Jump to content

Rob Osborn

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rob Osborn

  1. Let's look at it:


    And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.


    In other words, the state of no death is applied only to the finished creation, not the process (Evolution) itself.



    In some places, yes. And even my own timeline place the state of no death before the Fall, thus satisfying the doctrine.  However, notice also that in other places the doctrine notes that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden into....what? Thus implying a local garden state. The scriptures themselves show the garden was physically local.




    The official doctrine of the LDS Church on this section is as follows:


    “‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)




    Here we have more room for a long creative period in which the rules of dispensations don't apply. The only question then, is what does 'temporal' mean?  The official doctrine of the Church is that plants and animals were here before man (see the OT Insitute manual).  That is outside D&C 77's notion of temporal time.



    I agree completely with the 1909 statement.  In no way does it preclude the Evolution of man's physical body exactly as today's science describes it.  Man himself is a combination of a physical body (created by God via Evolution) and a spirit, which is a literal spirit child God. Evolution therefore, does not imply that man comes from lower orders of animals as it not even claim to describe (or preclude) the creation of man's spirit.

    Well, I guess its all up for interpretation. My only real grunt with it is that both the 1909 statement and the scriptures define Adam as being the literal physical lineage of God. Thus, we ourselves have the very seed of God within us because we were indeed made from his very seed. What would be the purpose of man and woman to be resurrected and be sealed in the temple together? Its so that their "seed" may continue into eternity. That physical body, coupled with reproductive organs for the Gods have that very purpose of perpetuating their seed, otherwise there is no reason to be together forever. I also find it interesting that the Gods actually go down to earth when it is time to create man. Why? Because it was and is necessary for the Gods to procreate Adam and Eve on the earth. The scriptures record the physical lineage of all the great Patriarchs from Moses, through Noah and then to Adam and then from Adam to God himself. We all thus are very seed of God, of royal lineage, and as such entitled to, through obedience, to all that our Father hath. Its a beautiful and true doctrine. We are not the lineage of pre-adamites from the lower orders of animals. We ourselves are not animals, no, we are the very physical sons and daughters of God. His seed abounds and perpetuates through us.

  2. No, no I don't. But I am not going to engage this. 15 pages and yet no one has been persuaded (I vaguely recall some quote about arguing with fools). The benefits and merits that evolutionary theory has brought to the children of God in this last dispensation are quite numerous and wonderful (see this link for example). It is the true spirit of Mormonism to embrace truth wherever it is found. I personally find your anti-truth tirades an embarrassment to our theology. Please stop.

    We see micro changes or variations in species. We do not see macro-evolution. Perhaps we arguing different things here. Macro-evolution theory has not benefited society at all other than learning all the ways you can debate the subject. More harm has been done to God and his gospel through this scourge of evolutionary theory than any other single theory. To see scientists blatantly lie and discourage the real truth from being known is an embarrassment to humanity and to God.

  3. I'm going to side with Brigham Young over you here.  "Every discovery in science and art, that is really true and useful to mankind has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it." (Teaching: Brigham Young)


    The theory of evolution has been very useful to mankind -- greatly improving our understanding of medicine and ecology. My life has been blessed because of our God given understanding of evolution.

    You mean variation within species. Macro-evolution has never been proved true and whether it is true or false doesnt effect our understanding of medicine and ecology.

  4. Evolution is not an Atheist belief any more than a geocentric universe is.


    Never said they did. Only that over 97% of all scientists accept evolution.

    SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

    "A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time"

    I am sure if you asked all scientists about the validity of the Book of Mormon pretty much all of them would say it is a work of fiction. Reminds me of archaeology work done here in the Americas and how pretty much all agree that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon. We are both LDS and believe the BoM is a true account. That being so, scientists are wrong. This just proves that scientists can be wrong on a grand scale with the BoM. The same can thus be said for evolution- they are off on a grand scale.

  5. Coming late to the discussion....


    Yes, one can accept both in synchronicity and virtually perfect harmony when it comes to the doctrine of the creation.  My own interpretation can start with 2 Nephi 2:22 and the realization that before the state of no death, there was a creative state in which it is not specified whether or not there was death or no death. Evolution therefore has room to swim. 


    Combine also with the official LDS doctrine that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth (OT Institute manual) and that there is no doctrine for or against the existence of preAdamite races of man (1931 First Presidency statement), and various other doctrinal statements such as the explaination of D&C 77 in the D&C Institute manual.


    Hence, in a nutshell, one can fully accept Evolution exactly as science describes it, then Adam and Eve being placed into the Garden state of no death (local or global state of no death is an interesting discussion), then the Fall (notice in this timeline that it can be truthfully stated that there was no death before the Fall), then Evolution proceeding apace.


    Other interesting discussions could be about when was the Fall. 4004 B.C. as per the traditional Christian thinking adopted from Ussher? Or around 8000 B.C., as is my opinion, when the first civilization arose (Sumer)?


    Of course, there is one particular doctrine which doesn't work under the scenario of Evolution and that is the Global Flood.  Hence I personally go with a local Flood, contrary to the official doctrine.

    A few points you are off.

    2 Nephi 2 states that there was no death amongst anything. The official teaching of the church is that there was no death anywhere on the earth before the fall of man.

    D&C 77 as scripture itself is the official doctrine an it states the temporal age of the earth at 7,000 years meaning the age of the earth during its mortal journey since death entered the world.

    The 1909 statement is the most current official statement as reprinted in the 2002 Ensign. It makes clear that the race of Adam did not come from any lower order of animals.

  6. Non Sequitur.


    Charles Darwin was a Theist. Kenneth Miller is a Theist. Francis Collins is a Theist. Some 40% of ALL American scientists are Theists.

    Evolution is an atheist belief. It just turns out, strange as it is, that a few theists espouse some atheist beliefs.

    BTW, just because someone is a scientist doesnt make them evolutionists.

  7. Why are you 100% certain of everything you say?

    Have you ever noticed that almost every link that is pro-evolution that gets linked to from these forums lead almost exclusively to some atheisy/ humanist?

    Its pretty sound logic that those who believe in Intelligent Design almost all are also theists while those who espouse evolution tend to either be atheist or deny the Creator's role.

  8. But when evolutionist use the dictionary term Supernatural you claim they are Atheists. When clearly their religion, if they have any, is immaterial to science. A I have repeatedly demonstrated.

    You should note that I never quote atheists? Why, because I dont believe in evolution. Evolution and atheism go hand in hand...

  9. That is not my contention at all. My contention is that ALL religions deal with the Supernatural. What happens after we die. Science has no way to test ANY such ideas. Other than our bodies rot away to dust. Mormon's are not Christians? Here I thought that for the last 185 years we've been trying to convince the world that we are that.


    I'm no fan of Mr. Dawkins' atheism. But his science is right on. Science can not use some Godlike creature or force and still be science. Sure there MAYBE such in a universe of hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies that have existed for about the last 14 billion years.. Obviously it is you that have learned nothing. Such arrogant ignorance can be amusing in young children, but I really don't appreciate it in an adult.


    Mormonism for all its strengths is NOT naturalistic in the way that science uses the term.

    Science is Agnostic


    Eugenie Scott is an atheist and that clouds her judgment.

  10. I don't think you can say this is a basic scientific fact since it would not be hard list hundreds scientists who think the oppostie. In fact, the branch of science the explicitly deals with intelligence as such is cognitive science. I think that most if not all cognitive scientists accept both the evolutionary take on the origins of intelligence (there is even a very active and fruitful area known as evolutionary cognitive science (google the phrase). It is also a basic working assumption in the field that artificial intelligence is possible.  A popular expositor of this scientific way of thinking is Douglas Hofstader.


    You assert that "no law in nature itself can produce intelligence from a non life source" is a basic law of nature and yet I have never ever seen it asserted as such in any field. Indeed, I don't know of a single prominent cognitive scientist, biologist, or neurologist who has made such an assertion even as an opinion let alone as a basic "law".


    No, I am sure you just pulled that one out of thin air or are repeating it from some religiously oriented source.


    It isn't a law at all and I am quite sure it isn't true.   We did evolve after all.


    By the way, the ability to acquire and use skills is an entriely external objective criterion. Either an entity (bird, man, or robot) can do it or not. It is odd that you give that definition and then hedge your bets by saying that something might just appear to do it (true Scottsman fallacy?). Either the entity sucessfully navigates the environment or it doesn't.


    Well at least you aren't going with the eternal prexistent substance version of intelligence. That one just never gets off the ground due to a fatal lack of clarity. I have no idea what they are talking about.

    One can think and believe that intelligence arose on its own from nature in a series of small sequential events from non intelligent processes and chemical interactions. Problem is however- at this point its merely a fable, a fairytale with no scientific backing.

  11. Rob, maybe we had better be clear about what we think intelligence is.


    For me the difference between the intelligence of a thermostat or a virus and the intelligence of a human being is one of degree of complexity and subtlety. It is a vast vast difference of degree (and degrees of freedom in the sense of articulation). 



    I have never seen intelligence spring into existence where there was none before either. But I have seen a tiny bit of intelligence added naturally by selection where there was already slightly less intelligence. 


    But, then there is nothing purely deductive about that fact that means there is a fundamental ontological obstacle to the natural emergence of intelligence.


    I have also never sense an immense tangle of wire or yarn emerge at once from something that  wasn't just a slightly less immense tangle. But then, somehow it seems less mysterious. Yet if we were to trace the history of a truly immense tangle backward, I am sure there would be a point were someone would say, well yes but that isn't an immense tangle. But there would be a lot of disagreement about exactly what it takes to be an immense tangle and confusion about precisely when the "immense tangleness" came into being. It's less mysterious because we aren't so confused about what a tangle is. But sometimes we just can't imagine that something is really just explainable in other  radically different terms.

    These days we know that heat is mean molecular motion but there was time when people thought that impossible or silly simply because heat was clearly a totally different thing than motion and people thought that the explanation left something out or sidestepped the real needed explanation. You can almost hear people laughing with score and saying something like "saying that heat is nothing but kinetic molecular motion is like saying that time is made of  poppy seeds". It must have seemed like a category mistake at best.


    The real question is whether intelligence is the kind of thing that can be accounted for as the recursive or cooperative application of entities or states of a fairs that on their own seem utterly unintelligent. And, can it pile up or not? I think it can and I think it can do so for so long that the end result seems fundamentally different than anything we can imagine being the original state of affairs. 


    But, if you think intelligence is not a kind of complexity but is rather more like a ghostly immaterial substance or an irreducible subjectivity then we will be talking past each other.

    Intelligence is the ability to acquire and use skills. A characteristic of intelligence is thus the capacity to learn, reason, think, and make and apply decisions. Scientific evidence to this point shows that only living things have intelligence. Science investigation shows that only from living intelligent things do we find any evidence of intelligence in nature. In fact, no law in nature itself can produce intelligence from a non life source. This is a basic constant in nature- one of its many laws. Intelligence doesnt nor cannot just arise from any sequence of non intelligent events, even if on the surface they may appear intelligent.

  12. An amoeba can learn in a very limited sense of the word. Are they intelligent? A single Sodium atom naturally combines with single atom of Chlorine forming ordinary table salt due to electron attraction. Are those atoms intelligent?


    Abiogenesis in lab.

    SEE http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/abiogenesis-life-from-non-life-duplicated-in-lab-t13609.html

    Thats not abiogenesis. All they did was synthesize some of the ingredients that they think made life. No actual life was created in the lab.

  13. Science does not say any such thing. Science say he is not testable using the tools available to science. Scientists can believe or not believe in God(s) as they choose. 


    Your idea of science may tell you that but science does include all that truly does exist even if we havent found everything and everyone involved yet including God himself.

  14. I think the opposite is true. So what do you mean?

    I guess the difference is that I can show over and over how intelligence only arises out of intelligence preceding it. All you have is conjecture inferred from more conjecture. You dont have any evidence, repeatable in a lab, showing intelligence arising from non intelligent matter.

  15. So in other words your dogma rules your world view and evidence does not matter to you.

    The evidence totally matters. For instance- The evidence that DNA is a design/blueprint for constructing the organisms/components of life shows to me that this is not a product of nature. Why? Because, scientific experiments have constantly shown that nature is wholly incapable of assembling a coded language for assembling intelligence. This isnt dogma, its the facts of scientific study.

  16. I am searching.  I pray. I examine evidence.  and on and on.  But your post is tainted, slanted to what your own a priori dogma asserts. You state the HONEST PEOPLE will conclude that God exists?  Really?  So of course someone who concludes differently is dishonest.

    This is typical of the religious believer or apologist. They start with a premise that their belief is in fact true then look for the even slightest plausible evidence to support it... no matter how thin or evidence lacking it is. 


    The true seeker of truth examines evidence and is willing to leave prior beliefs. They do not assume that prior beliefs are true nor do they spend energy in confirmation bias.  They are willing to let the evidence lead them no matter how painful.

    Well, All I can say, after years of searching is that I have found the honest truth. So, in my conclusions I have to admit that if someone comes to a different conclusion, then they obviously arrived at the wrong destination because they placed faith in bad ideologies.

    The true seeker of truth doesnt have faulty parameters such as "I cannot posit God in science" (thanks TSS)

  17. Ok Rob


    Where is God?  Why does God remain hidden,elusive, a mystery, require faith... which means believe when there is no evidence or in spite of evidence.


    Why can we trust scripture?  Why should we believe the Bible is really what God wants us to know. Lots of problems there.


    Further you as a Latter-day Saint... you rely on additional texts that you believe are scripture. Yet there is much evidence to cast doubt and questions as to the integrity of unique LDS canon.  Why should a person rely on these?


    Honest persons want to know.

    God doesnt remain hidden, you cant just sit there, you do have to find him. There is no mystery to God when one searches to find him. Ifhe is a disbeliever then no matter what and where a person searches, he will never see him or find him. Honest people would come to the conclusion in search, that God does exist and he loves us. There are myriads of evidence for God for those that search for him, but hardly any for skeptics who choose to only look to man for understanding. If you are not searching for God, then nothing i show you as evidence will suffice.

  • Create New...