Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[mfbukowski]

I can understand the value of metaphor, but if you use 6 days knowing you are leading them to believe in a literal 6 day creation, then it is dishonest. I know people would call me dishonest If I tried to do it.

Yes but for having been written whenever it was written, what, 3000 years ago(?) it is amazing that there were any periods of time mentioned at all. If I were going to write an account of the creation, using their "science" at the time, I would probably just say "God created the earth" Alakazam. Poof. it's there! The fact that it accounts for a progression which occurs over several periods, to me, is evidence of inspiration. I would not have written it that way if I had lived then. And I should know since my wife is firmly convinced I am a caveman! I am hoping some day she will civilize me.

[semlogo]

I can understand the value of metaphor, but if you use 6 days knowing you are leading them to believe in a literal 6 day creation, then it is dishonest. I know people would call me dishonest If I tried to do it.

According to D&C, "everlasting punishment" actually refers to God's punishment, not the length of time, because God is everlasting.

God tells Adam that if he eats the fruit, "in that day" he will surely die.

[Bender]

katherine the great Posted Today, 03:32 PM

I agree. Simply to say that God created the natural world through evolution is a metaphor of sorts. To lay out the entire process in full detail would take volumes upon volumes and no one would ever read or understand it. I think the creation story serves its purpose very beautifully and succinctly.

I was not suggesting any metaphor or story had to be detailed

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 03:36 PM

The fact that it accounts for a progression which occurs over several periods, to me, is evidence of inspiration.

Periods as in days. Your view as what constitutes evidence leaves open a lot of interpretations of just about anything. I see nothing about someone using days to explain their belief in God and creation as real evidence pointing towards inspiration. To many like to see inspiration or God in everything.

[Bender]

semlogo Posted Today, 03:41 PM

According to D&C, "everlasting punishment" actually refers to God's punishment, not the length of time, because God is everlasting.

God tells Adam that if he eats the fruit, "in that day" he will surely die.

To clarify, I am saying that God or anyone who would use days in telling their metaphor through story, knowing that it will lead to them believing in literal days would be dishonest and probably unwise. I'm not saying that if God does exist that he did do it this way.

[semlogo]

To clarify, I am saying that God or anyone who would use days in telling their metaphor through story, knowing that it will lead to them believing in literal days would be dishonest and probably unwise. I'm not saying that if God does exist that he did do it this way.

Well, maybe in English. In Hebrew it can be taken many ways. Rather than misleading, it would merely be unclear.

[Bee Eff]

And it appears that he is the only one specifically excepted from the way the others were brought forth. So is the implication evolution for all creatures but some kind of special intervention for us? This is also the case in the endowment ceremony account. There, man is actually the only creature made from the materials of earth. So are these accounts contradictory, or because of the special treatment of man in both cases, in agreeement?

I do not believe that either account is literally accurate as to method of creation.

I do believe that the semantics involved in Genesis 1 leave open the interpretation of the creation. There is sufficient evidence present based on the semantics of Genesis 1 that one should not be accused of blasphemy for denying a vocalized ex nihilo creation.

[Bee Eff]

I can understand the value of metaphor, but if you use 6 days knowing you are leading them to believe in a literal 6 day creation, then it is dishonest. I know people would call me dishonest If I tried to do it.

You assume that God used the terms "day", "morning" and "night". I assume these terms were used by man to describe the creation as it was presented to those who were given the account. Given the massive amount of time involved in "creation" it seems that man's mind was probably incapable of grasping the enormity of the creation, perhaps "day" was the only term that held the descriptive meaning that would best convey the message.

[mfbukowski]

To many like to see inspiration or God in everything.

Guilty as charged.

[Bender]

Bee Eff Posted Today, 05:50 PM You assume that God used the terms "day", "morning" and "night". I assume these terms were used by man to describe the creation as it was presented to those who were given the account. Given the massive amount of time involved in "creation" it seems that man's mind was probably incapable of grasping the enormity of the creation, perhaps "day" was the only term that held the descriptive meaning that would best convey the message.

semlogo Posted Today, 04:26 PM Well, maybe in English. In Hebrew it can be taken many ways. Rather than misleading, it would merely be unclear.

I'm not the one making assumptions here. I only said If God or others did this then, not whether I think they did or not. I'm sorry if some of my posts were not clear enough.I can understand that people may not have a term for millions or billions of years, but I should think they would have an understanding of more than a day

mfbukowski Posted Today, 05:58 PM Guilty as charged.

LOL People who do are almost always much more biased in how they view and interpret there experiences, and thus why they are much more likely to get it wrong

[semlogo]

I'm not the one making assumptions here. I only said If God or others did this then, not whether I think they did or not. I'm sorry if some of my posts were not clear enough.I can understand that people may not have a term for millions or billions of years, but I should think they would have an understanding of more than a day ;)LOL People who do are almost always much more biased in how they view and interpret there experiences, and thus why they are much more likely to get it wrong

But the word day in Hebrew CAN mean more than a day.

[Bender]

semlogo Posted Today, 05:45 AM

But the word day in Hebrew CAN mean more than a day.

Yes I'm aware words can have more than one meaning. If you read my posts more closely you will realize that this was not the point.

[semlogo]

Yes I'm aware words can have more than one meaning. If you read my posts more closely you will realize that this was not the point.

I think you're right - I'm not sure I understand your point.

[mfbukowski]

LOL People who do are almost always much more biased in how they view and interpret there experiences, and thus why they are much more likely to get it wrong

You are absolutely right.

So stop being so biased! I just calls 'em as I "sees" 'em. What I experience is evidently different from what you experience. Why? It's none of my business!

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 01:10 PM

You are absolutely right.

So stop being so biased! wink.gif I just calls 'em as I "sees" 'em. What I experience is evidently different from what you experience. Why? It's none of my business!

Your the one who admitted to it. I think I'm open minded enough to look at all the possibilities.

[mfbukowski]

Your the one who admitted to it. I think I'm open minded enough to look at all the possibilities.

So am I! We just see it all through different colored glasses! I look at the possibilities and see something different. That's what makes the stock market work.

I used to be an atheist communist drug using student radical in the '60s. Now I am a stogey right winged Mormon. I've LIVED all the possibilities! Truth will always win out!

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 02:11 PM

So am I! We just see it all through different colored glasses! I look at the possibilities and see something different. That's what makes the stock market work.

I used to be an atheist communist drug using student radical in the '60s. Now I am a stogey right winged Mormon. I've LIVED all the possibilities! Truth will always win out!

Have you. There are way to may possibilities to live out there it would take many life times to really live them all.

[mfbukowski]

Have you. There are way to may possibilities to live out there it would take many life times to really live them all.

Well you are right of course, but when you are traveling between being one life style which is death affirming to one which is life affirming, you go through a lot in the middle. So you do get to see a lot of the colors in the middle of the spectrum too. And what does this have to do with evolution?

I think my life-style has been selected for maximum survival. In other words, the "plan of happiness" gives one a longer life and more posterity, more satisfaction. I just wish I had found it earlier in life. The LDS lifestyle is really pragmatically the very best for people, in my opinion.

So does that in itself make the church "true"? In my opinion, a lot truer than any other. It's hard to argue that people with large families who routinely live into their 90's are on an evolutionary dead end. At least it seems to be evolutionarily more efficient than those with a lifestyle which does not permit them to reproduce.

So that should get this thread going again. I even threw prop 8 in there too!

[littlechild]

LOL Your only admitting to having a superiority complex, not to actually being superior.

Also, Science doesn't rule out God in Evolution anymore than Santa Clause. It's just a lack of evidence for God or Santa that science doesn't rule them in either.

Yet they rule in evolution with no evidence.

There is no evidence that any species every descended from any other species. There is only a fantastic notion that it did happen. If you believe it did, you are taking it on faith from a group of scientists who don't know either. Carl Sagan said we are cousins of the oak tree. That's just a fairy tale that he tells himself.

[littlechild]

"You can't simply say, these have all been "dealt with". [enter any scientific field] is not 'settled science'. Real science is overturning it as we speak, despite the unwillingness of [enter any supporter of any scientific field] to admit they have believed an inaccurate and inadequate field of knowledge."

Science is an evolutionary concept. Nothing in science is "settled science." This does not invalidate science it just states that science doesn't claim perfection, only the most logical conclusion at any given time.

What occurs with your attitude towards evolution is a simple denial with minimal support. Such is fine, pursue your objection, but your objection does not warrant an intelligent person's denial of evolution You can doubt it, you can work to prove evolution false, but you cannot claim that science supports your position at the present time.

You are quite incorrect my friend. My denial is based upon the fact that there is no species which has been conclusively shown to be the parent species of any other. If you have found one, you are the first. Please present it to us.

In fact, there CAN'T be any such proof. How could there be? Unless you witnessed it. And no one has. When DNA analysis can't even prove it, what else possibly could? When micriobiological evidence is all against evolutionary forces, why do we believe to the contrary? There are so many flaws in the theory of evolution it must be readily apparent that their is an ulterior motive for why it is so firmly lodged in place - there are other motivations for its existence than because objective scientists are altruistically devoted to the truth at all costs.

[littlechild]

Yes Faith applies to what we believe in. I was just showing the obvious logical fallacy of your post on atheist faith. It's always funny to watch people try to describe Atheism as a religion. BTW you will find if you ask around that many atheists don't conclude absolute certainty that God or the supernatural doesn't exist, only that lack of evidence is good reason for lack of belief. Now back to evolution

Atheism is a belief with regard to the existence of God. While it may not be officially a 'religion' in the traditional sense, it is a belief system with respect to the nature of God and the supernatural. It denies any such Being and any such supernatural forces or powers. In the act of denying this, it is implicitly taking a viewpoint on religious matters and is thus a religious viewpoint.

[littlechild]

You might as well say you don't believe in the existence of parakeets. There are none so blind as will not see.

I can't say that. I do believe in parakeets. Vestigial organs are non existent. They are the product of an overabundance of imagination. When those supposedly vestigial organs are found to serve a purpose then we must suppose they are no longer vestigial. When this happens hundreds of times, we are left to speculate why we are motivated to call them vestigial in the first place.

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

[littlechild]

So God causes the "right" mutations when He wants to, and natural selection naturally selects. Natural selection really just says "what survives, survives" and on this view is a tautology.

Whadya think?

Tautology abounds in evolutionary theory. Read the chapter "Homology in Vertebrate Limbs" in the book Icons of Evolution for an example of the circular reasoning involved in assuming that creatures with similar features have a common ancestry. Evolution assumes the fact it is attempting to prove. Real scientists should abhor reasoning in a circle.

Darwin himself realized how preposterous his theory could be:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (The Origin of Species, Chapter 6).

Now, for those of you who think the eye 'evolved' - tell us how this happened - and explain why scientists are inconsistent in their application of their own beliefs. The octopus eye and the human eye are remarkably similar - but in this case, scientists don't believe we are closely linked cousins on the Darwinian tree of life. You see, in some cases homology is used to prove similar developmental lines, and in others, they run into potential conflicts, so they adjust the facts, instead of their theory.

[littlechild]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial

Yes i've seen that before. Unimpressive.