Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Anijen

First Humans Adam And Eve?

Recommended Posts

I've heard just that theory espoused (well, in so many words). Doesn't work if you're a literalist, though.

Cool I'm moving up in class (I feel good) :P

I have always thought that many things need to be understood with symbolism, allegory, parable and metaphor... The Temple is a wonderful example.

Share this post


Link to post

Cool I'm moving up in class (I feel good) :P

I have always thought that many things need to be understood with symbolism, allegory, parable and metaphor... The Temple is a wonderful example.

Heh, besides Adam and Eve, the temple is the other thing I've been told is also literal. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post

Heh, besides Adam and Eve, the temple is the other thing I've been told is also literal. Go figure.

I wonder if something could be both literal and symbolic?

Share this post


Link to post

So you're arguing that fossils are of non-carbon-based organisms? :P

Maybe they're fossil cherubim or something. Not quite sure what his point is. I mean, the fact that in theory it may be possible for a non-carbon based lifeform to exist doesn't really help his case, because all of the species whose fossils we date with carbon 14 dating are carbon-based. What dating methods will we have to use when we find fossils on a planet circling Alpha Centauri someday? I dunno. That wasn't really what this thread is about, though. This thread was about the Father of us ugly bags of mostly water.

Share this post


Link to post

I was referring to life on this earth.

I was too. :P

Edit: to -> too.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, I say: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even our most conservative prophets agree that the earth was not created in six of our days. This thread is about Adam AFTER he left the garden. It wouldn't matter if Adam was in the garden for billions of our years before the fall. We are only discussing the time that has passed since Eve had her first child. Or are you suggesting that Adam and Eve had children who lived and died while they were in the garden? I have to say that your posts are incredibly exasperating. You keep hinting that you have some special knowledge that we silly science minded people don't. If you do, please share. If you don't, and you completely reject all science, then by all means, don't ever take any medication and never, ever expect the lightbulb to turn on when you flip the switch.

I have to say I really dig your mind. I knew the church was wrong about evolution and Noah's Ark for over a decade and a half while still believing that the church was "true", so I really can't knock your beliefs. Still, I think you're already halfway out the door, mentally. Good for you, KtG.

Share this post


Link to post

Such caricatures of people who point out and question the over-confidence of science are not helpful. If you really think people like Paul Ray "reject all science" and that that is their message then I'm not sure we're ever going to get anywhere.

Let's see. Paul doesn't "reject all science". He just rejects the science that underpins at least a dozen different dating methods, if not more. Most of this is physics, having to do with half-lifes, methods of isotope creation, etc. He also seems to question the chemistry of fossil creation, the geology underpinning continental drift, the varied scientific disciplines involved in explaining the lack of evidence for a global Flood of Noah, archeology, linguistics, and probably more that I haven't thought of.

Guys, it's not just about evolution. Evolution is one piece of the puzzle. It's about fossil creation, coal formation, sedimentation and the formation lots of different kinds of rocks that come from it, interpretation of snowfield evidence, such basics as whether basic laws of physics are constant, or were the same a few thousand years ago, the science underpinning the study of languages and so forth. One could probably implicate almost every branch of modern science in the disputes about the literal interpretation of scripture and its conflicts with science.

There is a big difference between understanding with confidence lightbulbs and understanding with confidence things that happened lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of years ago. No?

Only when religious beliefs are on the line.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I really dig your mind. I knew the church was wrong about evolution and Noah's Ark for over a decade and a half while still believing that the church was "true", so I really can't knock your beliefs. Still, I think you're already halfway out the door, mentally. Good for you, KtG.

In view of the fact that I believe strongly in the theory of evolution and reject the story of Noah's ark as literal history and have held this position for nearly two decades without passing through the door, mentally, I certainly see no reason why KtG or anyone else should leave Mormonism over these issues.

Share this post


Link to post

Still, I think you're already halfway out the door, mentally. Good for you, KtG.

Woah there Skippy! I've been on the other side of the door, and I like it better in here! :P

Share this post


Link to post

In view of the fact that I believe strongly in the theory of evolution and reject the story of Noah's ark as literal history and have held this position for nearly two decades without passing through the door, mentally, I certainly see no reason why KtG or anyone else should leave Mormonism over these issues.

She shouldn't leave it over these issues. She should leave it because it isn't true. These issues just help shed light on the lack of credibility, and help one see the conclusion that it isn't true. With a little more distance it becomes a lot easier to see that there really isn't a dime's worth of difference between this church and any other man-made church with fervent believers. This is just one more manmade church, no more, no less.

KtG: why do you like it better on the "in" side of the door? Because it's actually true, or because you feel it helps you lead a better life, or something similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Guys, it's not just about evolution. Evolution is one piece of the puzzle. It's about fossil creation, coal formation, sedimentation and the formation lots of different kinds of rocks that come from it, interpretation of snowfield evidence, such basics as whether basic laws of physics are constant, or were the same a few thousand years ago, the science underpinning the study of languages and so forth. One could probably implicate almost every branch of modern science in the disputes about the literal interpretation of scripture and its conflicts with science.

So far, there is nothing in LDS doctrine that science contradicts.

Share this post


Link to post

KtG: why do you like it better on the "in" side of the door? Because it's actually true, or because you feel it helps you lead a better life, or something similar?

Because I feel that I was guided here for a purpose. I was not looking to join this church or any other when I became a convert, so I can't dismiss my spiritual confirmation as self deception. Whatever discrepancies I find over the years between my mind and spirit are not important enough to me to leave the path that I feel I have been guided to and that I've built my life around. I do have a very curious mind though, and I love science and history. But I'm also a spiritual person and that is very, very important to me. Nothing I've ever learned has ever even tempted me to stop believing in God.

Share this post


Link to post

Because I feel that I was guided here for a purpose. I was not looking to join this church or any other when I became a convert, so I can't dismiss my spiritual confirmation as self deception. Whatever discrepancies I find over the years between my mind and spirit are not important enough to me to leave the path that I feel I have been guided to and that I've built my life around. I do have a very curious mind though, and I love science and history. But I'm also a spiritual person and that is very, very important to me. Nothing I've ever learned has ever even tempted me to stop believing in God.

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post

In view of the fact that I believe strongly in the theory of evolution and reject the story of Noah's ark as literal history and have held this position for nearly two decades without passing through the door, mentally, I certainly see no reason why KtG or anyone else should leave Mormonism over these issues.

I'm torn. I guess it guess depends on the individual*, whether you leave church over these issues or stick with it because it does something else for you. I can see it both ways.

(*duh, that explains a lot :P )

Share this post


Link to post

Only when religious beliefs are on the line.

You sure about that? Maybe that is part of your problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Sethbag:

Where I live we're in our 7th year of drought. We need all the bags of water we can get(even the ugly ones). :P

Share this post


Link to post

I'm torn. I guess it guess depends on the individual*, whether you leave church over these issues or stick with it because it does something else for you. I can see it both ways.

(*duh, that explains a lot :P )

ROFL. I can hardly imagine a more dismissive way to say it, The Dude. "it does something for you". You kill me. Yeah, truth does something for me, even in the Church. Both episteme and gnosis. Only gnosis brings me real Joy, though. Well worth enduring the ignorant sharing my life with the wonderful people that are the Saints.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post

She shouldn't leave it over these issues. She should leave it because it isn't true.

I'd like to know how you define the word 'true'. Somehow, I doubt we would agree.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post

For believers I think there are three choices when science appears to contradict scripture:

1. Our understanding of scripture is incorrect.

2. Our understanding of the scientific evidence is incorrect.

3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

I think most of us go with 1 or 3, whereas Paul seems to go with 2.

I think it's also possible that our understanding of true scripture and good science can only appear to be incorrect... when in fact they are both in harmony.

I think we're simply missing some link(s) preventing us from seeing the true connection(s).

How can we possibly know what we don't know now?

Why rely on assumptions and hypotheses and conjecture?

What puzzles me is why people believe scientists and reject the words of God.

It almost seems as if some people think scientists are the best prophets of God when they reject what God has said to God's other prophets... as if the words of all of God's prophets are not in harmony with God.

I'm still pondering on this, though. It is very perplexing to me.

Why would any really smart person do that?

Share this post


Link to post

They were carbon-based. They were made of the earth which is an organic compound.

Sounds like another assumption to me.

The Earth was different then, and so were Adam and Eve.

Everything was eternal then, and now everything isn't.

Who knows what the fall involved and how the changes were accomplished?

I simply know that what God has revealed through all of God's prophets is true.

I have absolutely no doubts about that.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess you're just alone in your smartness...

Well said. I do not understand this insistence on interpreting things exactly the same way. I think God wants us to use our own judgment and intelligence. Sometimes we come up with different answers. And that's OK with me.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess you're just alone in your smartness...

That's another assumption, and a very bad one.

I am in perfect agreement with all of God's prophets.

Why aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's also possible that our understanding of true scripture and good science can only appear to be incorrect... when in fact they are both in harmony.

I think we're simply missing some link(s) preventing us from seeing the true connection(s).

How can we possibly know what we don't know now?

Why rely on assumptions and hypotheses and conjecture?

What puzzles me is why people believe scientists and reject the words of God.

It almost seems as if some people think scientists are the best prophets of God when they reject what God has said to God's other prophets... as if the words of all of God's prophets are not in harmony with God.

I'm still pondering on this, though. It is very perplexing to me.

Why would any really smart person do that?

I sympathize, truly I do. I just can't write the book that these questions deserve, right now. I'm glad you are puzzled, and hope it leads you to further personal study. I will post more later, but don't have the time.

HiJolly

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...