Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[nymmtizruth]

Have any of the renigades of logic done the math required to model evolution with much more than a wiff of demands?

I predict that the calculations for an exhaustive model would require the entire mass of the universe times infinity. Only something infinate and eternal could begin to account for all the demands. That sounds alot like God.

It cannot be just one little puddle of pond scum radiated by cosmic bombardment until something twitches. It has to last for millions of years and be darn robust and enduring stuff that supports the mash and that mash has to be voluminous to infinity to get enough randomness to line up the twitches in a sequence that connects and all those connections have to be the volume of infinity to blah blah blah enough and long enough to blah blah blah for ever and ever and to an infinate degree until you just run out of stuff all together. With nothing left to shine or divide the day from the night all you end up with is a mass of confusion. And that is just great. The haters of God could not be more pleased.

God said he made man after his own likeness and image. Relating this here is out of its true context, even though it make a point. The species are organized from the top down, a degeneration from God's perfection down and througout to the least living thing. Of course Mormons know that all the plants and animals were already created an infinate number of revolutions of ends from the beginnings ago, and only transplanted the seeds and placed man and the beasts upon this sphere. There was a great interuption between the fossel record and present plant and animal life on this world.

Come to think of it has anybody discovered anything that links the fossel life to present life? Is there not a complete and distinct seperation between the old and the new. Where does it show otherwise? How do you prove it? Were you there?

The accounts of the creation of man and animals were to bring forth the next generation of spirit births and had nothing to do with the Prime creation of anything. Can anyone read the creation scriptures correctly? And the scoffers even worse. You do not know the end from the beginning and so you have no clue what is really being told. Every herb was created spiritually before it was naturally upon the face of the earth. Do you hear it!

If you come to Zion perhaps I would tell you more about it.

[BCSpace]

If Evolution is the ONLY theory that fits, then how can you believe in God. Darwinist evolution does not allow for God.

CFR. Please state that part of evolution theory which addresses the existence of God or that man is or is not created in His image.

Natural selection is the best case.

How so?

"The origin of man" that is completely devoid of any reference of God as our creator, is another.

Why should a scientific theory include mention of God and how does not mentioning God preclude God?

But stop playing games. Almost everyone on this board that believes in Darwinist evolution knows that its an either or thing.

Still awaiting an actual response to the CFR.....

[e=mc2]

If Evolution is the ONLY theory that fits, then how can you believe in God. Darwinist evolution does not allow for God.

This is false. I just have to add my two cents worth in. I usually don't jump into evolution threads because they end up being so cantankerous, and ridiculous sillies are always stated. You idea here is wrong. There are some Darwinists who claim this, but Darwinism as a whole is not about God, but about evolution. It makes no statements about God.

[Analytics]

This is false. I just have to add my two cents worth in. I usually don't jump into evolution threads because they end up being so cantankerous, and ridiculous sillies are always stated. You idea here is wrong. There are some Darwinists who claim this, but Darwinism as a whole is not about God, but about evolution. It makes no statements about God.

Whether or not evolution is compatible with â??Godâ? depends upon how God is defined, including Godâ??s attributes, procedures, and methods. Many, many, theists have been threatened by the theory of evolution, because it isnâ??t compatible with how they conceptualize God. The theory of evolution goes into great detail in explaining the origin of the species. Various religions have had a lot to say on that topic, and in general, evolution shows that the religious speculation on this topic has been wrong.

If God is left ill-defined then evolution doesnâ??t have anything to say about God. But, for example, if you claim that God is a homo sapiens complete with toenails but originating from a different planet, Evolution has a lot to say about that.

[Eldwynn]

It's comments like this and people like you that make wanting to understand difficult.

Now come on, you have to have known the some spark or electrical accident had to be the catalyst, they spent many years trying to duplicate it in a lab with no success - and you accuse me of not knowing anything?

Yes, he has and I've seen the video.

I should have said that "...Darwin's understanding is dwarfed by our current knowledge."

You don't give Darwin enough credit, I think he did know something about genetics, especially by the time he'd completed the development of his theory.

As for your statement on DNA, I would have to refer back to the post I had in my original post. I just don't have the background to discuss anything about DNA, but others that do are the ones that question.

If DNA had all the genetic code necessary for the organisms formation, then how could the parent cell of a dog become a plant also. The way I see it a dog, horse, rose or what ever will always be that way, fundamentally. A horse won't turn into a cactus over millions of years, it may look very different or not be around at all but it won't be what it's not. That's what I mean.

Guess what, I want to understand where people are coming from. That gives me more than enough reason to "chime in." But again you seem to be selective in your own understanding since species qualification has had it's own evolution. It didn't take much reading to figure that out.

I think academia is squelching debate. I don't know if it's been settled in the lab, I need to do my own studying. I don't think the courts have any weight in this issue.

I don't think you understand my point. Since Evolution is still a theory, then there are still points unproven. But to those in the religion of evolution, there is no question. In order to fully embrace Darwinist evolution, you have to deny the existence of God. It's very similar to the advocates of global warming, disagreement is not allowed. By the way, anyone can say the do real science every day, so do I, just not in a biological discipline.

By the way, it's spelled r e l i g i o u s.

Aspects and understandings of evolutions have real evidence, but if it was complete it wouldn't be just a theory. I try very hard to understand where people are coming from, and I believe that the theory of evolution is a very respectable way for man to understand the world around him. But when men and science become so convinced that their right, it usually means their wrong or at least not completely right. I believe in God first and try to stay open minded to His, not my understanding. Science has been wrong too many times before to trust it blindly. It's become so political that it's hard to trust at all.

In the quote by Richard Dawkins professing a belief that aliens were more likely than a God in starting the process, he actually supports the idea of intelligent design. I believe that many scientists are starting to look to intelligent design due to the lack of evidence to the contrary.

If I remember right it was science that also believed in the flat earth. Also, if you talk to a quantum physicist, he will tell you that spirits are energy and that there is negative and positive energy and that negative energy can make someone sick or at least feel sick. They are actually able to measure this in labs. There's some science for ya.

I'm as interested as time permits. While I wouldn't mind reading Dawkins, and will at some point, I would want to find a good counter resource because I believe that Dawkins has an agenda. I'll start by picking up my son's college biology text, that's the most handy for now.

I'm sorry if it's mean for me to say.... but really, I am not going to teach you what took me years to learn for myself in a message board. Sorry. But I will respond in vain to a few points of yours that just glaringly poked out.

"If DNA had all the genetic code necessary for the organisms formation, then how could the parent cell of a dog become a plant also. The way I see it a dog, horse, rose or what ever will always be that way, fundamentally. A horse won't turn into a cactus over millions of years, it may look very different or not be around at all but it won't be what it's not. That's what I mean. "

You misunderstand evolution. Evolution does not suggest that the parent of a dog cell becomes a plant cell, nor can it. However, species do change in small amounts over time, and in large amounts over a large amount of time, until they would be theoretically unable to mate with the original. This has happened, but it never happens overnight. I think you misunderstand DNA. Our DNA does not have the entire code of a plants DNA. We have things plant DNA does not have, and vice versa.

However, my favorite point of yours is this:

" Since Evolution is still a theory, then there are still points unproven"

This is a red flag that we need to be talking about what science is, and what theory is. Without an understanding of this, you are doomed in understanding evolution.

I wouldn't read a biology textbook. They are incredibly boring to me, and I major in the subject. I would recommend some of the videos that have recently came out about it. However, Dawkins really is the best place to go. His writings on the subject are a treasure to many that read them. He is an incredible biologist, as well as an incredible writer (for a Brit!)

p.s.

You don't understand Quantum physics. Please don't bring it up again. There is enough bad information about the theory out there, and enough people throwing the term around and trying to say something about it. Even famous Physicists admit that they don't understand it yet, so I doubt "Quantum healers" and others are using the term for anything more than a catch phrase.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

I'm as TBM as they come, and I have no problem with Evolution. Do not conflate the tool with the tool user.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

I'm as TBM as they come, and I have no problem with Evolution. Do not conflate the tool with the tool user.

Do you think Evolution is the tool that God used to fashion mankind after His likeness?

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Yes.

[John Williams]

Do you think Evolution is the tool that God used to fashion mankind after His likeness?

That's what I can't figure out. You have all of these pre-Adamites living, dying, and evolving, and then at some point, they have evolved into homo sapiens, identical to God (at least in His pre-God state). Then you drop Adam and Eve into the garden, where they and everything else within that "world" cannot die, cannot sin, while the world outside the garden continues as it has. Finally, Adam and Eve eat the fruit, become mortal, and join the outside, mortal world. And all of this happens without a bump in evolutionary progress.

Can someone explain to me what I'm getting wrong?

[thesometimesaint]

John W:

Whether I use the hammer(tool)to build a house or a hovel it is still just a tool.

From what we have in the Scripture the GoE is a special place quite apart from the world as we know it.

I would not say "can not sin" because they obviously did transgress.

Why should there be a bump? A&E were kicked out of the GoE into the lone and dreary world.

[jmhughes]

I'm sorry if it's mean for me to say.... but really, I am not going to teach you what took me years to learn for myself in a message board. Sorry. But I will respond in vain to a few points of yours that just glaringly poked out.

"If DNA had all the genetic code necessary for the organisms formation, then how could the parent cell of a dog become a plant also. The way I see it a dog, horse, rose or what ever will always be that way, fundamentally. A horse won't turn into a cactus over millions of years, it may look very different or not be around at all but it won't be what it's not. That's what I mean. "

You misunderstand evolution. Evolution does not suggest that the parent of a dog cell becomes a plant cell, nor can it. However, species do change in small amounts over time, and in large amounts over a large amount of time, until they would be theoretically unable to mate with the original. This has happened, but it never happens overnight. I think you misunderstand DNA. Our DNA does not have the entire code of a plants DNA. We have things plant DNA does not have, and vice versa.

However, my favorite point of yours is this:

" Since Evolution is still a theory, then there are still points unproven"

This is a red flag that we need to be talking about what science is, and what theory is. Without an understanding of this, you are doomed in understanding evolution.

I wouldn't read a biology textbook. They are incredibly boring to me, and I major in the subject. I would recommend some of the videos that have recently came out about it. However, Dawkins really is the best place to go. His writings on the subject are a treasure to many that read them. He is an incredible biologist, as well as an incredible writer (for a Brit!)

p.s.

You don't understand Quantum physics. Please don't bring it up again. There is enough bad information about the theory out there, and enough people throwing the term around and trying to say something about it. Even famous Physicists admit that they don't understand it yet, so I doubt "Quantum healers" and others are using the term for anything more than a catch phrase.

First, don't tell me what not to bring up. Especially when it was only a superficial reference to your attempt to understand religion and the bible. You have no idea what I understand and if even famous Physicists don't understand, what makes you think you do. All I did is make a reference to what one Quantum physicist said to show you that your probably not as all knowing as you think you are. I'll admit my deficits, people like you won't. You just love to get snarky with religious folk because their too stupid to believe in anything else but the ridiculous concept of God.

As stated above in another post, there is a massive gap between the fossil record and what we have now and no connection has been made. Which was my point in the first place. There are scientists that questions the direction of those like Dawkins because there are still way too many questions that haven't been answered and if "Intelligent Design" is used as a possible answer, the Darwinists start their own modern day witch hunt.

Since you don't understand religion, maybe you should go somewhere else, but don't bring it up here.

[jmhughes]

This is false. I just have to add my two cents worth in. I usually don't jump into evolution threads because they end up being so cantankerous, and ridiculous sillies are always stated. You idea here is wrong. There are some Darwinists who claim this, but Darwinism as a whole is not about God, but about evolution. It makes no statements about God.

On the surface, I would agree with this. And I'm very much in the camp of evolution as a process that God can use and work with. The modern evolutionist movement is, as I've stated before, very religious in nature. Their prophet is Darwin and their God is the science. The movers and shakers in the movement, Dawkins specifically, use the science of evolution to fight any reference to religion or God. They will do their best to retaliate against those that even breath of Intelligent Design. The purpose of the mainstream movement is to debunk any form of Creationism or Intelligent Design and replace it with their "religion" of Evolution.

[jmhughes]

How so?

Why should a scientific theory include mention of God and how does not mentioning God preclude God?

Still awaiting an actual response to the CFR.....

Check out a review of Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion"

From Publishers Weekly

The antireligion wars started by Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris will heat up even more with this salvo from celebrated Oxford biologist Dawkins. For a scientist who criticizes religion for its intolerance, Dawkins has written a surprisingly intolerant book, full of scorn for religion and those who believe. But Dawkins, who gave us the selfish gene, anticipates this criticism. He says it's the scientist and humanist in him that makes him hostile to religionsâ??fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come in for the most opprobriumâ??that close people's minds to scientific truth, oppress women and abuse children psychologically with the notion of eternal damnation. While Dawkins can be witty, even confirmed atheists who agree with his advocacy of science and vigorous rationalism may have trouble stomaching some of the rhetoric: the biblical Yahweh is "psychotic," Aquinas's proofs of God's existence are "fatuous" and religion generally is "nonsense." The most effective chapters are those in which Dawkins calms down, for instance, drawing on evolution to disprove the ideas behind intelligent design. In other chapters, he attempts to construct a scientific scaffolding for atheism, such as using evolution again to rebut the notion that without God there can be no morality. He insists that religion is a divisive and oppressive force, but he is less convincing in arguing that the world would be better and more peaceful without it. (Oct. 18)

Copyright

[cjcampbell]

If Evolution is the ONLY theory that fits, then how can you believe in God. Darwinist evolution does not allow for God.

To the contrary. I see it as a strong argument that God MUST exist. Not only is the progress of evolution too directed to appear truly random, it provides a mechanism for the creation of God Himself. With an infinite number of worlds in an infinite number of universes, all collapsing on themselves and then forming into new universes, not only must there be universes that are near duplicates of our own, but there must be places where individuals have learned to survive the endless collision of strings that creates universes and even manipulate the formation of the resulting new universes.

[jmhughes]

To the contrary. I see it as a strong argument that God MUST exist. Not only is the progress of evolution too directed to appear truly random, it provides a mechanism for the creation of God Himself. With an infinite number of worlds in an infinite number of universes, all collapsing on themselves and then forming into new universes, not only must there be universes that are near duplicates of our own, but there must be places where individuals have learned to survive the endless collision of strings that creates universes and even manipulate the formation of the resulting new universes.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. I'm also willing to do some legwork if there is some balances sources out there. I'm not convince that guys like Dawkins are balanced so in order for me to read his stuff, I want something that will take a different approach so I can see both sides. If you would be so kind as to list for me what you have read that brought you to this conclusion, I'd appreciate.

You'll have to agree with me though that the mainstream evolutionists are going to great lengths to push God out of the picture.

[Eldwynn]

First, don't tell me what not to bring up. Especially when it was only a superficial reference to your attempt to understand religion and the bible. You have no idea what I understand and if even famous Physicists don't understand, what makes you think you do. All I did is make a reference to what one Quantum physicist said to show you that your probably not as all knowing as you think you are. I'll admit my deficits, people like you won't. You just love to get snarky with religious folk because their too stupid to believe in anything else but the ridiculous concept of God.

As stated above in another post, there is a massive gap between the fossil record and what we have now and no connection has been made. Which was my point in the first place. There are scientists that questions the direction of those like Dawkins because there are still way too many questions that haven't been answered and if "Intelligent Design" is used as a possible answer, the Darwinists start their own modern day witch hunt.

Since you don't understand religion, maybe you should go somewhere else, but don't bring it up here.

Funny enough, I got on to apologize for my tone. Telling someone they don't understand something is no way to get what I want (which is a better understanding of science, especially from religious folk).

I never claimed to understand Quantum physics. I don't really. I only know as much physics as I learned in two semesters at my University. However, I have a mother who uses "Quantum healing" and takes quite a bit of money from people for doing nothing at all. This bothers me, and it bothers me when I see people talking about the term. Perhaps it is a bit of unwarranted personal bias. I apologize again.

Before I go into some of your claims about Evolution (something I know quite a bit about...) I wanted to talk about my "understandings" of religion. I was raised religious, and was an avid believer. I am by no means a theology major, but I read both the Bible, the standard works of the church, and was well on my way to serve a mission right before leaving. Indeed, I am sure there is much we disagree on, but I by no means want to come across as misunderstanding you. If I make a claim about religious people, it is because it was what I once believed (as a religious person) typically. If this is not what you personally believe, then by all means, correct me. I will fully admit ignorance when it comes to the specifics what Mormons believe, despite me being raised in the church. I have found that beliefs vary within Mormons just as much as they vary between Mormonism and classical Christianity sometimes. I do not want to be guilty of painting Mormonism, or religion for that matter, with a wide brush and thus knocking down a straw man.

Now onto evolution:

" there is a massive gap between the fossil record and what we have now and no connection has been made. "

I don't know what you expect the fossil record to have/not to have. We are rather lucky to have the number of fossils we do. Fossils are not easily made, and I will be the first to say that fossils are not enough evidence for me. Darwin used them a lot when he laid down the theory, but honestly, if we only had fossils, I would probably be right there with you doubting the evidence. However, fossils do not contradict, or disprove, evolution in any way. They help us understand a great deal of things we would never understand. However, they are not necessary to prove common ancestry between all living things (which I think is what many people have trouble understanding. If this isn't the case, then let me know). I strongly recommend the books. I really think they would clear up everything you could have. The Blind Watchmaker is especially great at showing how evolution reveals a world without design, and also has a wonderful chapter on miracles and luck when it comes to the origin of life. The book is pure gold as a starting point for understanding evolution, and has very little religious rhetoric. The Ancestors Tale, takes it in an entirely different direction. Dawkins talks about our ancestors, on an evolutionary level. It reminds me of the excitement I had (and still have) for researching my dead human ancestors, but in this case, you are looking at the ancestors of mankind, and what they teach us. It is a long book, but both are incredibly easy reads. If you have any more specific issues/questions that you want an answer on, feel free to ask.

Here is a video to get you started, by David Attenborough.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&...ab=wv&dur=3

I am uncomftorable with how you equate a understanding of science as a religion. Perhaps I could understand you better if you defined what you feel science is, and what your definition of religion is, before I attempt to try and answer. I was at one point very religious. While I admit that an understanding of the scientific method, and especially evolution, is what shaked my belief in the first place, I do not feel like I have replaced one religion with another.

When I grew up in the church, I never questioned anything. Stories I heard and read in the bible, BOM, and heard in Sunday school, I just assumed to be true. At some point, it really started to bother me, especially when I started making friends who believed OTHER religious stories just as fervently. I wanted a way to know who was right, mainly so I could convince them that my church was right. A learning of science showed me just how. While you technically can't prove anything with scientific theories (which is where the word comes from) by disproving null hypothesis's you can statistically come close enough for me.

The problem of evolution and god comes probably from the following idea, and is the reason many say they are not compatible. Evolution elegantly explains how complex organisms (whether its humans, an animal cell, or DNA) come to exist. If you use god to explain evolution, then you are essentially creating a circular argument. If god set up evolution in the first place, then you are invoking the very thing you are trying to explain, as the cause of your conclusion. And saying, "well god was always there" is not a good answer to the problem. You may as well say that "DNA was always there" or "Life was always here".

In closing, I wanted to touch on one statement you made in a post further down:

"I haven't read the book in it's entirety and won't until I can find a good counter argument."

I think this sentence sums up at least partly a fundamental difference between you and I. I could never imagine ignoring a book until I found a good counter-argument BEFORE I even read it. Imagine if you were a missionary, and someone said, "Yes I will read the Book of Mormon, but only after I have read every argument against it out there, after all, I wouldn't want to take the chance that I would believe it". To me, this is what you are saying, and it is a rather sad state of affairs. Perhaps I misunderstand you though, or you didn't mean it the way I interpreted it.

[Grace de Maya]

That's what I can't figure out. You have all of these pre-Adamites living, dying, and evolving, and then at some point, they have evolved into homo sapiens, identical to God (at least in His pre-God state). Then you drop Adam and Eve into the garden, where they and everything else within that "world" cannot die, cannot sin, while the world outside the garden continues as it has. Finally, Adam and Eve eat the fruit, become mortal, and join the outside, mortal world. And all of this happens without a bump in evolutionary progress.

Can someone explain to me what I'm getting wrong?

Do you mean what you're "getting wrong" according to the scriptures? Because if you mean "pre-Adamites" like HUMANS, than I think you're mistaken. Because that would mean Adam and Eve weren't the first HUMANS, and they weren't the first MORTALS. And if you mean that Adam and EVE "joined the outside world" by leaving the garden and living with other humans, then Adam and Eve wouldn't be the first humans.

The FALL is part of the ATONEMENT, but you are describing a world that was created in its FALLEN (MORTAL) state, so there would be no need for a FALL OF ADAM. According to your story, where did Adam and Eve come from? Have you been to the TEMPLE!?

And can someone tell me if Evolution (and Creation) stopped when the Garden of Eden happened? Genesis says:

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. http://' target="_blank"> 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

So, if God made the world using evolution, what do the scriptures mean when they say He was "finished"? Did evolution stop?

[Eldwynn]

John W:

Whether I use the hammer(tool)to build a house or a hovel it is still just a tool.

From what we have in the Scripture the GoE is a special place quite apart from the world as we know it.

I would not say "can not sin" because they obviously did transgress.

Why should there be a bump? A&E were kicked out of the GoE into the lone and dreary world.

But evolution doesn't need someone to "use" it for it to work. You can't draw an analogy from evolution to a hammer. Evolution is a process by which complexity arises, and it doesn't need a supernatural "wielder" for it to work. To invoke an intelligence to begin with, is to invoke the very thing evolution tries to explain, as causing evolution. Hammers are made from hammer makers. Imagine though, that you had a theory that hammers actually BECAME hammer makers. It would not make logical sense, to say that they do this because hammer makers designed them to do it in the first place.

It undermines the very problem Darwin was answering in the first place! I know my analogy can seem sort of bad, but I can't think of anything that works like evolution to draw an analogy from. In the case of hammers, hammer makers do indeed make the hammers, but in the case of intelligent life, it evolved through a very long (so long that your brain, which was crafted by evolution to perceive things that happen in a time-frame that is "set" to one human life time, has trouble comprehending the amount of time it took) process, reaching back 4 billion years.

[Eldwynn]

Do you mean what you're "getting wrong" according to the scriptures? Because if you mean "pre-Adamites" like HUMANS, than I think you're mistaken. Because that would mean Adam and Eve weren't the first HUMANS, and they weren't the first MORTALS. And if you mean that Adam and EVE "joined the outside world" by leaving the garden and living with other humans, then Adam and Eve wouldn't be the first humans.

The FALL is part of the ATONEMENT, but you are describing a world that was created in its FALLEN (MORTAL) state, so there would be no need for a FALL OF ADAM. According to your story, where did Adam and Eve come from? Have you been to the TEMPLE!?

I know FARMs wrote a little article about "life before adam". To me, there are a great deal of problems with the Adam and Eve story when using evolution, because of a variety of assumptions people make.

1) Adam and Eve are the parents of everyone... in other words, everyone can trace their ancestry back to a couple living 6,000 years ago, and they had no parents. This is definitely not true.

2) Adam and Eve were the first Homo Sapiens. It's not as if the parents of "the first homo sapiens" were NOT homo sapiens. You have to remember that species don't actually exist back through time. Imagine if we had a time machine. Let's say we were to go back 200,000 years ago. This would be 50,000 years before mitochondrial eve (which has nothing to do with the Eve of the bible). You would meet a man-like species called: Homo heidelbergensis. They would be eerily human like, but have smaller brains, be a bit shorter than the average homo-sapien, and you could not mate with them. This is why we call them different species.

HOWEVER consider the following: Get in a time machine. Go back 10,000 years ago. Grab a human there (probably living in Africa or Egypt) and go back another 10,000 years. Grab another one. Go back another 10,000 years. etc. etc. Until you get to 190,000 years ago. Grab another (technically homo-sapien, but he would be a little different) and go back 10,000 years. You would have a few that COULD mate and produce fertile offspring with the human like Homo heidelbergensis.

What is my point? That a giant pitfall in understanding evolution is called "a discontinous mind". It's not as if Homo heidelbergensis became Homo Sapiens in one generation. You NEVER have parents that could not reproduce with their offspring(at least because they are different species... some disease or such could happen). Evolution would never work that quickly. However, over the many generations, looking back in time, you could differentiate the species by whether or not they were likely to reproduce. Species is a man made concept, not a nature made one.

It beats the hell out of me why people choose to believe a creation story (that isn't even ORIGINAL when you think about it) that was written several thousand years ago, by a man for all we know, could have been lying (in the same sense that the Romans, Greeks, Native americans, and other people who made up creation stories were lying) or in reality, was probably just mistaken, over a story that is made from the best evidence science has, the same evidence that shows how virus's evolve to make people sick each season, even though we have an immune system that is very efficient. The same evidence that modern biology, medicine, pharmacology, etc. etc. is built on.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

You do know the difference between an analogy and an equation don't you?

The Theory of Evolution does not mandate a creator, any more than it says there can be no God.

Mathematics does not mandate a God, but it does require a creator.

To give but one example for inorganic chemistry. Anyone at all can add Iron fillings to Sulfuric acid. They will get Ferrous Sulfate, Hydrogen, and quite a bit of heat. These are the tools of the chemist. However it does take a "Creator" to combine those ingredients, and get the predicted results.

[Eldwynn]

Eldwynn:

You do know the difference between an analogy and an equation don't you?

The Theory of Evolution does not mandate a creator, any more than it says there can be no God.

Mathematics does not mandate a God, but it does require a creator.

To give but one example for inorganic chemistry. Anyone at all can add Iron fillings to Sulfuric acid. They will get Ferrous Sulfate, Hydrogen, and quite a bit of heat. These are the tools of the chemist. However it does take a "Creator" to combine those ingredients, and get the predicted results.

I really don't see what your point is when you say Mathematics required a creator. Yes, we invented Math. No, we did not invent evolution. Mathematics was invented, Evolution was discovered. Sorry if I missed your point.

Sure, many things in chemistry can be done by humans. In that case, it does indeed take an intelligence to create them. However, Evolution has no such intelligence. It doesn't look far ahead in the future. Humans are not an end goal, indeed evolution has no goal. This is why sometimes an "easy" solution to a problem (like the human eye) can not be attained, because it was slowly evolved (I am talking about our blind spot). Biology (especially cellular biology) is filled with examples that show that evolution designed the cell, not a designer.

Your analogy really fails, because there are plenty of instances where chemical equations happen by non-intelligent mechanisms. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you (I hope I am) but did you really mean to convey that no chemistry can happen without some sort of intelligence behind it pulling the strings? Because many biological reactions happen merely by accident.

[John Williams]

Do you mean what you're "getting wrong" according to the scriptures? Because if you mean "pre-Adamites" like HUMANS, than I think you're mistaken. Because that would mean Adam and Eve weren't the first HUMANS, and they weren't the first MORTALS. And if you mean that Adam and EVE "joined the outside world" by leaving the garden and living with other humans, then Adam and Eve wouldn't be the first humans.

The FALL is part of the ATONEMENT, but you are describing a world that was created in its FALLEN (MORTAL) state, so there would be no need for a FALL OF ADAM. According to your story, where did Adam and Eve come from? Have you been to the TEMPLE!?

And can someone tell me if Evolution (and Creation) stopped when the Garden of Eden happened? Genesis says:

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

So, if God made the world using evolution, what do the scriptures mean when they say He was "finished"? Did evolution stop?

It isn't my story, but rather the explanation I'm getting from people who both believe in Mormonism and evolution. I'm trying to understand how they reconcile the two, and it seems you're having the same trouble.

[Analytics]

Analytics:

Yes [i think Evolution is the tool that God used to fashion mankind after His likeness]

I certainly don't mean to argue with you about what you believe or what TBM's are obligated to believe, but the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says:

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deityâ?¦. Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

In contrast, the theory of evolution says that mankind is a member of the animal kingdom that evolved from other species in exactly the same way that every other member of the animal kingdom evolved.

I think Bruce R. McConkie was thinking clearly when he said, "There is no harmony between the truths [sic] of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution."

[John Williams]

John W:

Whether I use the hammer(tool)to build a house or a hovel it is still just a tool.

From what we have in the Scripture the GoE is a special place quite apart from the world as we know it.

I would not say "can not sin" because they obviously did transgress.

Why should there be a bump? A&E were kicked out of the GoE into the lone and dreary world.

I dunno, I just have this mental image of God biding His time during the evolutionary process, and then when homo sapiens appears, he says, "OK, Now!" and creates Adam and Eve and the garden. Just seems kind of a convoluted way of reconciling what is in the scriptures.

[Eldwynn]

I certainly don't mean to argue with you about what you believe or what TBM's are obligated to believe, but the Encyclopedia of Mormonism says:

In contrast, the theory of evolution says that mankind is a member of the animal kingdom that evolved from other species in exactly the same way that every other member of the animal kingdom evolved.

I think Bruce R. McConkie was thinking clearly when he said, "There is no harmony between the truths [sic] of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution."

Luckily (for the church) the prophet treads much more lightly than you, or Bruce R. McConkie (as well as Joseph Fielding Smith). If the church officially rejected evolution (right now, I think the official stance is one of safety "We don't know") than I would imagine you would see a mass exodus from it. Either that, or you would create a church where many members disagreed with it's leadership (like the catholic church I suppose), until of course a future prophet had a revalation via god that evolution indeed is true!

The evidence is just too strong.

Although, I fully admit I have no clue what would happen. Perhaps all the members that accept evolution as a scientific theory would heed my favorite banner. I remember walking into seminary one day, and seeing this gem on the wall:

"When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done"