370 replies to this topic

[Connolly]

semlogo, on Nov 18 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

If you read the creation account in Abraham you will see that it does not say that the gods created the plants and animals, you will see that it says the gods prepared to seas and the earth to bring forth the plants and animals.


D&C 101:32-34.  God will reveal it all.   IMO, he is doing that right now, piece by piece, and for the most part he left the book wide open for us to read.  The wide open book is the geological and fossil record as well as the astronomical record, we can observe the universe as it was at almost any time by just observing objects that are relatively near or very very far away.  God isn't going to reveal everything to the prophet, he reveals things to all men, even those who don't recognize the source of their inspiration.  If you study the history of science I'm sure you will see the hand of providence in many important discoveries.

[Bee Eff]

semlogo, on Nov 18 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

Why are we different? It's not like we're physically the offspring of God.

November 1909
The Origin of Man.
By The First Presidency of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity

LDS do believe we are physically the offspring of God.

[Bee Eff]

ThePhy, on Nov 18 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Then you donâ??t credit evolution for the origin of man for purely religious reasons, and not for scientific reasons. Science considers man to be just another product of evolution.

True.

ThePhy, on Nov 18 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

You have a religious reason for wanting to assign man some privileged and unique status outside the evidence accorded by evolution. This is not much different than an earlier era when it was religious dogma that was brought to bear on Galileoâ??s religiously heretical, but ultimately vindicated ideas.

Yes, I do.  The theory of evolution has been shown to be a fact, the evolution of man has not been shown 100% to be true.  I can doubt a little.  It is possible that apes evolved to a near human physiology and then to discourage our breeding with them they were halted, perhaps even put to extinction.  There are number possibilities, and while I am skeptical of both, I will side with religion in that there is no benefit to leaning to either side of the debate and I enjoy my religious delusions, if that is what they are.

ThePhy, on Nov 18 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Man evolved from lower forms.

Perhaps, but at the moment, such is not necessarily an absolute.

[semlogo]

Bee Eff, on Nov 18 2008, 09:03 PM, said:

November 1909The Origin of Man.By The First Presidency of the Church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of DeityLDS do believe we are physically the offspring of God.

I believe you are mistaken. Even taken literally, our bodies are no more than dust, assembled by Jehovah. It's our spirits that are offspring of Deity.

Connolly, on Nov 18 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

If you read the creation account in Abraham you will see that it does not say that the gods created the plants and animals, you will see that it says the gods prepared to seas and the earth to bring forth the plants and animals.D&C 101:32-34.  God will reveal it all.   IMO, he is doing that right now, piece by piece, and for the most part he left the book wide open for us to read.  The wide open book is the geological and fossil record as well as the astronomical record, we can observe the universe as it was at almost any time by just observing objects that are relatively near or very very far away.  God isn't going to reveal everything to the prophet, he reveals things to all men, even those who don't recognize the source of their inspiration.  If you study the history of science I'm sure you will see the hand of providence in many important discoveries.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way.

[BCSpace]

Quote

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with?

I can wholeheartedly accept the Adam and Eve story within the bounds of Evolution.  It may have been that Adam was the first homo sapiens with a literal spirit child of God within.  "Out of the dust of the earth" to me could be metaphorical for the whole Big Bang/Evolutionary process, the "dust" (the elements) having been created in the nuclear furnances of stars over billions of years and molded by evolutionary processes into the plants, animals, and people we see today.

Quote

We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives

We don't know that at all.  All we know is that there is not currently any evidence that we would typically recognize as such.....

Quote

- maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

...however, I do tend to settle on a local flood.

[Hoops22]

Quote

Until God explains the method of creation,

He did.  Gen 1.  He spoke and came into existence.

Quote

evolution is the safest bet.

Safer than the word of God?

[semlogo]

BCSpace, on Nov 18 2008, 10:01 PM, said:

I can wholeheartedly accept the Adam and Eve story within the bounds of Evolution.  It may have been that Adam was the first homo sapiens with a literal spirit child of God within.  "Out of the dust of the earth" to me could be metaphorical for the whole Big Bang/Evolutionary process, the "dust" (the elements) having been created in the nuclear furnances of stars over billions of years and molded by evolutionary processes into the plants, animals, and people we see today.
We don't know that at all.  All we know is that there is not currently any evidence that we would typically recognize as such.....
...however, I do tend to settle on a local flood.

I don't think there is any serious doubt that there was no global flood. We have thousands of civilizations that did not suddenly disappear ~4,000 years ago. There are trees surviving that are much older than the date of the flood. No disrespect

[Tchild2]

semlogo, on Nov 18 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

Taken literally, they are completey incompatible.  Taken metaphorically, they can have a much deeper and spiritual significance.  Too bad the LDS leaders chose the first option, it is a bit difficult to unwind the doctrinal implications.  Adam may have been the "first man" in the sense of Whom God made his covenants with, but that still contradicts the LDS interpretation that Adam was the literal first man in a paradisicial glory before physical death existed.  LDS doctrine is that the fall of Adam brought both physical and spiritual death.

Recently I visited the Chicago Field Museum and saw a recreation of "Lucy", the 3 million year old hominid.  She was hairy and stood about a meter tall.  I gazed for five minutes utterly transfixed at my ancient ancestor, in awe of the scope of history and hominid evolution laid before my eyes.  I think I even let a tear slip (was that the spirit?) as I felt immense gratitude and a sort of affection.

The worst part was realizing that most mammal species go extinct after only a few million years.  Humans probably won't fare much better.

[ThePhy]

Bee Eff, on Nov 18 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

The theory of evolution has been shown to be a fact, the evolution of man has not been shown 100% to be true.  I can doubt a little.  It is possible that apes evolved to a near human physiology and then to discourage our breeding with them they were halted, perhaps even put to extinction.  There are number possibilities, and while I am skeptical of both, I will side with religion in that there is no benefit to leaning to either side of the debate and I enjoy my religious delusions, if that is what they are.

I have some corrections that are not crucial to the points you make, but need to be touched on.

The Theory of Evolution has not been, and will not be shown to be a fact. In the applied sciences, theories are not â??provenâ?, they simply gain confirming evidence so confidence in their correctness increases. Important parts of the Theory of Evolution have been observed, and can be thusly called facts, but the overall explanation (the â??Theoryâ?) is always open to challenge should a more satisfactory theory arise.

With that in mind, the evolution of man will never be shown 100% to be true. But the same is true for all other species. Man is just one among a huge variety of products of evolution.

Not having an emotional need to protect a religious dogma, I see no justification for ignoring the same evidence in man that in animals shows common ancestry. I am actually a bit bothered by peopleâ??s willingness to propound scientifically sterile scenarios - such as apes evolving up to a point, then suddenly man being supernaturally introduced to the earth, even though genetically we are first cousins to the apes.

It is that kind of religiously compromised rationalization that has grated on every scientist that had to confront evidence that did not fit with the prevailing religious dogma of his day. As you say, you might enjoy your religious delusions, but that same intellectual amorality would have set you against Galileo in the 1600s.

Man evolved from lower forms.

[ThePhy]

Hoops22, on Nov 18 2008, 08:02 PM, said:

(Evolution is )Safer than the word of God?

Good point, you should never question the word of Zeus.

[J.S. Mill]

BCSpace, on Nov 18 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

I can wholeheartedly accept the Adam and Eve story within the bounds of Evolution.  It may have been that Adam was the first homo sapiens with a literal spirit child of God within.  "Out of the dust of the earth" to me could be metaphorical for the whole Big Bang/Evolutionary process, the "dust" (the elements) having been created in the nuclear furnances of stars over billions of years and molded by evolutionary processes into the plants, animals, and people we see today.

But why would you take it to be metaphorical?  Do you take the statements of the First Presidency on chastity or abortion to be metaphorical?  If not, why do you treat the two differently, when both purport to be messages from you Creator, and to come from the same epistemological source?

[thesometimesaint]

Bee Eff:

One small disagreement Man is not descended from the Apes. We do have a Common Ancestor.

[semlogo]

Tchild2, on Nov 18 2008, 11:49 PM, said:

Taken literally, they are completey incompatible.  Taken metaphorically, they can have a much deeper and spiritual significance.  Too bad the LDS leaders chose the first option, it is a bit difficult to unwind the doctrinal implications.  Adam may have been the "first man" in the sense of Whom God made his covenants with, but that still contradicts the LDS interpretation that Adam was the literal first man in a paradisicial glory before physical death existed.  LDS doctrine is that the fall of Adam brought both physical and spiritual death.

Recently I visited the Chicago Field Museum and saw a recreation of "Lucy", the 3 million year old hominid.  She was hairy and stood about a meter tall.  I gazed for five minutes utterly transfixed at my ancient ancestor, in awe of the scope of history and hominid evolution laid before my eyes.  I think I even let a tear slip (was that the spirit?) as I felt immense gratitude and a sort of affection.

The worst part was realizing that most mammal species go extinct after only a few million years.  Humans probably won't fare much better.

Yes, that does create a dilemma, doesn't it?

Still, I can't shut my eyes and pretend that evolution isn't real. It's the only plausible theory there is, and while it's impossible to prove everything about it conclusively, it IS based on solid evidence.

Take the presence of the Jacobson's organ. In snakes it's used to smell the air brought into the mouth by the flicking of the tongue. Humans have it too, but it's just a vestigial organ - it doesn't do anything. It's a leftover product of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia....meronasal_organ

[littlechild]

semlogo, on Nov 18 2008, 02:25 PM, said:

So for any of you believers in science (I know you're out there), how do you reconcile certain Biblical stories with not only evolution, but geology and history? If God didn't literally create Adam from the dust, what was Adam, merely the first human that God had dealings with? We know there was no global flood in the time frame that the Bible gives - maybe it was a localized flood that had been mythologized over time?

What are your thoughts?

Ah, my favorite topic.

The Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly. Moreover, it is an eyewitness account. Evolutionists weren't present for the history that they purport to explain. There are huge gaping holes in evolutionary history AND theory. There are contradictions and gaps. There is counterevidence, for instance, the Cambrian explosion shows thousands of various life forms all originating AT ONCE, not over millions of years. There are no experiments proving evolution CAN happen, let alone DID happen. In fact, where experimentation has happened, it tends to prove the opposite of evolution.

One cannot make peace with evolutionary theory - one cannot say "God uses evolution to achieve his goals". The main driving point behind evolution is that it is an undirected, random, gradual process. This is directly counter to the concept of creation being purposeful and caused by an intelligent being.

Now they say they have overwhelming empirical data that proves evolution is true, and no one can dare to speak out against the data. This is simply false. The data are impersonal and imply exactly the opposite of what they are said to imply.

The Miller Urey experiment is NOT indicative of the primordial conditions under which the earth was formed, contrary to popular textbooks on the subject. Haeckel's embryo's are NOT representative of all things being descended from a common ancestore, they are fakes, contrary to the representations in modern textbooks. And microbiological experimentation seeking to find the limits of evolution have found, that when more than one change at a time is required, it CAN'T BE DONE on a biological level.

Neo-Darwinists have claimed much more intellectual ground than they can defend on a scientific basis. The claim that we are all descended from one simple common ancestor is entirely unfounded on the evidence. It is a sham and a fraud.

I refer you to books on the subject written by Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, Jonathon Wells, and others, and I refer you to crsc.org, uncommondescent.com, and dissentfromdarwin.com for further details.

Edited by littlechild, 19 November 2008 - 06:07 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11."

[semlogo]

While evolution as a theory will continue to change subtly as new information comes to light, the main tenants ARE sound. Pseudoscience may say otherwise.

Edited by semlogo, 19 November 2008 - 06:34 AM.

[Hoops22]

semlogo, on Nov 19 2008, 05:46 AM, said:

It's the only plausible theory there is,

http://en.wikipedia....meronasal_organ

Genesis isn't plausible?

[Bee Eff]

semlogo, on Nov 18 2008, 09:49 PM, said:

I believe you are mistaken. Even taken literally, our bodies are no more than dust, assembled by Jehovah. It's our spirits that are offspring of Deity.

I believe you are mistaken here.  LDS beliefs do lead to a physical descent.  When I have the time, I will look for a reference, until then if someone else has one feel free to post it.

[semlogo]

Hoops22, on Nov 19 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

Genesis isn't plausible?

As a semi-allegorical story with spiritual value? It is plausible. As a substitute for scientific fact? No, it's not plausible.

[Bee Eff]

Hoops22, on Nov 18 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

He did.  Gen 1.  He spoke and came into existence.

If I say heat my food, and my wife places the food in the microwave and heats it, I could in fact write, "Heat my food, and it was heated" with full honesty.  The text in the Bible does not necessitate method, nor do I believe that the Bible claims such.  Please, if such is possible, provide some reference that shows a claim to method.

Hoops22, on Nov 18 2008, 10:02 PM, said:

Safer than the word of God?

The word of God does not provide a claim to method.  Given this, the scientific claim to method is safer than assuming that the Bible completely describes the creation.