Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SamuelTheLamanite

No position on God? How Evolution works according to Science

Recommended Posts

Evolution follows blind chance unless you can see the end from the beginning. In other words, God could use it without relying on chance.

Also, if you want to believe the Creation Story is something that came from a visionary something and not as a parable the succession of the days are how the development of the earth would be perceived if it formed as science claims as viewed from a position on the planet. First all is dark due to the heavy shroud of clouds and other gasses over the earth. Then light starts to increase and day and night become more perceptible. Water rose into the air amongst other things and formed the firmament/atmosphere and rain. Then dry land began to appear. Then life came in single celled and later fungi and plant forms. Then the clouds over the earth began to dissipate and you could discern the sun and the moon and later the stars as things cleared. Then animals began in the water and then came out of the water. Then man developed. A prophet seeing such a true fast forward vision could describe the creation of the earth in those terms and be correct.

Note I am not saying the best way or only way to view it. I go back and forth on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Evolution follows blind chance unless you can see the end from the beginning. In other words, God could use it without relying on chance.

Also, if you want to believe the Creation Story is something that came from a visionary something and not as a parable the succession of the days are how the development of the earth would be perceived if it formed as science claims as viewed from a position on the planet. First all is dark due to the heavy shroud of clouds and other gasses over the earth. Then light starts to increase and day and night become more perceptible. Water rose into the air amongst other things and formed the firmament/atmosphere and rain. Then dry land began to appear. Then life came in single celled and later fungi and plant forms. Then the clouds over the earth began to dissipate and you could discern the sun and the moon and later the stars as things cleared. Then animals began in the water and then came out of the water. Then man developed. A prophet seeing such a true fast forward vision could describe the creation of the earth in those terms and be correct.

Note I am not saying the best way or only way to view it. I go back and forth on this one.

Good summary of evolution!

Note that God "calls" these creatures and days into existence.

He starts the ball rolling and when the process is finished he "calls" ("pronounces"/"defines") the evening and morning "The First Day"  He gives the process a New Name.

Is "man" on the earth?   Why would he ask?  Like he doesn't know? No he is underlining the point that there is something special going on here that is different than the usual process, whatever there is is not "Man"- the process is not yet finished

THEN "Man" and "Woman" is formed, and defined and pronounced finished and defined and receives his New Name.

The process has no importance- only the finished result is important to the plan.  You put the genes in the blender and bake until it's done and THEN take it out of the oven before it burns. ;)

I must be hungry. ;)

I like Star Trek because its basic premise is that after evolution on all these planets everyone comes out with two arms, legs, one head, a tongue that speaks, and "human" consciousness.  I have often thought that you give a system with the right information and conditions and give it a long enough time, you will naturally come out with the same result, or at least that is what I am thinking when I am liking Star Trek.

Put coal in the dirt and bury them long enough, control the external conditions, and you get diamonds.  Spin off enough elements in the big bang and give it a few billion years and bingo- "is man on the earth (yet)?"

i mean why did he say that otherwise? ;)

And who can disprove that happens with planets?  And where does one get planets with identical conditions?

But maybe it's a story and Star Trek is wrong.  It doesn't really matter much does it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

So? It is highly doubtful modern birds could reproduce with dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Good summary of evolution!

Note that God "calls" these creatures and days into existence.

He starts the ball rolling and when the process is finished he "calls" ("pronounces"/"defines") the evening and morning "The First Day"  He gives the process a New Name.

Is "man" on the earth?   Why would he ask?  Like he doesn't know? No he is underlining the point that there is something special going on here that is different than the usual process, whatever there is is not "Man"- the process is not yet finished

THEN "Man" and "Woman" is formed, and defined and pronounced finished and defined and receives his New Name.

The process has no importance- only the finished result is important to the plan.  You put the genes in the blender and bake until it's done and THEN take it out of the oven before it burns. ;)

I must be hungry. ;)

I like Star Trek because its basic premise is that after evolution on all these planets everyone comes out with two arms, legs, one head, a tongue that speaks, and "human" consciousness.  I have often thought that you give a system with the right information and conditions and give it a long enough time, you will naturally come out with the same result, or at least that is what I am thinking when I am liking Star Trek.

Put coal in the dirt and bury them long enough, control the external conditions, and you get diamonds.  Spin off enough elements in the big bang and give it a few billion years and bingo- "is man on the earth (yet)?"

i mean why did he say that otherwise? ;)

And who can disprove that happens with planets?  And where does one get planets with identical conditions?

But maybe it's a story and Star Trek is wrong.  It doesn't really matter much does it?

 

 

Actually Star Trek has a group of ancient aliens that did something to life on various worlds to direct it towards creating humanoid life. One of the TNG episodes. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post

I eagerly await proof of such humanoids on other planets. :) Old Astronomy joke: What do we call beings on Uranus? Hemorrhoids. :lol:

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

So? It is highly doubtful modern birds could reproduce with dinosaurs.

Then why did you say dinosaurs are still with us???   As "fried chicken"?

Oh my gosh.  Go back and read that section of the thread.  You contradicted yourself, I posted both comments next to each other and you still didnt get it

Nevermind- forget about it.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Actually Star Trek has a group of ancient aliens that did something to life on various worlds to direct it towards creating humanoid life. One of the TNG episodes. ;) 

There you go.  And they were Kolobites right? ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Then why did you say dinosaurs are still with us???   As "fried chicken"?

Oh my gosh.  Go back and read that section of the thread.  You contradicted yourself, I posted both comments next to each other and you still didnt get it

Nevermind- forget about it.

Modern Chickens didn't exist when dinosaurs did. Just because you exist today doesn't mean that 65 million years from now your direct line descendants will also look as you do today.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Good summary of evolution!

Note that God "calls" these creatures and days into existence.

He starts the ball rolling and when the process is finished he "calls" ("pronounces"/"defines") the evening and morning "The First Day"  He gives the process a New Name.

Is "man" on the earth?   Why would he ask?  Like he doesn't know? No he is underlining the point that there is something special going on here that is different than the usual process, whatever there is is not "Man"- the process is not yet finished

THEN "Man" and "Woman" is formed, and defined and pronounced finished and defined and receives his New Name.

The process has no importance- only the finished result is important to the plan.  You put the genes in the blender and bake until it's done and THEN take it out of the oven before it burns. ;)

I must be hungry. ;)

I like Star Trek because its basic premise is that after evolution on all these planets everyone comes out with two arms, legs, one head, a tongue that speaks, and "human" consciousness.  I have often thought that you give a system with the right information and conditions and give it a long enough time, you will naturally come out with the same result, or at least that is what I am thinking when I am liking Star Trek.

Put coal in the dirt and bury them long enough, control the external conditions, and you get diamonds.  Spin off enough elements in the big bang and give it a few billion years and bingo- "is man on the earth (yet)?"

i mean why did he say that otherwise? ;)

And who can disprove that happens with planets?  And where does one get planets with identical conditions?

But maybe it's a story and Star Trek is wrong.  It doesn't really matter much does it?

 

 

I think it is possible that we hear evolution taught enough times, it just "makes sense."  It becomes the default logic.  

Why did man's creation require Heavenly Father's presence on the earth?  Nothing else did.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, DJBrown said:

I think it is possible that we hear evolution taught enough times, it just "makes sense."  It becomes the default logic.  

Why did man's creation require Heavenly Father's presence on the earth?  Nothing else did.  

Don't ask me, question the temple account.

To me that's like asking why water is required to have two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That is what we call water.

That's just the way it works Do it any other way and you don't have the same result.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, DJBrown said:

I think it is possible that we hear evolution taught enough times, it just "makes sense."  It becomes the default logic.  

Why did man's creation require Heavenly Father's presence on the earth?  Nothing else did.  

Man's evolution doesn't require any supernatural intervention or discarding of natural laws. But everyone is free to believe or not believe in one or more Gods, or no Gods at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×