How literally do you take the creation story?

[David T]

Hughes,

One is a spiritual creation the other is a physical creation.

Gen 2

4

[Ceeboo]

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. It's older than 6000 years, and humans evolved from other animals. These are facts and facts do not disappear simply because you want them to.

These statements are absobatooootly an example of a belief.

The fact is, wether one happens to believe that humans evolved from other animals or that humans (as well as everthing else) were created by the very Creator, largely depends on the world view you place your faith in.

To suggest otherwise is clearly USING data to support an already formed belief/opinion.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[zelder]

They're pretty obviously parables. Come on - talking snakes? Archetypal trees? Flaming swords? Does that sound like history to you?

Everything I've ever read from church publications has led me to believe that Adam and Eve were read people and our first parents. If Adam and Eve were not real people and our first parents then the church is bunk because they are lying.

I know a man who told me that the Book of Mormon reads like fiction. After I thought for a minute I had to agree. Yes indeed, it reads like fiction. I don't beleve its fiction though but if I thought the flood and Adam and Eve were fiction I'd be pretty close to thinking that the BoM is also fiction.

All I'm saying is that the church makes it pretty clear, Adam and Eve were real and our first parents. That is church doctrine. If you think its bunk thats fine but you are also saying that the church is at least partially bunk.

[semlogo]

Sediment hardening starts at six minutes in...

Remember what I said before about using credible sources?

[semlogo]

These statements are absobatooootly an example of a belief.

The fact is, wether one happens to believe that humans evolved from other animals or that humans (as well as everthing else) were created by the very Creator, largely depends on the world view you place your faith in.

To suggest otherwise is clearly USING data to support an already formed belief/opinion.

Peace,

Ceeboo

No, the DNA evidence is conclusive. You just choose to ignore it.

[semlogo]

Everything I've ever read from church publications has led me to believe that Adam and Eve were read people and our first parents. If Adam and Eve were not real people and our first parents then the church is bunk because they are lying.

I know a man who told me that the Book of Mormon reads like fiction. After I thought for a minute I had to agree. Yes indeed, it reads like fiction. I don't beleve its fiction though but if I thought the flood and Adam and Eve were fiction I'd be pretty close to thinking that the BoM is also fiction.

All I'm saying is that the church makes it pretty clear, Adam and Eve were real and our first parents. That is church doctrine. If you think its bunk thats fine but you are also saying that the church is at least partially bunk.

A belief that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were our distant ancestors does not mean that the Genesis fable is literally true.

[Ceeboo]

No, the DNA evidence is conclusive. You just choose to ignore it.

No, the Word of God is not only conclusive but I would suggest it the pinnacle of Authority on ALL matters. You just choose to ignore it.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[David T]

A belief that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were our distant ancestors does not mean that the Genesis fable is literally true.

I'd amend that to say a belief that a man we designate as Adam and a woman we designate as Eve were our distant ancestors does not mean that the Genesis myths/accounts are literal documentary histories.

[LeSellers]

Then go ahead and get that teenager and have him operate on YOU. I'm sure you'll be thrilled with the results.

And I'm sure you could concoct a realistic argument, but you do not do it.

It seems you always mock any idea you do not share. Belittlement and other ridicule seems to be your only weapons.

The question is not about teenagers wielding scalpels, the question is why one organization dictated that only its members (and, hence, only those who practice exactly the same kind of medicine) are permitted, by law, to operate. And, believe me, it is not because only this type of doctor is qualified (except by law) to assist the body in healing itself.

God heals, but the doctor collects the fee.

[semlogo]

No, the Word of God is not only conclusive but I would suggest it the pinnacle of Authority on ALL matters. You just choose to ignore it.

Peace,

Ceeboo

Ancient scripture is subject to error and interpretation. All but the most fundamentalist of believers acknowledge that.

[zelder]

A belief that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were our distant ancestors does not mean that the Genesis fable is literally true.

Not just our distant ancestors. The doctrine is that they were the first humans. The record puts it back about 6,000 years ago.

[semlogo]

Not just our distant ancestors. The doctrine is that they were the first humans. The record puts it back about 6,000 years ago.

That's one interpretation - an incorrect one, it turns out.

[Ceeboo]

A belief that a man named Adam and a woman named Eve were our distant ancestors does not mean that the Genesis fable is literally true.

A belief that a sponge named algea and a piglet named nancy were our distant ancestors, also does not mean the "theory of evolution" is leterally true.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[zelder]

And I'm sure you could concoct a realistic argument, but you do not do it.

It seems you always mock any idea you do not share. Belittlement and other ridicule seems to be your only weapons.

The question is not about teenagers wielding scalpels, the question is why one organization dictated that only its members (and, hence, only those who practice exactly the same kind of medicine) are permitted, by law, to operate. And, believe me, it is not because only this type of doctor is qualified (except by law) to assist the body in healing itself.

The AMA is a monopolist organization and it practices legally enforced professional birth control. It does so to keep prices high by reducing competition.

So I'd really like the government to recognize that USmericans are competent to make these decisions without the state restricting our choices. But that's not the nature of government: it controls people's lives rather than allowing freedom.

Lehi

Agreed. It is annoying how he usually turns to ridicule and mockery.

[Ceeboo]

Ancient scripture is subject to error and interpretation.

So is "science" (Now what do/should we place our faith in?)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[zelder]

That's one interpretation - an incorrect one, it turns out.

There is no avenue for departure. No room for interpretation. You can believe what you want but the church has made it clear. Adam was the first man and Eve was the first woman.

[zelder]

So is "science" (Now what do/should we place our faith in?)

Peace,

Ceeboo

*nods* Darn straight!

[zelder]

Adam was the first man! Believe it or not THIS IS THE DOCTRINE!!!

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/a/30

[David T]

Adam was the first man! Believe it or not THIS IS THE DOCTRINE!!!

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/a/30

This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.

[Jeff K.]

No. That's an uninformed creationist talking point. The pattern is a branching that shows temporally ordered inherited relationships.

There is a very very clear picture that tells a story for anyone with their eyes open and the more one learns the clearer the picture. Far too many independent strands of evidence line up and mutually corroborate each other to allow such an interpretation as you suggest.

Do you think the relationship between your genetics and that of your parents shows more than just unrelated similarity?

Maybe you should denounce DNA evidence of paternity.

Tarski

A geneticist told me that, and he was agnostic. So rather than spiel the creationist talking point retort, read what I stated. Basically the picture remains unclear, and evolution is not the clear through genetics.

DNA evidence of paternity reflects a certain ignorance since you cannot show evolutionary movement from one species to a distinct one within one generation, or have you forgotten what evolution is?

If you wish to talk down to us Tarski, we can do the same in response. I am a fan of evolution since it appears to work, but my faith in it is not so much as to blind me to its shortcomings.

[David T]

since you cannot show evolutionary movement from one species to a distinct one within one generation

This isn't what evolution claims.

[Jeff K.]

Ancient scripture is subject to error and interpretation. All but the most fundamentalist of believers acknowledge that.

And of course science is not subject to error and interpretation.

[Brade]

Adam was the first man! Believe it or not THIS IS THE DOCTRINE!!!

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/a/30

I agree with you that that is the doctrine of the Church. I just don't believe it's true.

[Ceeboo]

Adam was the first man! Believe it or not THIS IS THE DOCTRINE!!!

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/a/30

Hi zelder,

If I may:

It is not just LDS Doctrine, I would suggest it is the belief amongst the great majority who claim to be Christian.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[David T]

Time to pull out The Video again, for those who do not know what evolution does and does not claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

Please, anyone making claims against evolution, please do all of us a favor and watch this before making any further comments.