Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[Jaybear]

Another Choice

I am LDS, I believe in evolution, and I believe God created Adam & Eve from primitive speices

Who then migrated into north america some 20,000 years ago, and into australia some 40,000 years ago?

Humans, or some other primitive species?

[Teancum]

Joseph Fielding Smith put it very well:

If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?

BC

Can you please address this from an apostle of Jesus Christ?

[Jeff K.]

He did.

[semlogo]

Amusement?

Are we talking about Loki here?

yep, keep holding onto the theory that is losing more and more steam, in the science realm since the cell has been heavily looked at, dna, scientists and medical doctors are starting to speak out, and the gaps keep getting wider. Your choice not mine. BTW, hopefully we can get some more textbooks in the hands of our kids with incorrect and fraudulently preserved drawings of things such as embryos in order to prove neo-evolution....

This is what happens when you get all your information about the world from amateurs with websites and an agenda.

[semlogo]

Why are you still on this board? You do not believe in Mormonism, nor do you believe in God, what purpose do you have here besides trying to steer people away from God?

He's only pointing out a fact. As a Mormon who isn't afraid that facts will hurt my religion, I welcome his comment.

Make sure you tell all the biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, and geologists at all the universities in America and Europe that evolution is losing steam. All these scientist in the field are entirely unaware that it is losing steam, in fact they believe it is constantly gaining more evidence. Kind makes you wonder where it is losing steam if not with those in the actual field. Oh yeah, among Bible thumping idiots that actually believe in these ancient desert scribblings instead of the evidence and those that wish to remain in a state of primitive thought rather than graduating to the 21st century.

I was with you until the last sentence. A little rude and a little unfair to the believers who accept scientific principles, but otherwise you are correct.

[semlogo]

You may as well save your breath, this board is not the place to attack evolution, it is a sacred cow here (or a golden calf). I usually just ignore these evolution threads now because you get all the "usual suspects" that come in and attack you for being an "arrogant science hating fool." There are those who try to harmonize the teachings of Darwin with the scriptures to justify two incompatible positions. Then there are others that are TBA's (true blue atheists) who have no pretense of trying to justify the revelations and basically love to call anyone who disagrees with their "rational enlightened" position a fool or just undermines their credibility by just saying that ignorant superstition is holding the people back from accepting the obvious "facts" that are unassailable.

As for me I reject evolution outright and stand with Elder McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith who said it was damnable heresy and that Adam and Eve were literally in the Garden of Eden and that there was no death before the fall. Mostly because believing in death before the fall denies the atonement of Christ. This is something I cannot do, and so Darwinists and myself will always be at odds at least until God gives us further light and knowledge on exactly how He created (organized) this world.

BYU is full of heretic professors? And David O McKay was a heretic now?

[Cold Steel]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Well, creationists don't help themselves in many of their statements. Also, not all creationists believe the same thing. One reason the Bible and religion have a difficult time being taught in schools is the wide variance of views. Most creationists believe in creation out of nothing. God spoke and matter just popped into existence.

The only problem with this is that if God had that type of power, why would it take Him six entire days to complete the creation process. Why not just speak and have everything pop into existence at once. Forget six days; six nanoseconds would leave plenty of time for rest.

LDS believe the creation was a complicated and highly organized process. The author of "15 Answers" writes:

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

The fossil record actually shows a similarity of design. That is, if there is an intelligent Creator, He used similar patterns in a variety of lifeforms. If one removes the Creator from the process, the only remaining reasonable explanation is that the lifeforms are somehow related, possibly coming from common ancestors and branching out. But there is the rub. Evolution can't quite find these linking lifeforms, nor can it find any clear-cut examples of these changes taking place.

In school, it would not be appropriate to teach creationism unless one can produce the Creator. In short, we can't just assume His presence and influence in the grand scheme of things. Evolution is not a crackpot theory by any means, and if one is going to leave the Creator out of the equation, evolution makes the most sense. The only problem comes if there is a creator and His influence isn't being taken into account. The human record is full of great circumstantial evidence that there is a supernatural element to our existence that can be neither detected or measured. This is why, I think, that God uses witnesses. Moses, Jesus and Joseph Smith all produced numerous witnesses that science would find difficult to dispute; however, until all Christians, Jews and Muslims can show a unity of faith in how the creation happened, our divisions are our greatest fault.

[Tchild2]

You still seem fixated on comments or interpretations of GAs that are not doctrinal, binding, or supported by the unanimity of the Brethren. All who were baptized and confirmed members of the Lord's Church were given the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Part of the reason for that gift is precisely to prevent or minimize the kind of splashing around in the water we tend to do when faced with Gospel challenges to our favorite nostrums. I've been through it all as well. I was solidly pro-evolution in me childhood and youth. Then I discovered JFS and McConkie, and became a full blown LDS young earther.

I will just quote what Cold Steel earlier posted and that was quoted by J.S. Mill on page 7 of this tread, because the logic is so perfect concerning a literal interpretation of the fall and how evolution potentialy meshes with that interpretation. Us literalists see it. Me and all past LDS leaders and prophets see and saw it. Why aren't you?

(Cold Steel @ Jan 18 2009, 07:38 PM)

Joseph Fielding Smith put it very well:

If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?

Now, I've tentatively come full circle, accepting evolution, but with some clear limitations in some areas, and a rejection of irreducible, blind random chance as the primary driver of evolutionary change (whatever "random" actually means).

I've had to do something, because I know the Gospel is true, and the literalness of these teachings cannot be thrown out without throwing out foundational concepts of the Gospel upon which the rest of the edifice is based. Knowing that the Gospel is true as a system prevents having to know every detail of it, including when it comes into apparent contact with other facts or evidences in the empirical world. Hence, my faith remains intact.

[BCSpace]

Joseph Fielding Smith put it very well:

If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?

BC

Can you please address this from an apostle of Jesus Christ?

Yes. Doctrines of Salvation is not considered by the LDS Church to be a doctrinal work. Period. End of story. Statement addressed.

However, I'm sure you would like me to address JFS's opinion directly......

I believe there was a garden. I believe there was an Adam and Eve placed in the garden. I believe there was a Fall. I believe Adam brought death into the world through the Fall. I believe God created man in his own image. I believe animals and humans reproduce after their own kind, etc. etc.

I believe I have demonstrated a scenario in which the full blown evolution of animals and man as understood by the scientific community in general can co-exist with all LDS doctrine and scripture. Of course I do not teach that scenario as doctrine or absolute truth.

I am quite sure the Church does not teach for or against evolution or creationism. I do not believe that those who believe in creationism are hell bound, though truth be told, I tend to think of them as scientifically illiterate.

I also believe that many of those in the Church who don't accept evolution, including JFS and any apostle or prophet you care to name....

1. Don't understand what evolution is; that evolution also teaches that animals and humans reproduce after their own kind.

2. Have reacted instinctively against evolution without considering all the possibilites (such as 2 Nephi 2:22). This may be due to upbringing or association.

3. Have not received any revelation from the Lord refuting evolution.

Having said that, it in no way diminishes my testimony that they are apostles and prophets of God called to lead this Church. It does, however, speak to the fact that they are men who have strong opinions as well as anyone else. There is a reason why the Church has made specific statements about what is and is not doctrine. And there is a reason why, since 1835 (D&C 107), the First Presidency and the Qo12 are equal in authority and hence doctrine must pass through all of them in the vehicle of official Church publication.

[Tchild2]

Ensign January 1998

â??In the Beginningâ?:

A Latter-day Perspective "In the Beginning"

Modern revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith clarifies the events described in Genesis 1â??3, putting them into perspective.

"Modern revelation"? Joseph Smith clarying the events described in Genesis 1-3?

1)"We know the account of the Creation is not a myth as is supposed by many. We know Adam and Eve are real, historical people. We also know there was a purpose in the Fall of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden."

2)"When Adam and Eve were placed on the earth, they lived in the Garden of Eden. We do not know its dimensions, but the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that it was located in or near Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. 16 We learn in the Doctrine and Covenants that Adam and Eve later lived, at least for a period, not far distant from the garden, at Adam-ondi-Ahman (see D&C 117:8 )"

3)"Others have concluded that the whole story is a myth and that Adam and Eve are fictional characters. Still others speculate Adam and Eve were cave people whose descendants evolved into more advanced specimens.

In contrast, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ makes it abundantly clear that Adam and Eve were children of God just as we are. They were placed on earth as immortal beings. We are told they could read and write (see Moses 6:5, 46), and they knew and understood the plan of salvation, having been taught it in the Garden of Eden."

4)"Thus, by being required to leave the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve caused the great plan of happiness to go forward. Mortality came to all living things; procreation began the process of bringing us, the sons and daughters of God, to earth as Adam and Eveâ??s posterity."

There are more, but I think we are getting the picture.

[BCSpace]

2)"When Adam and Eve were placed on the earth, they lived in the Garden of Eden. We do not know its dimensions, but the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that it was located in or near Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. 16 We learn in the Doctrine and Covenants that Adam and Eve later lived, at least for a period, not far distant from the garden, at Adam-ondi-Ahman (see D&C 117:8 )"

I'm still wondering where in the two verses (the other is D&C 116:1) given for Adam ondi Ahman does it get located near the garden. Is it simply by verbal association?

In contrast, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ makes it abundantly clear that Adam and Eve were children of God just as we are. They were placed on earth as immortal beings. We are told they could read and write (see Moses 6:5, 46), and they knew and understood the plan of salvation, having been taught it in the Garden of Eden."

Amen. One must not stray so far into metaphor that the historicity established by doctrine is lost.

[Tarski]

There are more, but I think we are getting the picture.

Yes--hyperliteralism that does not sit well with anthropological and biological realities.

Those of weak faith must try to concoct machinations to reconcile the mythical fictions with the mundane historical realities. But the faithful have the power to accept the at face value like McConkie et al.

Folks, there was no Garden of Eden and we can percieve this in the same way that we percieve that the following story is not real history.

It is light years from having the ring of truth. It is fantastic and reads like a childs story. It runs perpendicular to genetics, anthropology, physics, and common sense.

Japanese Creation Myth

Long ago all the elements were mixed together with one germ of life. This germ began to mix things around and around until the heavier part sank and the lighter part rose. A muddy sea that covered the entire earth was created. From this ocean grew a green shoot. It grew and grew until it reached the clouds and there it was tranformed into a god. Soon this god grew lonely and it began to create other gods. The last two gods it made, Izanagi anf Izanami, were the most remarkable.

One day as they were walking along they looked down on the ocean and wondered what was beneath it. Izanagi thrust his staff into the waters and as he pulled it back up some clumps of mud fell back into the sea. They began to harden and grow until they became the islands of Japan.

The two descended to these islands and began to explore, each going in different directions. They created all kinds of plants. When they met again they decided to marry and have children to inhabit the land. The first child Izanami bore was a girl of radiant beauty. The gods decided she was too beautiful to live in Japan, so they put her up in the sky and she became the sun. Their second daughter, Tsuki-yami, became the moon and their third and unruly son, Sosano-wo, was sentenced to the sea, where he creates storms.

Later, their first child, Amaterasu, bore a son who became the emperor of Japan and all the emperors since then have claimed descent from him.

from

http://www.cs.williams.edu/~lindsey/myths/myths_17.html

[BCSpace]

Folks, there was no Garden of Eden

Perhaps not in the sense we typicially picture it, but it certainly existed. Perhaps it was some sort of biosphere? There are too many possibilities to dismiss this out of hand.

and we can percieve this in the same way that we percieve that the following story is not real history.

It is light years from having the ring of truth. It is fantastic and reads like a childs story. It runs perpendicular to genetics, anthropology, physics, and common sense.

Only from an atheist or nonChristian perspective. Why can't God work by known physical laws? Why can't He also work by higher laws we are not aware of now but discover on our own from time to time?

[semlogo]

Ensign January 1998

â??In the Beginningâ?:

A Latter-day Perspective "In the Beginning"

"Modern revelation"? Joseph Smith clarying the events described in Genesis 1-3?

1)"We know the account of the Creation is not a myth as is supposed by many. We know Adam and Eve are real, historical people. We also know there was a purpose in the Fall of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden."

2)"When Adam and Eve were placed on the earth, they lived in the Garden of Eden. We do not know its dimensions, but the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that it was located in or near Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. 16 We learn in the Doctrine and Covenants that Adam and Eve later lived, at least for a period, not far distant from the garden, at Adam-ondi-Ahman (see D&C 117:8 )"

3)"Others have concluded that the whole story is a myth and that Adam and Eve are fictional characters. Still others speculate Adam and Eve were cave people whose descendants evolved into more advanced specimens.

In contrast, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ makes it abundantly clear that Adam and Eve were children of God just as we are. They were placed on earth as immortal beings. We are told they could read and write (see Moses 6:5, 46), and they knew and understood the plan of salvation, having been taught it in the Garden of Eden."

4)"Thus, by being required to leave the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve caused the great plan of happiness to go forward. Mortality came to all living things; procreation began the process of bringing us, the sons and daughters of God, to earth as Adam and Eveâ??s posterity."

There are more, but I think we are getting the picture.

The conclusions Dr. Woodward reaches and what Joseph Smith actually said are two different things.

Oh, and:

Robert J. Woodford is a retired Church Educational System instructor and an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers.

[Tarski]

Perhaps not in the sense we typically picture it, but it certainly existed.

Certainly? Usually, that means evidences. CFE

Perhaps it was some sort of biosphere? There are too many possibilities to dismiss this out of hand.

Perhaps Jack's bean stalk was a genetically engineered giant bean plant and the place he climbed to was the hovering spaceship of alien race of giants. But why go to those lengths when the obvious answer works so well?

The rationalization of these stories into some kind of sci-fi story is something that one could do with any old child's story or obvious piece of fiction. Maybe Mordor is a real place too.

I say let's do what we do with the creation myths sufficiently different from ours--dismiss them out of hand until the unlikely event of real evidence that the earth was laid as an egg by a cosmic turtle or whatever.

[Tchild2]

The conclusions Dr. Woodward reaches and what Joseph Smith actually said are two different things.

Oh, and:

Robert J. Woodford is a retired Church Educational System instructor and an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers.

Any quotes by any past prophet or apostle that interprets "the fall" as something other than literal, or as described by Dr. Woodward, you are free and invited to post them to support a counter argument. Secondly, the Ensign is the church's official medium to disseminate its teachings and doctrines. Dr. Woodward, no matter how lowly his position, still had his ideas, scriptures, quotes and conclusions officially approved and sanctioned.

Like I said, if you got counter scriptures please cite them.

Maybe members ought to disregard the Ensign, and look to speculative arguments on certain internet boards to determine the church's position on its own doctrines, teachings and beliefs?

[BCSpace]

Perhaps not in the sense we typically picture it, but it certainly existed.

Certainly? Usually, that means evidences. CFE

"Certainly" means as per LDS doctrine which is no less evidence than your unscientific notion that no solid evidence for equates to non existence.

Perhaps Jack's bean stalk was a genetically engineered giant bean plant and the place he climbed to was the hovering spaceship of alien race of giants. But why go to those lengths when the obvious answer works so well?

Are there numerous bean-stalk stories around the world with common threads?

The rationalization of these stories into some kind of sci-fi story is something that one could do with any old child's story or obvious piece of fiction. Maybe Mordor is a real place too.

Maybe. But I think the authors of those works have already established that they are fiction whereas many of the retellers of these myths consider them to be factual. Hence we have no reason to investigate "The Ship Who Sang" or "Mordor". I'm guessing Jack and the Beanstalk fits here too.

I say let's do what we do with the creation myths sufficiently different from ours--dismiss them out of hand until the unlikely event of real evidence that the earth was laid as an egg by a cosmic turtle or whatever.

That would be unscientific as the well worn example of the city of Troy demontrates. Myths are not unreasonable basis for hypothesis or theories.

[semlogo]

Any quotes by any past prophet or apostle that interprets "the fall" as something other than literal, or as described by Dr. Woodward, you are free and invited to post them to support a counter argument. Secondly, the Ensign is the church's official medium to disseminate its teachings and doctrines. Dr. Woodward, no matter how lowly his position, still had his ideas, scriptures, quotes and conclusions officially approved and sanctioned.

Like I said, if you got counter scriptures please cite them.

Maybe members ought to disregard the Ensign, and look to speculative arguments on certain internet boards to determine the church's position on its own doctrines, teachings and beliefs?

I already showed you David O McKay's statement that the church has no official position on evolution. But simply accepting that and moving on would mean you'd have to come up with some other means of trolling Mormons on the internet.

[littlechild]

First...

Then...

Just keep moving those goalposts, it's already pretty clear that you're not going to listen to any amount of evidence.

But I haven't moved the goalposts whatsoever - its evolutionists who do that sort of trick. First they claim they have thousands of evidences of speciation on the internet - then what they end up quoting as their primary piece is nothing more than a bacteria being taught to metabolize citrate - hahahahahah - just as I thought.

[The Dude]

But I haven't moved the goalposts whatsoever - its evolutionists who do that sort of trick. First they claim they have thousands of evidences of speciation on the internet - then what they end up quoting as their primary piece is nothing more than a bacteria being taught to metabolize citrate - hahahahahah - just as I thought.

You cited as your primary source the guy who couldn't get the bacteria to do anything. I cited the guy who got the experiment to work and then published it. The score is Creationists 0 - Evolutionists 1. It's your move, littlechild, if you've got anything better than "hahahahahahah".

[littlechild]

Michael Behe thinks they are related by common ancestry. Many ID proponents believe in common ancestry, just not in the proposed mechanism.

And to respond to your earlier post about reading material, here are some books that I find convincing:

Finding Darwin's God (Miller) -- in which all major claims of creationsim and "debunkings" of evolution are systematically debunked.

The Blind Watchmaker, The Extended Phenotype, and Climbing Mount Improbable (Dawkins) -- in which the claims and evidences for evolution are shown to be more complex and plausible than the creationist fairytale-makers can even imagine

The Tower of Babel (Pennock) -- In which "scientific" Intelligent Design is is shown to be warmed-over religious creationism.

I think it is a poor strategy for you to get snotty while accusing Darwinists of being unable to reason on a civil level (your post #120).

Thank you for agreeing that is is a separate field. It does you no good to attack origin of life when you mean to be challenging evolution.

HA HA HA - Wrong. The experimental claims were from Ralph Seelke, a microbiologist at Department of Biology and Earth Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI, USA.

Contrary to your claim that the results of the experiment are "undeniable", in fact the results have not been published so they are not even accessible to other scientists. It is very hard to publish a result that concludes "failure" because a negative result like this is indistinguishable from poor scientific skills. The best way to get around that is through your reputation as a scientist. From a search on PubMed I see that Dr. Seelke has not published any peer reviewed manuscripts in the last 22 years (until this month... and I'm not quite sure what to make of it in relation to this discussion so I only bring it up for purposes of disclosure). That's not a great record. I doubt he will ever publish his results but maybe he doesn't need to if they are simply "undeniable"

In listening to the recording you linked, I noticed that Dr. Seelke noted in passing that Dr. Richard Lenski (at U. Minnesota) has done similar bacterial evolution experiments to Seelke's, and Lenski published them this year in a high ranking journal (here is a link). In the audio Dr. Seelke suggested that Richard Lenski "didn't find much" which is not exactly true given the quality of the manuscript which anyone can read. He clearly found the evolution of novel functions. In sum, what I see from Dr. Seelke is far less impressive than what I see from Lenski, and they both use a similar approach for discovering what is possible with bacterial evolution. Why did Dr. Seelke fail? (I think I know) Why should we take his failure over Lenski's success?

I remind you once again that Michael Behe believes in common ancestry. Now what exactly is beyond the reach of complex organisms? It is hard to say what is impossible with organisms that are not experimentally tractable, but we can look at the molecular level and notice discreet changes between the genomes of different species. Going back to Seelke's shrew-bat example from the audio clip, if you took a shrew and converted its DNA to that of a bat then you would have a bat, wouldn't you? So are you saying it is impossible for these changes to happen in nature? How do you know that?

It is amusing to see you admit that Lenski's E. coli could have achieved two or more mutations because Dr. Seelke's critical point was that two mutations is virtually impossible. What did you find so interesting about that audio clip? I hope it wasn't the 7 minute prelude of simplistic parsing of creationist terminology (micro vs macro evolution), slim discussion of evidence that makes the evolutionary case (no discussion of molecular evidence), a strawman argument about bat evolution (what about evolution of the eye? evolution of land mammals towards sea mammal? why focus on a made-up bad argument instead of addressing the best arguments for evolution?)... really elementary stuff. I don't see what has you so electrified.

It is true that Lenski has more work to do with discovering what molecular changes happened to give the E. coli a new metabolic ability. It will be very interesting to see what comes out of it. Better to find what is possible than run a poorly designed experiment, see nothing, and declare the system "impossible" as Dr. Seelke is doing. He won't ever be able to publish his work like that. We won't learn anything from him.

OK, so Michael Behe believes in common ancestry despite the zero evidence for it. What shall we do - rejoice that another soul has accepted a blind dogma ?

At least in mathematics one can prove that 2 + 2 = 4. In biology, without witness, the only possibility unless you personally observe a one species giving birth to another, even over time, all you are left with is conjecture and speculation that it could possibly have happened, unless another equally misguided observer happens to believe otherwise and prescribes a differing geneology.

Again, DUDE, you have to fall back to the flimsiest of proofs of you beliefs: when confronted with the fact there are no directly observedmorphological changes ON THE PLANET, you fall back to greatly exaggerating the importance of minor changes in bacteria, changes that do NOT combine more than one evolutionary change at a time, changes that are NOT morphological, and changes that have nothing to do with the more grandiose claims of evolution, i.e. - that species are derived from other species. Evolutionary theory has NEVER proved that, it has NEVER proved that its even possible, but all Darwinists claim its a fact. It's bunk.

So quit hiding behind all the words, and come out with a single proven example of any species being derived from any other. That's your burden, and the burden of all believers in evolution. either prove it, or confess that it's all in your imagination.

I notice that Scott put forth Lenski's work as proof of speciation - and now we see that it is nothing more than the usual bait and switch - typical of all previous and all future so-called "proofs of evolution".

[littlechild]

You cited as your primary source the guy who couldn't get the bacteria to do anything. I cited the guy who got the experiment to work and then published it. The score is Creationists 0 - Evolutionists 1. It's your move, littlechild, if you've got anything better than "hahahahahahah".

Evolutionists are zero.

And you are proving MY point, not the contrary. Firstly, Ralph Seelke is not a mathematician as was claimed earlier, his evidence being derided on that point. Secondly, he showed that by far the vast majority of mutations were not beneficial. Thirdly, Lenski's work SUPPORTS this fact, it doesn't discredit Seelke's.

Arguing with you is like arguing with a robot. You come to conclusions not based on the evidence, but based on your prejudices and preconceived notions.

Even if we grant you the argument, that Lenki's work was, ahem, "successful", and "better" than Seelke's, it STILL doesn't prove that any species of ANY sort can undergo more than one beneficial mutation at a time, it doesn't show ANY complexity of the sort required to create another species, and yet you think this is evidence for your fantasy? Sorry, you're the one who needs to come up with something better. Not that I care what you think or believe, it just proves my point - Darwinists are dogmatic fundamentalists who deny being such.

[Tarski]

OK, so Michael Behe believes in common ancestry despite the zero evidence for it. What shall we do - rejoice that another soul has accepted a blind dogma ?

Did you know that there is really absolutely zero evidence for plate tectonics? The continents don't drift (except micro drifting) It is a mere dogma based on the unfounded metaphysical assumption that God's solid earth could change. A faith based assumption!

Zero evidence! Show me any! Anything!

[Tchild2]

I already showed you David O McKay's statement that the church has no official position on evolution. But simply accepting that and moving on would mean you'd have to come up with some other means of trolling Mormons on the internet.

Semlogo. As all my posts have stated, I am talking specifically about the doctrines of "the fall", not evolution. My last post was an Ensign talk referencing, discussing, expounding upon, clarifying and reiterating the church's consistent and multigenerational doctrinal position on the nature of "the fall" of man, Adam and Eve and a world without death. Was that not overly clear and plain?

What you are missing is that this doctrine makes the church's neutrality and non-commital of evolution irrelevant, because by accepting the fall as doctrine, you cannot have evolution. That is made perfectly clear by what myself and others have reasoned (apologists and critics alike), and what the late pres. Joseph Fielding Smith could plainly understand, that was both cited by an apologist and two critics thereafter on this very thread. The fall and evolution are not compatible, interchangeable nor reconciliable one with the other.

Semlogo, do you believe the teachings that we know as "the fall" are doctrine or opinion? We will put evolution on the backburner until you answer that question.

[BCSpace]

What you are missing is that this doctrine makes the church's neutrality and non-commital of evolution irrelevant, because by accepting the fall as doctrine, you cannot have evolution.

This is not correct. Since the BoM distinguishes between a creative period and a finished/created period AND ascribes the state of no death only to the second period, you can have a world full of death while the creation is proceeding.