin of homo sapiens.

I neither totally advocate nor totally oppose their concepts. I only say that they are food for thought.

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Recently I have become interested in a new
> approach. Having recently read "The Lost Book Of
> Enki" and "The Epic of Gilgamesh" I have been
> greatly interested in the concepts of these tomes
> regarding the origin of homo sapiens.
>
> I neither totally advocate nor totally oppose
> their concepts. I only say that they are food for
> thought.

As ancient ignorant creation myths, they're an interesting look at what ancient ignorant people made up, much like the bible creation myth, or the Ainu creation myth, or hundreds of others.
As factual statements of reality, they're neither interesting nor "food for thought."

Big Bang, Big Turtle...each era uses the conceptual tools at its disposal. But whereas earlier eras knew their explanations were symbolic, ours insists on its literal truth.

All stories are just that--"stories." They use language, images, and concepts which are all mental representations of some 'reality' beyond them, and "the map is not the territory." It's mere presentism to presume that our brain power and conceptual tools are so vastly superior to anything that's gone before...and that they won't be superseded by future paradigm shifts that will make ours look childish.

Yes. The ancient myths were made-up stories based on complete ignorance.
The modern "story" is based on observation and experiment and evidence. It's certainly not *complete* by any means -- and there's plenty more to learn. But any "replacement" in the future will have to account for all of the *fact* upon which the current stories are based, and then build upon them with more *facts.*

I also find your contention that previous myth makers "knew" they were "symbolic" to be unsupportable -- its only modern people desperate to not let facts show the ancient myths false that pull out the "oh they knew it was symbolic" or "it's just a metaphor" excuses. The ancient people fully believed their myths were literal.

The "paradigm" shift occurred already. We figured out how to reach conclusions based on observation, experiment, and evidence instead of fantasy, myth, and wishful thinking. We'll continue to use it to add to our knowledge.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

The ancient
> people fully believed their myths were literal.
>


I am interested in knowing what you have to support this assertion.

Thank you.

The very fact that we, in our recent materialistic idolatry, have lost the keys for symbolic reading shows OUR ignorance, and we try to turn the tables and claim the creators of these accounts were ignorant...because we can't read them right.

I am trying to counter the current surface-fundamentalism that presumes what we "observe" with our limited eyesight and senses is an accurate representation of an external reality independent of consciousness. Yes, scientistic fundamentalism--and its stubborn supporters try to ridicule religious fundamentalism while falling into the same flatland trap in their own field.

Exactly right, Mr. Foxe. Our literalism makes us inferior to our predecessors.

Some are frightened by people not thinking we're "animals", I guess. I'm frightened by the fact that our scientistic culture is in the grip of what Baudrillard called "simulacra". Using your example, this is taking the map of reality for reality itself.

Why aren't fun-dees more fun to talk to about stuff like this?

That's what I want to know...

On an ex-Mormon forum, I didn't think there would be people like that. I thought that when people left Mormonism, they usually embraced science, reason, and logic.

Macro-evolution and micro-evolution have both been demonstrated numerous times. A quick Internet search can turn up tons of information showing this. In fact, scientists do not use the terms "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution." They are a false and unnecessary distinction. The two kinds of evolution blend seamlessly together on a continuum. Examine the examples in the middle, and you are hard-pressed to say if they are macro or micro.

Here is a link with some examples of macroevolution that science has been around long enough to observe:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-macroevolution.html

This one is not a particularly good one.