Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

Maybe I'm just being juvenile, but the highlight of that article for me was "Its features were spectacularly preserved in the fossil record—and intriguingly, the researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus." 

Whenever I read an article like this it always talks about how magnificent this new discovery is, but then it lists problems about why it might not actually be so amazing, but no worries, a handy speculation is always offered at the end so you can go ahead and accept it as gospel. 

"Unfortunately, before a point corresponding roughly to the time at which Saccorhytus was wriggling in the mud, there are scarcely any fossils available to match the molecular clock's predictions. Some researchers have theorised that this is because before a certain point, many of the creatures they are searching for were simply too small to leave much of a fossil record. The microscopic scale of Saccorhytus, combined with the fact that it is probably the most primitive deuterostome yet discovered, appears to back this up."

These articles are why I put very little trust in the "arm of flesh".

[Vort]

5 hours ago, unixknight said:

Maybe I'm just being juvenile, but the highlight of that article for me was "Its features were spectacularly preserved in the fossil record—and intriguingly, the researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus." 

In case you were wondering why it died out.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, unixknight said:

Maybe I'm just being juvenile, but the highlight of that article for me was "Its features were spectacularly preserved in the fossil record—and intriguingly, the researchers were unable to find any evidence that the animal had an anus." 

Alternative response: I knew our ancestors were full of crap.

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Anddenex said:

These articles are why I put very little trust in the "arm of flesh".

Obviously the term "arm of flesh" or "arm of G-d" are symbolic reference to something.  Some scholars I have read say that the term "arm of" is a reference to a select individual that performs for or in behalf of someone or something.  Such as a prophet or warrior priest or government authority.  I am not comfortable with these definitions – anyone care to respond what “arm of” has reference to?  Especially references?

 

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Obviously the term "arm of flesh" or "arm of G-d" are symbolic reference to something.  Some scholars I have read say that the term "arm of" is a reference to a select individual that performs for or in behalf of someone or something.  Such as a prophet or warrior priest or government authority.  I am not comfortable with these definitions – anyone care to respond what “arm of” has reference to?  Especially references?

 

The Traveler

What type of references are you requesting? The interpretation from who you have defined as "scholars" appear to be correct at least from scripture. In Isaiah 51:9, "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord;" In this case, the reference for the "arm of" is toward a priesthood body of man, an arm of the Lord. The priesthood body being commanded to act in righteousness who are acting on behalf of the Lord. This would confirm the notion that a prophet, a warrior, a government officer, and bodies of these offices are able to represent "arm of." Here is a good list from scripture referencing "arm of" and different uses in scripture, source.

"Arm of" appears to also represent other options, as in "the long arm of the law," which emphasizes the notion that the "arm of" can be those who act on behalf of or against. As in the arm of the law is against criminals (or at least should be).

Nephi use the "arm of the flesh" as in something contradictory toward God. People rely on human wisdom, people set themselves as laws unto themselves (thus becoming -- irony -- a god unto themselves while professing there is no God).