How literally do you take the creation story?

[Hughes]

You would find all life, dinosaurs, cows, people, etc, all buried in a single layer of sediment, for one.

I have to respond to this error.

It's fundamental to the evolutionary "way" of looking at ancient history. The error is in the understanding about the way sediments are laid down. They are not laid down one row at a time. What science has in fact shown is that they are laid down vertically or at a steep angle. The net result of sentiments of similar types and weights, grouping themselves together creates the illusion of what we have communally called a sedimentary layer. But their (appearance of) horizontal layering doesn't indicate age. Rather it indicates weight. That's why you have sand stone all together in one layer, and other types all in their own rows.

[shalamabobbi]

And is anyone else a little disappointed that the First Presidency wasn't able to actually bring additional clarity to the issue instead of just begging people to stop talking about it?

..about as disappointed as I am that the prophet Joseph misspelled Ryder's name as Rider..

The fact that they entertained a debate between Smith and Roberts on the issue (before stating that the official doctrine of the church is not in favor of pre-adamites, nor is it in favor of no pre-adamites) would be a pretty slam-dunk testimony to the fact that they don't really know.

Since they are revelators that would equate with "it hasn't been revealed yet" which accords with the D&C that it will be revealed when the Savior returns.

But in the meantime I think it correct to study what facts are available for study and not wait to be commanded in all things or do nothing until God reveals it. Such is an abrogation of the responsibility of agency.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

So to your mind if a prophet said it. It must by definition be fact. I wonder how you deal with all the errors in the Scriptures. Please inform us on the fact value of Pi as recorded in the Bible, and no subsequent prophet has repudiated, and gone through the "Common Consent" requirements of LDS.

I tell you what, why don't you just chalk up the whole book as a great big error and we will be done with this debate. Somehow I think you are guilty though of picking and choosing here- you pick certain topics like this Pi issue and then make a complete mockery of God's prophets. Are you atheist?

[Rob Osborn]

None of that sedimentary layer here in Florida? How old is this sedimentary layer anyway and does it have a name so I can look it up? If it's all over the world, then it should have a name?

BTW, you chide us evolutionists for stating our ideas as facts, yet you are stating your ideas as facts. Don't you see a problem in doing that?

I never claims the global flood as having factual evidence. I only presented it as a belief. Big difference there. The geologic column is all over the world- it's strata layers are found on every continent.

[zelder]

I LOVE THIS THREAD!

I'm surprised that nobody cares about Stanley Kubrick being the director of the apollo moon landing films.

[Tsuzuki]

Whew... after reading the whole thread here's one scripture I hadn't seen yet.

[urroner]

I never claims the global flood as having factual evidence. I only presented it as a belief. Big difference there. The geologic column is all over the world- it's strata layers are found on every continent.

Well, what is the name of this column and when was it laid down?

[semlogo]

Whew... after reading the whole thread here's one scripture I hadn't seen yet.

[semlogo]

I have to respond to this error.

It's fundamental to the evolutionary "way" of looking at ancient history. The error is in the understanding about the way sediments are laid down. They are not laid down one row at a time. What science has in fact shown is that they are laid down vertically or at a steep angle. The net result of sentiments of similar types and weights, grouping themselves together creates the illusion of what we have communally called a sedimentary layer. But their (appearance of) horizontal layering doesn't indicate age. Rather it indicates weight. That's why you have sand stone all together in one layer, and other types all in their own rows.

Please back up this assertion with credible evidence

[semlogo]

I tell you what, why don't you just chalk up the whole book as a great big error and we will be done with this debate. Somehow I think you are guilty though of picking and choosing here- you pick certain topics like this Pi issue and then make a complete mockery of God's prophets. Are you atheist?

You're a broken record.

[Macabus]

If there was no human life before Adam, what are these students from BYU doing in southern Utah?

http://news.byu.edu/archive10-aug-northcreekshelter.aspx

Here is a fantastic paper on advocating beliefs. If you have a belief and can't substantiate it, you are prone to believe it even more. If you are presented with contradictory evidence to your belief, you are likely to reject it. There you go. give it a read.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/12/0956797610385953.abstract

I feel whether or not Adam and Eve were real, whether the Garden of Eden was an actual place and the literal nature of all the events occurring in the Genesis temple pericope are not elements essential to my eternal salvation. If Adam was indeed real, I'd like to meet him in the Celestial Kingdom some day. If not, no skin off my nose. I tend to not believe in a literal account of events in Genesis, particularly in the Creation pericope, as it is distinctively a temple text I feel should be read symbolically, not as a history text. But, because of any person's predisposition to not agree with me, I won't bother explaining why as the points I would make have already been made, and you wouldn't accept them anyway(read the paper from the second link. You'll get it.). If you see things as I do, well, you see things as I do.

[Hughes]

Jesus didn't have a background in paleontology.

Nor did anyone claim he did. However, both LDS and Christian followers say they believe in him.

[Hughes]

Jesus was a master of parables, and used them all the time.

It's fine to read things however you want to. Certainly Brian Mitchell does that. However, if we are to be honest interpreters of someone else's writing we have to understand first what the author meant to convey. And there is no indication that Jesus was saying this as a parable. Jesus was asked a question of Divorce, and he referenced three real people. Moses, Adam and Eve.

If you think that Jesus believed that Adam and Eve weren't real living people, then please what is your evidence? I'm all ears.

[semlogo]

It's fine to read things however you want to. Certainly Brian Mitchell does that. However, if we are to be honest interpreters of someone else's writing we have to understand first what the author meant to convey. And there is no indication that Jesus was saying this as a parable. Jesus was asked a question of Divorce, and he referenced three real people. Moses, Adam and Eve.

If you think that Jesus believed that Adam and Eve weren't real living people, then please what is your evidence? I'm all ears.

Even if it's literal it doesn't contradict evolution - the first humans were male and female, regardless of how they came about.

There is no evidence that Jesus believed one way or the other - all we have is that offhand statement that really wasn't the point of what he was saying at the time anyway.

He didn't mention Adam and Eve though. He said this:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

See? No Adam & Eve. Adam is just a word that means mankind, by the way.

[Hughes]

Please back up this assertion with credible evidence

Now Nature has finally caught up! That is, the weekly international science journal Nature, arguably the world

[urroner]

Were the different strati laid down in the current angles they possess now or were they laid down flat and then tilted because of plate tectonics?

[Hughes]

Even if it's literal it doesn't contradict evolution - the first humans were male and female, regardless of how they came about.

There is no evidence that Jesus believed one way or the other - all we have is that offhand statement that really wasn't the point of what he was saying at the time anyway.

He didn't mention Adam and Eve though. He said this:

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

See? No Adam & Eve. Adam is just a word that means mankind, by the way.

You are correct on two counts.

One is thats no matter what Jesus believed, Evolution and it's error or not is a completely different topic. However, it does affect those who have doubts.

Two is Jesus didn't specifically name Adam and Eve. However, being a Jew, everyone in his audience knew who he was referring to. Context of the passage is clear that he was talking about Adam and Eve there are no others to which Jesus would have referenced.

The point that you are mistaken is the idea that there is no evidence that jesus believed one way or the other about the literalness of the creation story. Fact is that this passage is very strong evidence for the affirmative. And I've yet to hear any negative evidence or evidence to the contrary.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Me an Atheist? No. But I definitely have no science to prove God.

I certainly believe in the Article of Faith. One of which that states: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

I certainly believe: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I certainly believe: Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[Senator]

Rob:

Me an Atheist? No. But I definitely have no science to prove God.

I certainly believe in the Article of Faith. One of which that states: We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

I certainly believe: We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

I certainly believe: Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four

[semlogo]

You are correct on two counts.

One is thats no matter what Jesus believed, Evolution and it's error or not is a completely different topic. However, it does affect those who have doubts.

Two is Jesus didn't specifically name Adam and Eve. However, being a Jew, everyone in his audience knew who he was referring to. Context of the passage is clear that he was talking about Adam and Eve there are no others to which Jesus would have referenced.

The point that you are mistaken is the idea that there is no evidence that jesus believed one way or the other about the literalness of the creation story. Fact is that this passage is very strong evidence for the affirmative. And I've yet to hear any negative evidence or evidence to the contrary.

He was referring to the creation story, but gives no clue as to any literal interpretation. Perhaps he only mentioned the parts he did because they are the only literally true parts.

[semlogo]

The Nature article

Please note that I specifically asked for a credible source. Please provide one.

[Hughes]

Were the different strati laid down in the current angles they possess now or were they laid down flat and then tilted because of plate tectonics?

Uplift accounts for the various angles we see the strata today.

[Hughes]

Please note that I specifically asked for a credible source. Please provide one.

"Credible" is a subjective term. Since I disagree with much of the philosophy surrounding "science" I often don't care what people say is credible or not. I like to look at the facts.

I did provide a Nature article which confirms experiments I understood and heard about in 1988. At that time I thought Guy's experiments and theories were credible, and still do to this day.

The article in Nature confirms only part of Guy's experiments and theory.

If you disagree, that's fine. Feel free to offer contradictory evidence that disproves said "non-credible" experiments with credible ones. Especially before calling them unreliable.

[zelder]

Please note that I specifically asked for a credible source. Please provide one.

Herein lies the difference between the differing opinions. Its all a matter of who you believe and how much weight you give to "authoritative" sources and whether or not you are capable of listening to "rogue" scientists.

Personally, I don't care nearly as much about the source as I do about whether or not the information makes sense to me. I don't trust big education any more than I trust big business or big government.

[Hughes]

He was referring to the creation story, but gives no clue as to any literal interpretation. Perhaps he only mentioned the parts he did because they are the only literally true parts.

Indeed you couldn't be reading into it more. The orthodox Jew of his day (which he was one), understood it to be literal history. And nothing, I repeat nothing he said or did changes that perception. You may disagree, and read into it what you will, but that is simply a dishonest reading of how they saw it.

In essence, the question of "What did the author intend for his readers to understand?", is plain when we understand that the Jews all understood it literally. Even to the point of including Adam in genealogy accounts.