Bored at work so I figured I would post my interesting site of the day regarding evolution

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

Please show me where BRM was the sole source of everything LDS. He was simply a man. A gifted, highly intelligent man, with a firm testimony of the Restored Gospel, but simply a man none the less.

From http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/co...mormon-doctrine

* Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four â??standard worksâ? of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

* Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Churchâ??s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

[Tarski]

What do you mean by "not literally true"? I'm talking mechanism, not meaning.

I mean that the real mechanism is evolution by natural selection where random mutation is the basic source of change and the genetic sifting or selection is done by nature without planning and not by intelligent guidance. This explains things. In principle, it explains intelligent activity itself.

I also mean that there was in fact death in the world continuously and among all species as far back as one celled organisms. I also mean that the story of Adam and Eve is fictional in the same sense that the story of Jack and the Bean Stalk is fictional. More precisely, it is on the same footing as myriad other origins myths, from those of the Hindus, to those of the ancient Japanese or native Americans

[ttribe]

I mean that the real mechanism is evolution by natural selection where random mutation is the basic source of change and the genetic sifting or selection is done by nature without planning and not by intelligent guidance. This explains things. In principle, it explains intelligent activity itself.

I also mean that there was in fact death in the world continuously and among all species as far back as one celled organisms. I also mean that the story of Adam and Eve is fictional in the same sense that the story of Jack and the Bean Stalk is fictional. More precisely, it is on the same footing as myriad other origins myths, from those of the Hindus, to those of the ancient Japanese or native Americans

Oh geez...then you and I most definitely do NOT agree Tarski.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

Then your understanding of evolution is as flawed as your understanding of LDS doctrine. Evolution is simply change. It can be directed, or undirected, beneficial or fatal. Likewise the LDS have no concept of infallibility in man or in any of his works. We accept that all men are prone to error, and misunderstanding.

[Tchild2]

All I am saying is that a literalist view on the creation and the fall is not, in my opinion, appropriate.

So, why are LDS leaders teaching, and reiterating a very literalistic interpretation of the fall and creation? What is not appropriate? That the leaders teach it, or that such leaders are wrong and that it is unnecessary for the members to believe it, such leaders that include, amongst others, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and Russel M. Nelson.

[ttribe]

So, why are LDS leaders teaching, and reitering a very literalistic interpretation of the fall and creation? What is not appropriate? That the leaders teach it, or that such are wrong and unnecessary for the members to believe it?

We just aren't communicating...I think you are interpreting the LDS Leadership teaching to be literal, when it is not, in fact, the case (speaking generally, and not individually).

[Tarski]

Tarski:

Then your understanding of evolution is as flawed as your understanding of LDS doctrine.

Oh come on. We are talking about the theory of evolution by natural selection. Not just "change". You can add in genetic drift and the like but when you add in "directed" then we are talking about breeding and not what is under discussion. No serious biologists thinks primates were breed into existence.

How did my understanding of evolutionary concepts become so flawed? By reading several serious books on the subject?

Quit playing word games.

[Tchild2]

We just aren't communicating...I think you are interpreting the LDS Leadership teaching to be literal, when it is not, in fact, the case (speaking generally, and not individually).

I am reading talks posted on LDS.org by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and Russell M. Nelson and the content of the Gospel principals to get my church teachings concerning the fall. What are you reading?

[ttribe]

I am reading talks posted on LDS.org by Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie and Russell M. Nelson and the content of the Gospel principals to get my church teachings concerning the fall. What are you reading?

Never mind...this is getting nowhere.

Oh, and don't interpret this as a concession. I am simply worn out right now trying to multi-task by being billable at work and keeping up with your insistence that I don't know what I am talking about. Something's got to give...in this case, it's this argument.

[lostindc]

Big deal about the PhDs, pretty common nowadays, I consider my PhD days as the easiest period of my life, really does not mean much especially for a math PhD to be discussing the Spiritual realm and trying to use their diploma as validation.

The point I want to make is that a giraffe has not become a flying parrot nosed giraffe and that a lion has not become a human (except in the Wizard of Oz which is pretty much the same realm of those grasping at straws that think we came from an ape).

[Tchild2]

The point I want to make is that a giraffe has not become a flying parrot nosed giraffe and that a lion has not become a human (except in the Wizard of Oz which is pretty much the same realm of those grasping at straws that think we came from an ape).

No one said that they did. Btw, what does religion say about it? What answers has religion / revelation provided that are more accurate?

[spinner]

Big deal about the PhDs, pretty common nowadays, I consider my PhD days as the easiest period of my life, really does not mean much especially for a math PhD to be discussing the Spiritual realm and trying to use their diploma as validation.

The point I want to make is that a giraffe has not become a flying parrot nosed giraffe and that a lion has not become a human (except in the Wizard of Oz which is pretty much the same realm of those grasping at straws that think we came from an ape).

Wow, if that's how you think evolution operates you deserve to have your PhD yanked; I don't care what subject it's in.

[lostindc]

Wow, if that's how you think evolution operates you deserve to have your PhD yanked; I don't care what subject it's in.

Say what you want about speciation but a fact is a fact, and if you want to think that you came from a monkey then that is fine with me, but I will take a different road and accept the fact that my human race is far more superior than a monkey, half monkey, 1/4 monkey or however it is designated.

No Adam, no play

[Tarski]

Big deal about the PhDs, pretty common nowadays, I consider my PhD days as the easiest period of my life, really does not mean much especially for a math PhD to be discussing the Spiritual realm and trying to use their diploma as validation.

The point I want to make is that a giraffe has not become a flying parrot nosed giraffe and that a lion has not become a human

Huh? So what? Who would say such a thing? (and what kind of PhD in any subject would imagine that organic evolution entails anything of the sort?)

By the way, when I left UCLA with a PhD there were three highly intelligent young men who had been struggling to prove a relevant PhD worthy mathematical theorem and had been for 8 years. I have never met anyone who got a PhD in a hard science or exact science that said it was anything close to easy--quite the opposite. It's not uncommon for people to simply give and people smarter than me have done so. (Maybe it's different if one gets a PhD in one of the humanities--I couldn't say)

I don't know what subject you got your PhD in or what school it was but if it was easy then it doesn't speak highly of the degree, the school, the subject (or all three).

So why did I bring up a PhD in math? Simple; because someone decided to assert that I needed to take logic 101. That's annoying since I have quite a bit of both training and skill in logic. You may as well insult Daniel C. Peterson by telling him that he needs to learn a couple words of Arabic.

You want me to slink away when some poster who knows nothing about me blurts out something like that?

I promise you that a PhD in mathematical physics from a school like UCLA is not easy and it does require original logical thinking of the highest order. By contrast, I would like to hear your notion of a truly deep spiritual insight. Let's hear it.

Call me arrogant if you like, but I don't feel the need to endure such misguided insults cheerfully.

[lostindc]

Huh? So what? Who would say such a thing? (and what kind of PhD in any subject would imagine that organic evolution entails anything of the sort?)

By the way, when I left UCLA with a PhD there were three highly intelligent young men who had been struggling to prove a relevant PhD worthy mathematical theorem and had been for 8 years. I have never met anyone who got a PhD in a hard science or exact science that said it was anything close to easy--quite the opposite. It's not uncommon for people to simply give and people smarter than me have done so. (Maybe it's different if one gets a PhD in one of the humanities--I couldn't say)

I don't know what subject you got your PhD in or what school it was but if it was easy then it doesn't speak highly of the degree, the school, the subject (or all three).

So why did I bring up a PhD in math? Simple; because someone decided to assert that I needed to take logic 101. That's annoying since I have quite a bit of both training and skill in logic. You may as well insult Daniel C. Peterson by telling him that he needs to learn a couple words of Arabic.

You want me to slink away when some poster who knows nothing about me blurts out something like that?

I promise you that a PhD in mathematical physics from a school like UCLA is not easy and it does require original logical thinking of the highest order. By contrast, I would like to hear your notion of a truly deep spiritual insight. Let's hear it.

Call me arrogant if you like, but I don't feel the need to endure such misguided insults cheerfully.

wow, I am really at a loss of words as to why a person of your intelligence would get so upset over words, especially since you have no problem throwing around insults and accusations towards a bunch of Mormons on an internet message board. I would have figured that your lengthy education would have taught you something about social situations.

[spinner]

Say what you want about speciation but a fact is a fact, and if you want to think that you came from a monkey then that is fine with me, but I will take a different road and accept the fact that my human race is far more superior than a monkey, half monkey, 1/4 monkey or however it is designated.

No Adam, no play

First, you were making statements about "a giraffe becoming a parrot". I promise I will send you a personal check for $100 if you can find a statement where anybody has seriously suggested such a thing.

Secondly, even with what I assume was an attempt to make a more serious example, you mis-state evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory DOES NOT claim we 'came from a monkey'. It states that primates (including humans) descended from a common ancestor. This is an important difference.

As to humans being "for more superior than a monkey" (sic), 'superiority' is some value you have created and is meaningless in a biological sense.

You claim to be a PhD, so please attempt to at least educate yourself on what evolutionary theory actually says. It is the unifying theory of biology, and if you choose not to believe it, it behooves you to at least understand what you're rejecting, rather than embarrassing yourself by throwing around ridiculous strawmen like giraffes becoming parrots.

[lostindc]

First, you were making statements about "a giraffe becoming a parrot". I promise I will send you a personal check for $100 if you can find a statement where anybody has seriously suggested such a thing.Secondly, even with what I assume was an attempt to make a more serious example, you mis-state evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory DOES NOT claim we 'came from a monkey'. It states that primates (including humans) descended from a common ancestor. This is an important difference.As to humans being "for more superior than a monkey" (sic), 'superiority' is some value you have created and is meaningless in a biological sense. You claim to be a PhD, so please attempt to at least educate yourself on what evolutionary theory actually says. It is the unifying theory of biology, and if you choose not to believe it, it behooves you to at least understand what you're rejecting, rather than embarrassing yourself by throwing around ridiculous strawmen like giraffes becoming parrots.

Okay, I accept your common ancestor theory and further that by stating we all came from matter, what say ye?

Okay, I accept your common ancestor theory and further that by stating we all came from matter, what say ye?

I postulate this:No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce â??after their own kind.â? (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor â??do men gather â?¦ figs of thistles.â? (Matt. 7:16.)Anything in the between, I could care less...

[The Dude]

I postulate this:No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce â??after their own kind.â? (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor â??do men gather â?¦ figs of thistles.â? (Matt. 7:16.)Anything in the between, I could care less...

Dr. lost, you should quote the source of this insightful postulate. It isn't you, but LDS apostle Boyd K Packer:

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce â??after their own kind.â? (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor â??do men gather â?¦ figs of thistles.â? (Matt. 7:16.)

The Pattern of our Parentage

speaking as a man, of course.

[spinner]

Okay, I accept your common ancestor theory and further that by stating we all came from matter, what say ye?I postulate this:No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

Once again, you continue to mis-state evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does not require a bird to become MAMMAL (which I assume is what you meant when you typed "animal") or a fish, nor does it require a mammal to produce reptilian offspring. Your refusal or inability to correctly characterize evolutionary theory demonstrates that you choose to deliberately to remain ignorant of this theory, most likely because it threatens your beliefs.

Anything in the between, I could care less...

That much is becoming obvious.

[lostindc]

Dr. lost, you should quote the source of this insightful postulate. It isn't you, but LDS apostle Boyd K Packer:The Pattern of our Parentagespeaking as a man, of course.

I figured that was pretty obvious, that they were not my words, just as obvious your anti-intelligent design beliefs, but again another obvious phenomenon slips through the large cracks, much like the large cracks of natural selection eventually creating man.

Once again, you continue to mis-state evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory does not require a bird to become MAMMAL (which I assume is what you meant when you typed "animal") or a fish, nor does it require a mammal to produce reptilian offspring. Your refusal or inability to correctly characterize evolutionary theory demonstrates that you choose to deliberately to remain ignorant of this theory, most likely because it threatens your beliefs. That much is becoming obvious.

there are a great deal of friends waiting for you on the Flat Earth forum, have you thought about going there instead of hanging out a Mormon message board?

[spinner]

there are a great deal of friends waiting for you on the Flat Earth forum, have you thought about going there instead of hanging out a Mormon message board?

Well perhaps the flat-earthers would at least be able to accurately characterize the facts that they are rejecting.

[lostindc]

Well perhaps the flat-earthers would at least be able to accurately characterize the facts that they are rejecting.

sounds great, run along and go characterize with them all the way to Hell...

[Tarski]

wow, I am really at a loss of words

Really? Well good.

I, however, am not at a loss of words.

[spinner]

sounds great, run along and go characterize with them all the way to Hell...

Awesome, this is the first time I've ever been told I'm going to hell on this board.

(btw, it occurs to me that you may have been trying to equivocate acceptance of evolutionary science with belief in a flat earth? If so, wow that is rich considering the source. Funnier even than your impotent bluster about me going to hell. )

[lostindc]

Awesome, this is the first time I've ever been told I'm going to hell on this board. (btw, it occurs to me that you may have been trying to equivocate acceptance of evolutionary science with belief in a flat earth? If so, wow that is rich considering the source. Funnier even than your impotent bluster about me going to hell. )

again sarcasm goes through the cracks of another friend of the Mormons

Really? Well good. I, however, am not at a loss of words.

Wait, I just came up with a word: unhappy