Francisco_d-Anconia

Well, that is only the Genesis 1 version. The Genesis 2 version goes: earth/heavens, man, plants, animals, woman from Adam's rib. So the Biblical creation story, as written, doesn't even need evolution to conflict with; it already conflicts with itself. I can assure you that the vast majority of scientists don't share this perspective. As far as they are concerned, this is what separates science from belief based on faith: not presuming the conclusion to be reached prior to--or indepedently of--the evidence. If the purpose of science had been merely to rationalize the Bible's stories, rather than testing beliefs based on evidence, where do you think we would be now in terms of scientific knowledge and technology?

Well, on the one hand, there is overwhelming evidence for evolution that has taken place over the last several hundred million years and an earth that is billions of years old. (Based on the evidence, scientists think the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, and that life has been evolving for 3.8 billion years.) For example, scientists have carbon-14 dated some remains of physically modern humans to over 30,000 years old. The oldest cave paintings have been dated to 32,000 years ago. The fossil remains of dinosaurs and mammals show the transitional forms one would expect from evolution, enabling archeologists to construct a tree of evolutionary relationships (with varying levels of confidence.) Et cetera. Based on all this evidence, many LDS, including many here, believe in evolution and an earth that is billions of years old. On the other hand, there is D&C 77:6: This, we should note, is not supposed to be Joseph Smith's personal theory. According to Joseph Smith, this is a direct revelation. So, according to this, the earth has seven thousand years of "temporal existence" (presumably including The Millennium.) Thus, if the earth existed prior to 6,000 years ago, it had to be in an "eternal state." This would mean that nothing could change or die. Yet evolution is change, and natural selection requires death. Anyway, that's my two cents. Does that help clarify anything?

This video is so cool. (No pun intended.)

Congratulations on the 5k and the engagement.

Okay, the second link should work now. I originally heard about the single engine vs. twin engine JSF debate in a TV documentary. I remember redundancy being the Navy's concern in wanting twin engines. When one engine goes out, the flight computer and/or the pilot has to compensate for the asymmetrical thrust, but the plane will still fly and generally won't spin out and crash.

These might help: Yahoo Answers Navy Aircraft - Bottom of page If one engine goes out, the other is backup.

Wow. That's why the Navy originally wanted two engines on the Joint Strike Fighter. If your single engine goes out over the ocean, you've got a big problem.

Hi, I just joined too, but I can't post new threads and I don't have access to my profile page. I didn't get the activation email that the sign-up page said I would get. What should I do? Thanks.