Reconciling Evolution With The Scriptures

[littlechild]

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?

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

Scientists can't explain consciousness. They can't produce life in a test tube. They can't get a few strains of bacteria to show any evidence of being able to evolve into anything other than bacteria, despite subjecting them to tests over 40,000 generations - equivalent to a million years of human life. They purport to explain how dead, inanimate matter came to life, in some freakish Frankensteinian fantasy, but I think it's the whole theory which is dead. Should have been dead on arrival. It's more fantastic than any fairy tale. Truly the book "Darwinian Fairytales" is appropriately titled.

[Bee Eff]

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.

Yet, I would wager at least 95% of Biologists, if not a greater portion, support the theory of evolution.

Your opinion has no credibility. Also, until their argument gains more validity the opinion of your evolution detractors, which your only truly credible source I have seen is not among, is not credible. Your position could become credible, but it is not. Someone not a biologist should not take the severe minority's view as authoritative, such denies common sense.

Can you provide any evidence as to the proportion of biologists that support your position?

[J.S. Mill]

Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces."

This can rightfully be thought of as absurd. But no evolutionist thinks this is how it happened.

Scientists can't explain consciousness.

Nor can anti-evolutionists. "God did it" is not an explanation.

They can't produce life in a test tube.

Why would evolution being true imply that scientists can produce life in a test tube?

They can't get a few strains of bacteria to show any evidence of being able to evolve into anything other than bacteria, despite subjecting them to tests over 40,000 generations - equivalent to a million years of human life.

Nobody thinks that humans evolved into something dramatically different in a million years. It's a fact of genetics that chimpanzees and humans, separated by something like 5 million years of divergent evolutionary paths, share something like 97% of their genes. It would take a lot more than a 3% difference in genes to produce something dramatically different from a bacteria. Your intended analogy is invalid.

They purport to explain how dead, inanimate matter came to life, in some freakish Frankensteinian fantasy, but I think it's the whole theory which is dead. Should have been dead on arrival. It's more fantastic than any fairy tale. Truly the book "Darwinian Fairytales" is appropriately titled.

Frankenstein's monster was the product of intelligent design. You'd do best to not use "Frankensteinian" as a pejorative.

[Kyle]

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.

Little child,

Atheism by definition is "The absence of theistic belief." The prefix "a" means "without" so the term a-theism literally means "without theism". Atheism is not a belief, but an absence of belief.

An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.

Please understand words and definitions before you day things.

[semlogo]

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.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomeronasal_organ#In_humans

[Bender]

mfbukowski,

I would say doing drugs and being in the drug culture and a radical was probably your main problem, and maybe being a communist . Atheists come in all shapes and sizes with varying beliefs and life styles some of which are very satisfying while others not. I see the same in religion. I see great things in both.

I don't think the church being a good influence on peoples happiness or survival as evidence that certain truths claims are true, but I do think that many lifestyles in religions as well as out of it can provide purpose, happiness, and evolutionary survival. Not all atheists are alike just as not all believers in the supernatural are alike.

We live in a totally different world in which technology(something we have never had to this level) has resulted in an increase of resources as well as significantly lowering the infant mortality rate. As a result we have seen a population explosion. Also, fortunately, better lifestyles and family planning has resulted in lowering birth rates. I think many here understand the consequences of an expanding population in a finite world.

Many religions do push having large families, but even with that we have seen a significant reduction in those religions of the number of children per family. It seems the desire to have fewer children isn't just with atheists. It might also help to avert what we see in other animal species whose population gets to big from happening to us. Evolution is still going on.

[Bender]

littlechild

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.

Actually no. Although I am not an expert on evolution, I have taken a good number of 1st and 2nd year biology courses in university. There is actually good evidence, even though not complete, which is true for most sciences. I do practice some faith in regards to much of the sciences I am not familiar with, but it also helps to see so much evidence around us to the success of science. Otherwise we would not be having this conversation.

The problem I see here which seems fairly evident from your posts is that you have come into the evolutionary debate with the conclusion already decided. To much bias like I see here does not lend much chance of one being objective enough to evaluate the evidence available. You could try and say the same thing about me, and I know you cannot be sure of what I say is true, but I was taught that evolution was wrong growing up, and I believed it. It took years of reading and taking many science classes to get me to be unbiased enough to evaluate what I was learning fairly.

[Bender]

littlechild

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.

Not necessarily. While some may say God does not exist, many who consider themselves to be atheist do not have a belief either way. They say that lack of evidence does not warrant a belief in God or whatever, but that they don't know everything so the possibility exists. There is the possibility that another earth orbiting the sun exists, but we can't see it since it is always on the other side of the sun at all times. The idea here is that a lack of evidence means one should not believe that until enough evidence is available to show that it most likely does exist. It really depends on how one views what atheism means.

[shalamabobbi]

The D&C states that when the Lord returns he will explain how He created life and the world, which I interpret to mean that it has not yet been revealed.

This to my mind means the creation accounts cannot be be interpreted to explain the modus operandi of creation.

I would tend to agree with views expressed by Brigham Young that the creation account is similar to a story parents tell to a young child to veil the procreative process.

For some the theory of evolution conflicts with their belief in God. So I think it inappropriate to force feed it down someone's throat. I also think it wrong to teach someone it is not true as later if they learn to their satidfaction that it is, they discard that which really matters.

LittleChild is not LDS - but I will ask you this.

If evolution can't be proven, can non-evolution be proven?

Consider the stars and galaxies in the night sky. How far away are they? How long has the light from them been traveling to reach your eyes?

Does the answer really threaten your faith in God?

[thesometimesaint]

shalamabobbi:

Yes when God returns He will explain the Hows of Creation. But that is no reason for us to set aside a perfectly good theory as to how we think He did it.

Proving a negative is a pretty hard thing it do.

I have no problems with believing that Evolution is the means by which God Created everything.

[littlechild]

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

This view must be evaluated in light of the fact that the history of science is replete with now discarded theories that once supported Darwinism but increasing knowledge has rendered obsolete. Examples include vestigial organs (the claim that in humans

180 organs and structures were evolutionary leftover's such as the pineal and the thymus), atavisms (the theory that certain conditions such as trisomy 21 were evolutionary throwbacks - trisomy 21 persons were called Mongolian idiots for this reason), and the biogenetic law (the belief that the embryological development of an organism passes through its evolutionary history). Likewise new research is beginning to overturn the view that most of the genome has no function. This is reflected in the following comment on the Sagan and Druyan statement cited above:

Such comments are commonplace in the biological literature-although perhaps less common than they were a few years ago. The reason? Geneticists are discovering functions for what used to be apparent genetic debris.5

http://www.rae.org/introns.html

[littlechild]

The D&C states that when the Lord returns he will explain how He created life and the world, which I interpret to mean that it has not yet been revealed.

This to my mind means the creation accounts cannot be be interpreted to explain the modus operandi of creation.

I would tend to agree with views expressed by Brigham Young that the creation account is similar to a story parents tell to a young child to veil the procreative process.

For some the theory of evolution conflicts with their belief in God. So I think it inappropriate to force feed it down someone's throat. I also think it wrong to teach someone it is not true as later if they learn to their satidfaction that it is, they discard that which really matters.

LittleChild is not LDS - but I will ask you this.

If evolution can't be proven, can non-evolution be proven?

Consider the stars and galaxies in the night sky. How far away are they? How long has the light from them been traveling to reach your eyes?

Does the answer really threaten your faith in God?

Depends on what you define as evolution. Descent with modification? Natural selection? Adaptation? All the above? I don't think science and religion are antagonistic at all. Science is the search of the Truth, religion is the search for the Good, and art is the search for the Beautiful. They each have their domains and there is overlap as they are merely three different aspects of the Real.

And I am LDS.

Even though many will say that my anti evolution stance is due to my religious proclivities, that is a red herring. When a prosecutor takes a case, it doesn't matter what his motives are, he still must win the case in a court of law. It makes no difference whether he is black, red, catholic, methodist, atheist, or female. What matters to me, and should be the point of all discussion, is what is the truth? Is the defendant guilty or exonerated?

Evolution can't be proven because it didn't happen. The more evidence we gather the more plain it becomes that evolution is a false and misleading hypothesis. There are several reasons to be a neo-Darwinist but I'm saying the supporting evidence should be scrutinized very carefully by each and every individual, and let them come to their own conclusions. They should not jump on the evolution bandwagon simply because their science professor told them its true. Neither should one accept that there is "overwhelming evidence" of evolution when there is not. (of course let's be clear what we are talking about with respect to evolution). We are not talking about descent with modification or variation over time. Those are obviously true, and are not the results of natural selection or adaptation.

There NEVER was a species that became another species. "Speciation" is an assumption with no basis in reality. In fact. all of natural selection is an assumption. First they assume evolution, then they interpret their evidence as a way of supporting their preconceived notions. An example is dating fossils by virtue of the fact that they were found in strata that they have already decided were formed at a particular time. Then they use that date to relate other information to never realizing that their original assumption was false.

The following is from the Revolution against Evolution website:

in order to show evolution there must be transitional fossils. Most paleontologists now agree that none have been found above the "Family" level, and most of them admit that this disproves Darwinism. Let's look at some famous fossils.

A) Neanderthal Man -- is now accepted as a genuine human.

Cro-Magnon Man -- is now accepted as a genuine human.

C) Piltdown Man -- has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.

D) Java Man -- has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.

E) Nebraska Man -- has been proven to be an over-optimistic mistake.

F) Peking Man -- probably was a hoax. The bones have been lost.

G) Zinjanthropus -- studies show this was only a primitive ape.

H) "Lucy" -- strongly suspected of having been fully ape.

I) Archaeopteryx -- Some evidence shows sign of a hoax. There have also been fully modern birds found in earlier strata. Stephen J. Gould says it's a "curious mosaic," not a transitional fossil.

J) Coelacanth -- This was used as an index fossil for comparison dating until living specimens were found in the Indian Ocean. It is now called a "living fossil."

K) Horse Series -- This collection of unrelated fossils was put together to look like a series, and is still shown in many elementary textbooks, even though there's no relationship between them. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History where this was displayed, said it is "lamentable" that this is still shown in textbooks by people "who know of its speculative nature."

[littlechild]

This can rightfully be thought of as absurd. But no evolutionist thinks this is how it happened.

Nor can anti-evolutionists. "God did it" is not an explanation.

Why would evolution being true imply that scientists can produce life in a test tube?

Nobody thinks that humans evolved into something dramatically different in a million years. It's a fact of genetics that chimpanzees and humans, separated by something like 5 million years of divergent evolutionary paths, share something like 97% of their genes. It would take a lot more than a 3% difference in genes to produce something dramatically different from a bacteria. Your intended analogy is invalid.

Frankenstein's monster was the product of intelligent design. You'd do best to not use "Frankensteinian" as a pejorative.

Hello, Frankenstein was FICTION!!!! LOL!

Maybe the book was the product of intelligent design, but the creature is a fantasy. Just like evolution and speciation.

You ask why would evolution being true imply that scientists can produce life in a test tube?

Let me break it down for you.

They have actually tried to do this you know. It's called the Miller-Urey experiment. It is in the evolution textbooks as an example of how life may have originated.

That it is not representative of the conditions that prevailed in the early stages of the earth's formation is now widely held scientific opinion.

You can read about it on your own, and come to your own conclusions.

[semlogo]

Depends on what you define as evolution. Descent with modification? Natural selection? Adaptation? All the above? I don't think science and religion are antagonistic at all. Science is the search of the Truth, religion is the search for the Good, and art is the search for the Beautiful. They each have their domains and there is overlap as they are merely three different aspects of the Real.

And I am LDS.

Even though many will say that my anti evolution stance is due to my religious proclivities, that is a red herring. When a prosecutor takes a case, it doesn't matter what his motives are, he still must win the case in a court of law. It makes no difference whether he is black, red, catholic, methodist, atheist, or female. What matters to me, and should be the point of all discussion, is what is the truth? Is the defendant guilty or exonerated?

Evolution can't be proven because it didn't happen. The more evidence we gather the more plain it becomes that evolution is a false and misleading hypothesis. There are several reasons to be a neo-Darwinist but I'm saying the supporting evidence should be scrutinized very carefully by each and every individual, and let them come to their own conclusions. They should not jump on the evolution bandwagon simply because their science professor told them its true. Neither should one accept that there is "overwhelming evidence" of evolution when there is not. (of course let's be clear what we are talking about with respect to evolution). We are not talking about descent with modification or variation over time. Those are obviously true, and are not the results of natural selection or adaptation.

There NEVER was a species that became another species. "Speciation" is an assumption with no basis in reality. In fact. all of natural selection is an assumption. First they assume evolution, then they interpret their evidence as a way of supporting their preconceived notions. An example is dating fossils by virtue of the fact that they were found in strata that they have already decided were formed at a particular time. Then they use that date to relate other information to never realizing that their original assumption was false.

The following is from the Revolution against Evolution website:

in order to show evolution there must be transitional fossils. Most paleontologists now agree that none have been found above the "Family" level, and most of them admit that this disproves Darwinism. Let's look at some famous fossils.

A) Neanderthal Man -- is now accepted as a genuine human.

Cro-Magnon Man -- is now accepted as a genuine human.

C) Piltdown Man -- has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.

D) Java Man -- has been proven to be a deliberate hoax.

E) Nebraska Man -- has been proven to be an over-optimistic mistake.

F) Peking Man -- probably was a hoax. The bones have been lost.

G) Zinjanthropus -- studies show this was only a primitive ape.

H) "Lucy" -- strongly suspected of having been fully ape.

I) Archaeopteryx -- Some evidence shows sign of a hoax. There have also been fully modern birds found in earlier strata. Stephen J. Gould says it's a "curious mosaic," not a transitional fossil.

J) Coelacanth -- This was used as an index fossil for comparison dating until living specimens were found in the Indian Ocean. It is now called a "living fossil."

K) Horse Series -- This collection of unrelated fossils was put together to look like a series, and is still shown in many elementary textbooks, even though there's no relationship between them. Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History where this was displayed, said it is "lamentable" that this is still shown in textbooks by people "who know of its speculative nature."

In a court case expert witnesses are often called upon to testify. However, if it turns out they are not in fact experts but rather amateurs or crackpots, their testimony holds no weight.

The bulk of your arguments are based on expert testimony from crackpots and amateurs with an anti-evolution agenda, not on genuine science.

[shalamabobbi]

shalamabobbi:

Yes when God returns He will explain the Hows of Creation. But that is no reason for us to set aside a perfectly good theory as to how we think He did it.

Proving a negative is a pretty hard thing it do.

I have no problems with believing that Evolution is the means by which God Created everything.

I have no problems with believing that Evolution is the means by which God Created everything either. I don't know. When an atheist uses the example of an evolutionary computer program he is demonstrating an example of a creator, man, utilizing the principal to create something he wants.

I do not see how my comment was to be taken to suggest that evolution is not a plausible theory.

The question, "If evolution can't be proven, can non-evolution be proven?" was directed to LittleChild.

Let me reword it. If the evidence (geologic) in conjunction with accepting the reality of the existence of God fails to prove in your mind that evolution occurred, then does the same prove it didn't?

In other words in LittleChild's mind if the evidence is insufficient to prove evolution, isn't it also insufficient to disprove evolution?

Since Littlechild is LDS the question about the light from stars might be better directed to someone like hoops who interprets the creation account more literally.

I'm saying the supporting evidence should be scrutinized very carefully by each and every individual, and let them come to their own conclusions. They should not jump on the evolution bandwagon simply because their science professor told them its true.

I think that is true of all knowledge, especially knowledge about God. (Are you listening all christiandom?) When in school, more than one student had problems with some ideas being taught, and wrestled with them individually until they came to realize they were true. I still have problems with one aspect of the big bang theory - how energy condenses into matter without creating equal and opposite amounts of matter and anti-matter. I confess the math in this argument exceeds my level of comprehension. Maybe the theory is true with modification that will be clear when immortal realms of existence are brought into the picture. Where is Kolob, etc. Nowhere that we can see as spirit, and resurrected matter are not observable to us. It is different, as the resurrected Christ appeared to his apostles in the NT without opening the door or crawling through the window. Yet he said handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have, and then ate in front of them. We must keep in mind that math models the reality, not the other way around. Observation necessitated the math of QM. Observation necessitated a theory of dark matter. We can expect a theory to address and explain spirit matter when we arrive to a stage that it is generally observable.

There NEVER was a species that became another species. "Speciation" is an assumption with no basis in reality.

This will depend on the definition of course. There is a species of bird that varies as we move from one locale to the next around the globe. It is capable of interbreeding with its' neighbors along the way until we have circumnavigated the globe and arrive where we began. Then the interbreeding is not possible with the bird we started out with. Without an ability to adapt species would be very weak without a capacity to survive change in the environment. Birds have two openings in their lungs. They inhale through their beaks and exhale through their rears. This was another argument used against evolution for awhile. But note the following

An example is dating fossils by virtue of the fact that they were found in strata that they have already decided were formed at a particular time.

Not to get into a discussion of the geologic column, but merely that of dating. The methods used are valid, being somewhat of an expert in that field. Especially clean of all counter argument is the isochron method of dating.

I am wondering if maybe your views originated with Joseph Fielding Smith's, "Man his origin and Destiny"? And follow-on copy-cats like Bruce R McConkey? Are you aware that this was not a commissioned work by the church and that non other than David O McKay rather dissed it and said J F Smith was responsible alone for it's content? Are you aware that some rather heated debate has been exchanged between leaders of the church on this subject behind closed doors?

Melvin Cook attempted to side with this young earth view in support of J F Smith. His book about the catastrophic ice cap model is very interesting. I don't know if geologic knowledge is sufficient now to completely refute it. But I will note that a later book by Cook took all available sources of radiometric dating and showed how they agreed with one another and with what is generally considered to be the present age of the earth.

One of J F Smith's argument's about not accepting an old earth theory was "what were we (as spirits) doing sitting around for all that time?" Now that is an interesting question since we are gnolum (have always existed) so however far back we go in time, there we are, as either spirit or intelligence. Remember that J F Smith was a librarian.

Spencer Kimball gave as his reason not to believe in evolution the fact that most people who accept it lose their faith in God. I think that that would have more to do with having a preconceived notion that the theory is incompatible with faith in God, then accepting the theory while still holding to the view of incompatibility. It carries a lot of atheistic baggage at present. But the whole scientific method cannot accept something that is not known a priori to be true. It's not true until proven true, is the nature of the beast. But knowledge of God is an individual quest approached from faith in the testimony of others who know until you arrive at a station where you know as well. It is outside the scope of science since obtaining that knowledge is conditional.

[thesometimesaint]

shalamabobbi:

The math is far beyond me too. My understanding of the Matter/Antimatter issue is that there was a less 1% difference in the mix. That difference is what gave us the Universe.

For better of worse science is limited in use to what can be observed in the natural universe. If it can not be observed. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that science can not use it. I our everyday world that means we can't put God into a test tube.

Speciation has occurred whenever any organism has evolved to the point where it can any not longer breed with it parent organism.

Since a good number scientists are Christian, and a fair number of those happen to be LDS. It is a far from convincing argument to make that I will abandon religion because I, or some other, believing LDS will not abandon science because of it.

I was a scientist long before I was member of the Church. While I sustain him as Prophet, seer, and Revelator, his ideas about science leave a lot to be desired. Every man is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

[shalamabobbi]

Is there an example where the leaders (1st presidency holding the keys of the priesthood) of the kingdom of God (or the church) were in error and God did not correct them? Yes there is a rather notable example in the new testament.

It is where Christ taught the apostles about His other sheep, and that they were to hear His voice. (And remember here that Christ was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, so when He talks of his sheep of another fold, He is referring to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not to the gentiles)

But the apostles did not understand His words, and Christ did not correct them on it. Apparently being in the 1st presidency does not automatically make all one's views inerrant.

Here is something I found about the matter anti-matter problem, here.

Seems it's not a problem after all. This finding didn't exist the last time I looked..

[mfbukowski]

Evolution is still going on.

Well I have a rather strange view of it all. I also consider myself a theistic humanist. If God is human, than humanism can be seen as theist. So if God was in charge of evolution before, is he turning it over to us more now, as we develop our own non-natural world which selects for what we want? Just a thought. It's a different twist on "eternal progression". The problem of course is that we are developing technologically instead of spiritually. It's like dinosaurs with the brain the size of a walnut.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think the church being a good influence on peoples happiness or survival as evidence that certain truths claims are true, ....

I suspect your lifestyle never brought you close enough to death that you had to make a decision about which path to take. If you haven't been there, I suggest you don't go! There is a reason 12 step programs insist you give your life to a "higher power". To me, as a philosophical pragmatist, there is no criterion for truth but what "makes a difference". In this context, true or false becomes life or death. I don't mean to be dramatic- it is just a fact. When you are figuratively at the south pole of existence, you can't go farther south, you can only go north or leave the planet. Ever direction is north from the south pole. The only two choices are go north or leave the planet. I headed north.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 12:19 AM

I suspect your lifestyle never brought you close enough to death that you had to make a decision about which path to take. If you haven't been there, I suggest you don't go! There is a reason 12 step programs insist you give your life to a "higher power". To me, as a philosophical pragmatist, there is no criterion for truth but what "makes a difference". In this context, true or false becomes life or death. I don't mean to be dramatic- it is just a fact. When you are figuratively at the south pole of existence, you can't go farther south, you can only go north or leave the planet. Ever direction is north from the south pole. The only two choices are go north or leave the planet. I headed north.

Your just defining Truth differently them most including LDS. Even some false ideas and beliefs can produce positive results. If it works for you in the here and now that's great. Many use delusions to help themselves. Your definition of Truth here is what ever works is true, which means some people truths will conflict with others. It has nothing to do whether life after death is a reality or whether God actually exists or not. I guess it helps to understand how people define the words they use to hopefully understand what they are trying to say.

I probably have not been as close to death as you, but I suspect others have, and have changed their lives as well, but maybe not in the same way as you. If it's working for you I have no problem with that. I only like to present the idea that there are other alternatives.

[littlechild]

Little child,

Atheism by definition is "The absence of theistic belief." The prefix "a" means "without" so the term a-theism literally means "without theism". Atheism is not a belief, but an absence of belief.

An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.

Please understand words and definitions before you day things.

Let me see if I understand the difference between your two so-called "opposites":

"An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god."

So he doesn't thinK God doesn't exist, he just doesn't think he does? I'm more confused by your term than I am by mine. At least mine is echoed by other writers I have read. Hmmmm. Ken Wilber being one. The Marriage of Sense and Soul. You might have a look some time when you're not parsing the dictionary for other people.

From dictionary.com

Atheism # The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

So its a doctrine, and a doctrine is a belief, so I rest my case.

[mfbukowski]

Your just defining Truth differently them most including LDS. Even some false ideas and beliefs can produce positive results. If it works for you in the here and now that's great. Many use delusions to help themselves. Your definition of Truth here is what ever works is true, which means some people truths will conflict with others. It has nothing to do whether life after death is a reality or whether God actually exists or not. I guess it helps to understand how people define the words they use to hopefully understand what they are trying to say.

I probably have not been as close to death as you, but I suspect others have, and have changed their lives as well, but maybe not in the same way as you. If it's working for you I have no problem with that. I only like to present the idea that there are other alternatives.

I think most people including LDS do not have a definition of truth. Mine is based on William James and Wittgenstein and others who are pragmatists or in their camp. It is more complex than I have let on. Defining truth is not an easy thing. If one theory has more truth than another, it is more useful than the other. It is more useful to think about the world going around the sun than the other way around; rockets go where they are supposed to go etc. I believe it is more useful to think as a Mormon because it puts more pheonomena into a useful reasonable framework than any other theory I have found which purports to describe these phenomena. Evolution as a theory works because it is the simplest explanation of how species get generated. If there is ever a better one which brings more phenomena into account as well, it will become "truth". But yes, I have no problem with truth varying, because it does. I think one who does not understand that truth is relative to propositions only doesn't understand what truth is. Only statements are true or false, and circumstances change what is "true". Even something as simple as "that car is red" will change if it is night time. The car will not be red, but grey to our perceptions. We can say "well yes, but during the day it is red", but that is a different proposition. Matching paint colors in the dark is not an easy job! But metaphorically many are in the dark and trying to "see" what the truth is.

[littlechild]

Yet, I would wager at least 95% of Biologists, if not a greater portion, support the theory of evolution.

Your opinion has no credibility. Also, until their argument gains more validity the opinion of your evolution detractors, which your only truly credible source I have seen is not among, is not credible. Your position could become credible, but it is not. Someone not a biologist should not take the severe minority's view as authoritative, such denies common sense.

Can you provide any evidence as to the proportion of biologists that support your position?

That depends upon what you mean by the word "support". If you mean they believe it I concede your point. If you mean have unassailable evidence of it, you are wrong. There is no evidence of speciation. There are hopes, dreams, suppositions, but there is no proof positive that any critter ever conceived any other kind of critter than its own kind. There are no evolving species. There is no way to turn a fish into a man even given hundreds of millions of years.

Your opinion is the one with no credibility. With only half-truths and lies to support it, and I don't mean that personally, I mean that Haeckel's embryos as depicted in the major textbooks are all LIES, in that they misrepresent real embryos. When you look at real embryos, you see that the depiction of Haeckel's embryos, (a mainstay of evolutionary thought, and embryology was held by Darwin to be the greatest evidence for his theory), are NOT AT ALL realistic, and actually prove the reverse of what Haeckel said they proved.

You need to think for your self, and not be so gullible.

This isn't a voting system. I don't personally care what "authority" claims the neo-Darwinists make. They are simply wrong. Period. I know there is a growing number of real scientists who disbelieve Darwin. Checkout the Dissent from Darwin website, since you want to go with the opinions of others to come to YOUR conclusions.

[littlechild]

Just because you believe it doesn't make it so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomeronasal_organ#In_humans

Do you even read your own quotes?

It is debatable, and somewhat controversial, whether or not there is a presence of the vomeronasal system in adult humans.

Many studies have been performed to find if there is an actual presence of a VNO in adult humans. Trotier et al. estimated that around 92% of their subjects that had no septal surgery had at least one intact VNO. Kajer and Hansen, on the other hand, stated that VNO structure disappeared at later stages in development. Won (2000) found evidence of a VNO in 13 of his 22 cadavers (59.1%) and in 22 of his 78 living patients (28.2%). [7] Given these findings, some scientists have argued that there is a VNO in adult humans. [8] However there is no reported evidence that humans have active sensory neurons like those in working vomeronasal systems of other animals.

And just because you believe in vestigial organs doesn't make them vestigial.

Checkmate.

[J.S. Mill]

Do you even read your own quotes?

It is debatable, and somewhat controversial, whether or not there is a presence of the vomeronasal system in adult humans.

Many studies have been performed to find if there is an actual presence of a VNO in adult humans. Trotier et al. estimated that around 92% of their subjects that had no septal surgery had at least one intact VNO. Kajer and Hansen, on the other hand, stated that VNO structure disappeared at later stages in development. Won (2000) found evidence of a VNO in 13 of his 22 cadavers (59.1%) and in 22 of his 78 living patients (28.2%). [7] Given these findings, some scientists have argued that there is a VNO in adult humans. [8] However there is no reported evidence that humans have active sensory neurons like those in working vomeronasal systems of other animals.

And just because you believe in vestigial organs doesn't make them vestigial.

Checkmate.

Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate.

Therefore, I win.