Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then you should not mind naming a monotheistic religion that is a greater affront to science than Mormonism.

Straw man. Mormonism is not a monotheistic religion.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

DrW:

You never watched Bugs Bunny as a kid?

I was reading the dictionary before you were a gleam in your grandfather's eye.

BTW. Have you stopped beating your spouse? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes I am a real life, honest to goodness scientist. I have a Bachelor of Science, and a Master of Science.

I do wonder when DrW will just stop the abuse of thier spouse?

That is a good one. Don't you just love loaded questions.

[BCSpace]

Evolution

It addressed many issues raised in this thread, and may serve to clear up some popular misconceptions.

Well bless my crocoduck and rhinopus and dog my cat! That IS a very good video on evolution. I recommend any creationist to watch it before setting about trying to deconstruct it.

[DrW]

Straw man. Mormonism is not a monotheistic religion.

You may be right. Modern Church leaders claim that Mormons are Christians (a monotheistic religion). However, reading of the Mormon scriptures and discourses of the prophets would lead one to wonder.

This issue is like so many other aspects of Mormonism: is one to believe what is said today by the leaders, or what has been said and written in the past? I have been in the Church for many decades, and I still have not figured it out.

As I stated in an earlier post, the internal inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine and theology, past and present, are staggering. The most logical working hypothesis is that it is a religion that is made up as it goes along. Nowadays, it seems as if "the work" is being carried out by both prophets and apologists.

[BCSpace]

As I stated in an earlier post, the internal inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine and theology, past and present, are staggering.

There are none whatsoever.

[jmhughes]

You may be right. Modern Church leaders claim that Mormons are Christians (a monotheistic religion). However, reading of the Mormon scriptures and discourses of the prophets would lead one to wonder.

This issue is like so many other aspects of Mormonism: is one to believe what is said today by the leaders, or what has been said and written in the past? I have been in the Church for many decades, and I still have not figured it out.

As I stated in an earlier post, the internal inconsistencies in Mormon doctrine and theology, past and present, are staggering. The most logical working hypothesis is that it a religion that is made up as it goes along. Nowadays, it seems as if "the work" is being carried out by both prophets and apologists.

Wow, based on you understanding of one, monotheism and two what traditional Christians believe, it's a wonder that anything you spout, especially about the church is believable.

When compared to Judaism, traditional Christianity is not monotheistic, most of them just don't understand that. Nor do they really understand how how the "Trinity" is actually defined because you get so many different answers from different pastors/leaders.

Based on that alone, everything else you said can basically be thrown out the window.

[thesometimesaint]

DrW:

And what am I to think of your imbecilic tirade on what I believe?

You're right I don't KNOW how old you are. To date your posting style is one of a teenager with a thesaurus.

Come back when you have a posting history that is one tenth that of mine.

[macmini]

Wow, based on you understanding of one, monotheism and two what traditional Christians believe, it's a wonder that anything you spout, especially about the church is believable.

When compared to Judaism, traditional Christianity is not monotheistic, most of them just don't understand that. Nor do they really understand how how the "Trinity" is actually defined because you get so many different answers from different pastors/leaders.

Based on that alone, everything else you said can basically be thrown out the window.

I love a good satire!!

[macmini]

DrW:

And what am I to think of your imbecilic tirade on what I believe?

You're right I don't KNOW how old you are. To date your posting style is one of a teenager with a thesaurus.

Come back when you have a posting history that is one tenth that of mine.

Maybe you're right but how would a thesaurus help him make logical arguments....? From what I have seen mistakes have been made on both ends.....but it seems like you are much more willing to go to the attacks and use fallacious thinking. I could be wrong but from my end that is what it looks like.

[DrW]

There are none whatsoever.

Don't get me started. Over the years, with morbid fascination, I have collected hundreds. If I were to post a small fraction of the glaring logical inconsistencies that there are in Mormonism, I would probably be banned from this site.

However there are a few that are particularly troubling. One of them has to do with the description and attributes of Kolob in the Book of Abraham. Unless one is willing to admit that the Book of Abraham was made up from whole cloth by Joseph Smith, then Kolob is a real problem. If you like, I can post a brief description of why Mormonism would be far better off without the Kolob millstone around its neck.

[DrW]

Wow, based on you understanding of one, monotheism and two what traditional Christians believe, it's a wonder that anything you spout, especially about the church is believable.

When compared to Judaism, traditional Christianity is not monotheistic, most of them just don't understand that. Nor do they really understand how how the "Trinity" is actually defined because you get so many different answers from different pastors/leaders.

Based on that alone, everything else you said can basically be thrown out the window.

You, my friend, are also in need of a visit to a nearby dictionary. When you find one, you will see that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all listed as monotheistic religions. I learned that in seminary. Perhaps you were not paying attention.

Let me help you out with this passage describing Abrahamic monotheistic religions:

"In traditional Jewish thought, which provided the basis of the Christian and Islamic religions, monotheism was regarded as its most basic belief. Judaism and Islam have traditionally attempted to interpret scripture as exclusively monotheistic whilst Christianity adopts Trinitarianism, a more complex form of monotheism."

[e=mc2]

Don't get me started. Over the years, with morbid fascination, I have collected hundreds. If I were to post a small fraction of the glaring logical inconsistencies that there are in Mormonism, I would probably be banned from this site.However there are a few that are particularly troubling. One of them has to do with the description and attributes of Kolob in the Book of Abraham. Unless one is willing to admit that the Book of Abraham was made up from whole cloth by Joseph Smith, then Kolob is a real problem. If you like, I can post a brief description of why Mormonism would be far better off without the Kolob millstone around its neck.

Yeah, start a new thread on Kolob, I'd like to see your position. Thanks.

You, my friend, are also in need of a visit to a nearby dictionary. When you find one, you will see that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all listed as monotheistic religions. I learned that in seminary. Perhaps you were not paying attention.Let me help you out with this passage describing Abrahamic monotheistic religions:"In traditional Jewish thought, which provided the basis of the Christian and Islamic religions, monotheism was regarded as its most basic belief. Judaism and Islam have traditionally attempted to interpret scripture as exclusively monotheistic whilst Christianity adopts Trinitarianism, a more complex form of monotheism."

I found new insights from reading Dr. Michael S. Heiser's doctoral dissertation on the Council of the Gods this last year. What he says about Monotheism is fascinating! Have you by chance had a chance yet to read his materials?

[DrW]

Yeah, start a new thread on Kolob, I'd like to see your position. Thanks.I found new insights from reading Dr. Michael S. Heiser's doctoral dissertation on the Council of the Gods this last year. What he says about Monotheism is fascinating! Have you by chance had a chance yet to read his materials?

Thanks for the response. Looks interesting.

I will dig up my article on Kolob and post it on a new thread as you requested. I am out of pocket tomorrow, so this will be on Wednesday.

[e=mc2]

Thanks for the response. Looks interesting.

I will dig up my article on Kolob and post it on a new thread as you requested. I am out of pocket tomorrow, so this will be on Wednesday.

No problem...... I am truly curious as to why and what you find problematic with it is all. I am also deeply interested in seeing your sources....

[DrW]

No problem...... I am truly curious as to why and what you find problematic with it is all. I am also deeply interested in seeing your sources....

With a screen name like e = mc2, you will probably appreciate the logical and scientific problems involved. As you might have guessed, special relativity is central to the issue of Kolob for a resident God of flesh and bones.

When Joseph Smith decided to give the Mormon God a physical body, he clearly had no idea of the problems it would cause for his new religion down the road. And later pronouncements by the prophets Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith to the effect that the Mormon God is constrained by natural laws and performs his miracles in accordance with the laws of nature didn't help.

Will post a description of the first of many scientific and logical problems with Book of Abraham and Kolob tomorrow.

[littlechild]

Interesting discussion. May I recommend a 10-minute break to check out the best video on evolution ever created (or evolved...)?

Evolution

It addressed many issues raised in this thread, and may serve to clear up some popular misconceptions.

That's a good video in favor of intelligent design. It shows how when intelligent design is used to vary the characteristics of domesticated animals, you get some minimal results that you don't get at all in the wild. And you never EVER get new species no matter HOW HARD YOU TRY.

[littlechild]

It's obvious that this type of one sided logic permeates all of his/her other post and should demonstrate a complete inability to reason and therefore should be ignored completely.

Yes, other people are completely unable to "reason" and therefore should be marginalized. Good point.

[littlechild]

Homochirality!! I completely agree with Eldwynn. Evolution is not dependent on chance and to say so lacks some basic knowledge of how it works. To invoke homochirality or even chirality as a fatal blow to evolution seems like an attempt at using a complex subject to stump the listener. Many, dare I say most people have no idea what chirality is or even what it means in chemistry and biology.

Thus, it should never be brought up.

I would argue that for you to use this as an argument I would expect you to explain yourself as to what chirality is, why it matters, what connection it has with evolution, why it is an argument against evolution. Present all these arguments citing you resources and sticking with the science and no personal attacks.

Yes, unless people are willing to give you an encyclopedia, they should not make casual reference to any concept whatsoever.

I do understand chirality, what it means, and the possible connections to evolution but most people will just read the line "homochirality make evolution so improbable as to be impossible" and stop there.

Horrors. Then they would possible think something you don't want them to think. Call the thought police.

Maybe chirality is a fatal blow to evolution but you and every other person that has used that argument against evolution fails to address simple and reasonable questions to their ideas.

Really? I can't let you get away with this. Many people who read your words might accept them at face value and stop there. Unless you are willing to explain what you mean by failure to address simple and reasonable questions, and its connection to the topic of homochirality and evoloution, citing your 'resources' (sic) and sticking with the science an no personal attacks, I don't think you should be permitted to make such casual references.

I compare this to FOX news knowingly making false accusations against people to impugn them and nothing else matters after that point.

Oh, like the smear job the MSM did on Palin eh? Why didn't you choose that example I wonder?

The IDers just throw out chirality as a bone to believers. Nothing else matters even if the idea or accusation is completely wrong or made up.

Wow, now you have a group or category of people who behave like a monolith and whose behavior you can label and stereotype, and stop there with no further investigation, even if the idea or accusation is completely wrong or made up. Thanks for warning me about the danger.

Next time you want to ask me some questions feel free. I would have responded to serious questions, but your conclusions are already made before you ever got that far.

[HiJolly]

... but your conclusions are already made before you ever got that far.

Oh, please.

HiJolly

[macmini]

Thus, it should never be brought up. Thanks for agreeing!!!

Yes, unless people are willing to give you an encyclopedia, they should not make casual reference to any concept whatsoever. Thanks!!!

Horrors. Then they would possible think something you don't want them to think. Call the thought police.

Really? I can't let you get away with this. Many people who read your words might accept them at face value and stop there. Unless you are willing to explain what you mean by failure to address simple and reasonable questions, and its connection to the topic of homochirality and evoloution, citing your 'resources' (sic) and sticking with the science an no personal attacks, I don't think you should be permitted to make such casual references.

Sorry you loose here I don't need sources since this is not a scientific claim. I have looked all over and have never seen a single resource able to defend the ideas they have. All of the arguments are poor and at times laughable.

Oh, like the smear job the MSM did on Palin eh? Why didn't you choose that example I wonder?

Who cares I used used Fox because of some recent reporting they have done but I could have easly chosen any one of the 5 major new outlets. Red Harring!!!

Wow, now you have a group or category of people who behave like a monolith and whose behavior you can label and stereotype, and stop there with no further investigation, even if the idea or accusation is completely wrong or made up. Thanks for warning me about the danger.

Really!! That is the term they use for themselves and not an artificial construct. This is just silly...if most IDers make a claim like homochirality then what is the problem with using that as an example of faulty thinking among those that are IDers. I would love for people to actually read what they are saying!! This way they could actually know the arguments they are making. I could care less that I am a new person here and you are a long timer but you really have to think about what you are saying.

Next time you want to ask me some questions feel free. I would have responded to serious questions, but your conclusions are already made before you ever got that far.

Again this is silly....I am open to new ideas and I had no intention of asking any questions when I wrote my post. I may ask questions in a later post but I was just commenting on the post in this thread. We are both adults no need to assume what the other is thinking. Talking via the internet requires asking quesitnos about the others intentions. I have not assumed anything about you and just made observations on what I saw. So to clarify for me since I cannot read you mind....What is you simple short stance on evolution?

[littlechild]

What is you simple short stance on evolution?

There is no scientifically established proof of macroevolution. It is an ideology and philosophy. ID is better. Demonstrably so.

Oh, please. HiJolly

Have you come up with a definition of science yet HiJolly?Have you scientifically demonstrated your claim that ID is not that definition, whatever it is you conceive it to be? http://www.seraphmedia.org.uk/ID.xml

[Eldwynn]

And you never EVER get new species no matter HOW HARD YOU TRY.

Since you used so many capital letters, I figured I would actually take the time to show you how you are absolutely, and utterly wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scroll down to 5.0

I am also curious on what your education background is. Just how much biology have you learned? Most of the issues you are bringing up are issues that a high school biology teacher should have been teaching.

Oh, and one more quote of yours

"there is no scientifically established proof of macroevolution. It is an ideology and philosophy. ID is better. Demonstrably so."

Here is my favorite one: http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1483/480302.pdf

I doubt you will read it, so I will summarize it for you. Some virus's attack our DNA. You have probably heard that 9x% percent of our DNA is "junk DNA". A great deal of this "junk" is viral remains. A virus would infect an animal, and copy part of itself in the animals DNA. This would allow this "virus" to replicate through the genome of the species. The mechanism for how they do this is very well understood. However, the virus then loses its other functions and just lingers around as sort of a "fossil". Now here's the cool part. If you look back through our "ancestral tree" that biology proposes, you see that chimpanzees and humans share the largest amount of these ancient viruses, then say, monkeys and humans (yes, a chimpanzee is not a monkey). In fact, some of these virus's are really old, meaning they infected some organisms DNA a LONG time ago. We can find this virus in our genome, as well as the genome of all mammals. It's a really cool bit of evidence that all living things have a shared lineage through their DNA.

Here is 29 more btw: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[cinepro]

Ahhh...here's a blog after my own heart:

No Death Before the Fall

With forthright articles such as...

Note To SL Tribune: Mormons DO NOT Generally Accept Evolution

[Doctor Steuss]

With forthright articles such as...

Note To SL Tribune: Mormons DO NOT Generally Accept Evolution

It makes you wonder where the Salt Lake Tribune gets its news.

Anonymous said...

"It makes you wonder where the Salt Lake Tribune gets its news."

From the Mormon blogs?

Jack

[cinepro]

That blog has an interesting article that discusses BH Roberts' book "The Truth, the Way, the Life" (referred to as "TWL"). Apparently, the book was to be used as a course of study in Sunday School, but some apostles took exception to Roberts' theory regarding pre-Adamites. Eventually, it resulted in a statement from the FP that has commonly been thought to refer to evolution, when it might not be referring to evolution at all. Here's how it played out:

Although TWL was considered an excellent work in many respects, Roberts insisted on including in it some things that his Brethren could not approve (TWL, xiii; 692-702). Most of the problems were related to an attempt to reconcile the scriptures with the "rock record," or fossils. (TWL, 302, 297). Rejecting all other explanations for fossil origins (including organic evolution), Roberts set forth his own theory of an earlier, pre-Adamic creation. (TWL, 238-240; 289-296). In this creation, God brought plants, animals, and pre-Adamic human-like beings to the earth, all of which lived and died for millions of years before the time of Adam. This, according to Roberts, would explain fossils found in the earth today. And because science studies these prehistoric creatures using geology, biology, anthropology and archaeology, Roberts used sources from these disciplines in his book. (TWL, 232-240, 297-322.)

Thus it was that pre-Adamites became a major part of the discussion. But, it is important to note that Elder Roberts had used that term in a way that did not support organic evolution because these beings did not evolve. They were created and placed on earth last, after all other forms of life, millions of years ago. (TWL, 238-240.)

Roberts then speculates that "previous to the advent of Adam upon the earth, some destructive cataclysm,... left the earth empty and desolate." (TWL, p. 294.) A new creation followed with Adam, the human creation, being this time "the first creation instead of the last [and] not only the first man, but the 'first flesh' upon the earth also." (TWL, p. 292.)

This theory of a prior creation and cataclysmic destruction followed by the Adamic creation was the major objectionable feature of the book. Note that neither the Roberts theory itself nor the response of the committee of the Twelve talks about organic evolution. What the committee did say was this:

"We feel that the arguments as given contradict the accounts given in all our scriptures, and more especially in the temple ceremonies. As we understand it the term 'first flesh also,' does not have reference to Adam as being the first living creature of the creation on the earth, but that he, through the 'fall' became the first 'flesh,' or mortal soul. The term 'flesh' in reference to mortal existence is of common usage. We find it so used in the scriptures. Adam having partaken of the fruit became mortal and subject to death, which was not the condition until that time. We are taught in the Temple as well as in the scriptures that man was the last creation placed upon the earth, before death was introduced. Adam was the first to ... become subject to the flesh." (TWL, pp. 292-293.)

Historian James B. Allen tells of a lengthy interview Elder Roberts had with the First Presidency about TWL. During this meeting, Allen informs us, Roberts was "told again that the First Presidency and the Twelve could not approve some parts." (TWL, p. 702; emphasis added.)

The decision of the 1931 First Presidency was that the discussions involving "Geology, Biology, Archaeology, and Anthropology" as used by Roberts to promote his theory would lead only to "confusion, division, and misunderstanding if carried further." (TWL, 709-710). Publication of TWL without removing it's objectionable features was no longer an option. (TWL, 710) It was the end of debate about TWL's controversial theories. It was the end of a long, unpleasant ordeal for Elder B. H. Roberts of the Seventy. It was not about organic evolution.

A Major Defect in the EOM Article on Evolution

That whole article is really interesting, and speaks to many issues raised in this thread.