Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[katherine the great]

Oh, and KTG, I know you struggled with accepting evolution, but guess what, you dont have to accept it because man came from God no primordial ooze, and you will look back and say Joseph F. Smith and Bruce R. McConkie were right when they said man came from God and not from pre-Adamite.

Uh huh.

[lostindc]

Uh huh.

yep, keep holding onto the theory that is losing more and more steam, in the science realm since the cell has been heavily looked at, dna, scientists and medical doctors are starting to speak out, and the gaps keep getting wider. Your choice not mine. BTW, hopefully we can get some more textbooks in the hands of our kids with incorrect and fraudulently preserved drawings of things such as embryos in order to prove neo-evolution....

[annewandering]

Ahh now this is a theory I can side with. Ya I know its not actually a theory but I agree anyway. I know there are changes. Just dont agree how evolution as taught explains them. When God tells me how then I pick that one!

[Cold Steel]

The atonement of Christ rests solidly on the foundation of a human fall, specifically related to Adam and Eve. Just how it will square out is not something I'm qualified to debate.

According to H.S. Lipson, "evolution [is] in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it." (H. Lipson, 1980, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31, p. 138).

I have never seen a case of mutation resulting in an improvement over the original. Going from simple to complex, to me, seems to be a result of intelligence. Unfortunately, the educational institutes of higher learning have so far refused to participate in open debate. The chief tactic of evolution proponents seems to be ridicule and an appeal to sources that believe as they do. If anyone knows of where such a debate can be found, I'd be happy to read both sides.

Elder John G. McQuarrie made this observation in 1908:

The theory of Darwin, in relation to evolution, has perhaps destroyed the faith of more people than anything else; it seemed to run so directly counter to the interpretation placed upon the Scriptures, by those at least whose business seemed to be to interpret these Scriptures. But a short time before Darwin, and Huxley, and Spencer marshaled their arguments and hurled them against what was then considered to be the battlements of divine truth, we received a revelation, through the Prophet, in relation to the problem and mystery of life. In this revelation the statement was made that the principle of life was not created but always and eternally existed, like the principles of chemistry and other eternal laws or principles of power. A great French scientist, in an article lately published, said that the Darwin theory was built up without one single example to prove it,

that there was not one individual example where one species had really been changed into another

. He concludes his article with a statement like this, that we cannot successfully resist any hypothesis in relation to the origin of living things, but it is only a step in advance to conclude that life in itself existed separate and apart from this earth, and anterior to our world, and, like the principles of chemistry and other things, that it probably always existed. (

Conference Report

, October 1908, p.99)

As far as I know, there is still not one example where one species changed into another, and it's 101 years later. We don't seem to know of any sort of writing predating five thousand years.

[lostindc]

The atonement of Christ rests solidly on the foundation of a human fall, specifically related to Adam and Eve. Just how it will square out is not something I'm qualified to debate.

According to H.S. Lipson, "evolution [is] in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to bend their observations to fit in with it." (H. Lipson, 1980, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31, p. 138).

I have never seen a case of mutation resulting in an improvement over the original. Going from simple to complex, to me, seems to be a result of intelligence. Unfortunately, the educational institutes of higher learning have so far refused to participate in open debate. The chief tactic of evolution proponents seems to be ridicule and an appeal to sources that believe as they do. If anyone knows of where such a debate can be found, I'd be happy to read both sides.

Elder John G. McQuarrie made this observation in 1908:

The theory of Darwin, in relation to evolution, has perhaps destroyed the faith of more people than anything else; it seemed to run so directly counter to the interpretation placed upon the Scriptures, by those at least whose business seemed to be to interpret these Scriptures. But a short time before Darwin, and Huxley, and Spencer marshaled their arguments and hurled them against what was then considered to be the battlements of divine truth, we received a revelation, through the Prophet, in relation to the problem and mystery of life. In this revelation the statement was made that the principle of life was not created but always and eternally existed, like the principles of chemistry and other eternal laws or principles of power. A great French scientist, in an article lately published, said that the Darwin theory was built up without one single example to prove it,

that there was not one individual example where one species had really been changed into another

. He concludes his article with a statement like this, that we cannot successfully resist any hypothesis in relation to the origin of living things, but it is only a step in advance to conclude that life in itself existed separate and apart from this earth, and anterior to our world, and, like the principles of chemistry and other things, that it probably always existed. (

Conference Report

, October 1908, p.99)

As far as I know, there is still not one example where one species changed into another, and it's 101 years later. We don't seem to know of any sort of writing predating five thousand years.

exactly, now this board is thinking, quit falling for all this garbage spewed by trash who come here to try to bring you down to their miseries. Truth is all we ask

[katherine the great]

yep, keep holding onto the theory that is losing more and more steam, in the science realm since the cell has been heavily looked at, dna, scientists and medical doctors are starting to speak out, and the gaps keep getting wider. Your choice not mine. BTW, hopefully we can get some more textbooks in the hands of our kids with incorrect and fraudulently preserved drawings of things such as embryos in order to prove neo-evolution....

I'm holding on to nothing. I just know it to be true and I thank the Lord for His wisdom in creating us through evolution.

We don't seem to know of any sort of writing predating five thousand years.

Did someone try to deceive you by saying that people wrote before the invention of writing?

[lostindc]

I'm holding on to nothing. I just know it to be true and I thank the Lord for His wisdom in creating us through evolution.

As long as you are thanking the Lord...

Neo-evolution is garbage and for every point made in this field there are many points proving otherwise. It is poison.

[Stargazer]

To trick sincere and serious scientists? What would be the point?

Heck, I don't know. Just a thought.

The other thing I think about this is that He guided everything very carefully and when the time was right suddenly there were Adam and Eve. This doesn't square with some things that have been said by some GA's, but I'm easy.

Now, Katherine's 100GGmother might have been the mother of the 10,000 year old skeleton in the cave, and maybe SHE was the 20GGdaughter of Eve. Just because Archbishop Ussher decided that the earth was created 6000 years BP, doesn't mean that it was, or that the skeleton was in reality 10,000 years old.

Carbon dating is a marvelous tool, but it does depend upon knowing what the proportion of C12:C14 was when the skeleton was alive, and the assumption is that it was the same as now (and that the atmosphere has been in an equilibrium state with respect to C14 formation and decay), but C14 is being created in the earth's atmosphere by radiation from the sun, and the sun is well-known to be anything but constant. Besides the 11 year sunspot cycle, other cycles exist, and though I think carbon dating is a great tool, it isn't necessarily infallible.

[katherine the great]

As long as you are thanking the Lord...

Neo-evolution is garbage and for every point made in this field there are many points proving otherwise. It is poison.

Evolution is not "neo" it's ancient.

[lostindc]

I'm holding on to nothing. I just know it to be true and I thank the Lord for His wisdom in creating us through evolution.Did someone try to deceive you by saying that people wrote before the invention of writing?

He decided it because he made an intelligent decision much like many, many experts in the field from Harvard to Oxford and every other great institution in the world.

Evolution is not "neo" it's ancient.

Its a common term, look it up and get back to me...it describes those who actually believe in the primordial stew...

[katherine the great]

He decided it because he made an intelligent decision much like many, many experts in the field from Harvard to Oxford and every other great institution in the world.Its a common term, look it up and get back to me...it describes those who actually believe in the primordial stew...

Wow. You are really starting to annoy me...

[lostindc]

Wow. You are really starting to annoy me...

likewise, darwin was wrong and so are you

[Tarski]

I think carbon dating is a great tool, it isn't necessarily infallible.

It works about as well as we think it does and thats good enough to come to the conclusions we have.

[lostindc]

It works about as well as we think it does and thats good enough to come to the conclusions we have.

Why are you still on this board? You do not believe in Mormonism, nor do you believe in God, what purpose do you have here besides trying to steer people away from God?

[spinner]

Why are you still on this board? You do not believe in Mormonism, nor do you believe in God, what purpose do you have here besides trying to steer people away from God?

Non-Mormons and critics of Mormonism are invited onto this board for discussion. If you want some place where your beliefs won't be challenged and you won't have to deal with contrary points of view, you should go elsewhere.

[lostindc]

Non-Mormons and critics of Mormonism are invited onto this board for discussion. If you want some place where your beliefs won't be challenged and you won't have to deal with contrary points of view, you should go elsewhere.

That is correct, but when you come to a Mormon board then do not trash everything Mormonism. That is like me coming to your house eating your food, peeing in your bed, and killing your dog.

[Tarski]

Why are you still on this board? You do not believe in Mormonism, nor do you believe in God, what purpose do you have here besides trying to steer people away from God?

I am not here to specifically steer people away from God. Are you here to steer people away from science?

Also, dude, did you just break Godwin's law and thereby get my entire atheism thread nuked??? You know the one that had several good philosophical posts about ethics - the one that took effort to write?

Was that what happened?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=boardrules

[lostindc]

That is correct, but when you come to a Mormon board then do not trash everything Mormonism. That is like me coming to your house eating your food, peeing in your bed, and killing your dog.

BTW, I know you can find friends that share your views on other internet message boards

[Stargazer]

I really wish I had time to get into this. My wife is expecting me to come up with some nifty graphics for her Primary class, and here I am messing around on this board.

Katherine, I really try to rally around Evolution myself, if only because it's the only way to be taken seriously in certain circles. But when I come to examine certain things, especially things having to do with complex molecular processes in living cells, and in living cell systems, evolution makes me cringe.

I'm neither a molecular biologist, nor do I play one on TV, but doubts have been raised in my mind about evolution's ability to evolve such complex structures as the vertebrate eye, or such complex systems as the blood clotting mechanism. The one who is annoying you (lostindc?) was suggesting that the more that we know about how these things work the harder it can become to believe that they came about through blind chance. Your notion that God is behind the evolution is perfectly congruent with my own feelings, but the evolutionists, generally speaking, would make great fun of us because of that notion. I have read where some evolutionary biologists, upon being told that the mathematical likelihood of my wife's pretty green eyes having come about through blind chance was too small given the time required, responded that it was obviously not too small, because it happened. QED. Which as you can see is a circular argument.

According to the standard evolutionist, God isn't guiding it. It is all chance and natural selection, and those of us who believe otherwise are deluded. The problem for the evolutionist is this: if it couldn't happen by chance, then it had to be designed and built deliberately -- and this cannot be! They are rather like Dorothy clicking her red slippers together, except that instead of saying "There's no place like home" they are saying "There is no God." Because guided evolution requires a God. And this willl not be tolerated.

One problem I have with evolution is that it must be accepted. If a scientist wants to research it with a view to finding flaws in it, that scientist must be prepared to be excommunicated from the scientific community. This is because evolution is not simply true, it MUST be true; it has become dogma, and no suggestive evidence against it will be considered. In other words, science cannot be trusted on this subject.

I do know, however, that God cannot be falsified (meaning, of course, that God cannot be proven or disproven) so He is not subject to scientific inquiry. And this is another reason why invoking God in evolution is beyond the pale.

BTW, I know you can find friends that share your views on other internet message boards

Oh, come on, lost. It's a discussion board. If dissenting views cannot be entertained then what's the point?

Edited to restore my paragraph breaks which the software trashed.

[spinner]

That is correct, but when you come to a Mormon board then do not trash everything Mormonism. That is like me coming to your house eating your food, peeing in your bed, and killing your dog.

Tarski is a long time poster (unlike yourself) who has (also unlike you) consistently proven himself to be a civil and thoughtful poster. If you can't handle posts of the type Tarski makes, you have a pretty thin skin and would be better sticking to forums where no contrary points of view are allowed. Or just staying off the web, staying indoors and avoiding outside contact generally.

[Tsuzuki]

I am not here to specifically steer people away from God. Are you here to steer people away from science?

Also, Dude, did you just break Godwin's law and thereby get my entire atheism thread nuked??? You know the one that had several good philosophical posts about ethics - the one that took effort to write?

Was that what happened?

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?act=boardrules

Successful troll is successful.

[lostindc]

Tarski is a long time poster (unlike yourself) who has (also unlike you) consistently proven himself to be a civil and thoughtful poster. If you can't handle posts of the type Tarski makes, you have a pretty thin skin and would be better sticking to forums where no contrary points of view are allowed. Or just staying off the web, staying indoors and avoiding outside contact generally.

Its okay that you were never popular in high school, and believe it or not, your dad does love you

[Stargazer]

Its okay that you were never popular in high school, and believe it or not, your dad does love you

C'mon, either respond substantively or just lurk, wouldja?

[The Dude]

C'mon, either respond substantively or just lurk, wouldja?

His posts hang like a big greasy you know what...

somebody please open a window

[katherine the great]

I really wish I had time to get into this. My wife is expecting me to come up with some nifty graphics for her Primary class, and here I am messing around on this board.

Katherine, I really try to rally around Evolution myself, if only because it's the only way to be taken seriously in certain circles. But when I come to examine certain things, especially things having to do with complex molecular processes in living cells, and in living cell systems, evolution makes me cringe.

I'm neither a molecular biologist, nor do I play one on TV, but doubts have been raised in my mind about evolution's ability to evolve such complex structures as the vertebrate eye, or such complex systems as the blood clotting mechanism. The one who is annoying you (lostindc?) was suggesting that the more that we know about how these things work the harder it can become to believe that they came about through blind chance. Your notion that God is behind the evolution is perfectly congruent with my own feelings, but the evolutionists, generally speaking, would make great fun of us because of that notion. I have read where some evolutionary biologists, upon being told that the mathematical likelihood of my wife's pretty green eyes having come about through blind chance was too small given the time required, responded that it was obviously not too small, because it happened. QED. Which as you can see is a circular argument.

According to the standard evolutionist, God isn't guiding it. It is all chance and natural selection, and those of us who believe otherwise are deluded. The problem for the evolutionist is this: if it couldn't happen by chance, then it had to be designed and built deliberately -- and this cannot be! They are rather like Dorothy clicking her red slippers together, except that instead of saying "There's no place like home" they are saying "There is no God." Because guided evolution requires a God. And this willl not be tolerated.

Ya wanna whip me up some music time visuals while you are at it? Sorry, I just cannot engage in meaningful dialogue with posters who condemn evolution without even having the most rudimentary knowledge of what it really is and is not (not referring to you.) In my case, I did not believe in evolution (at least not the point of speciation) until I was well into my adult and parenting years. At first it was very upsetting for me to come to a realization that our species did actually come about through evolution as did every other life form. I see no mechanism in life that would prevent the number of small genetic changes from becoming so great that speciation would eventually occur. Over time though, I have come to believe that the "heresy" of evolution and natural selection is what gives our species all the advantages that we currently enjoy. I'm not sure I even believe in "guided evolution" persay as much as I believe in a divine creator who understands precisely how to prepare a world through natural means that is ideal for the carrying out of His plan for His spirit children. I don't look for acceptance or respect from the scientific community. I just believe what I believe, and I don't really try to cross all the t's and dot all the i's. No need to do that in this life time!