How literally do you take the creation story?

[Jeff K.]

This isn't what evolution claims.

Try to read the entire quote in its proper context.

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.

Next time try to read the post in its entirety before making an ill informed and shallow talking point.

[Rob Osborn]

zelder, Rob, etc:

Have you gotten around to reading the articles I linked to back on page 9 of this thread?

They do a wonderful job of placing, documented and in context, they key elements we're discussing. For one actually interested in understanding the different point of view, this is a great place to start:

The first discusses evolution in terms of LDS theology:

Crawling Out of the Primordial Soup: A Step toward the Emergence of an LDS Theology Compatible with Organic Evolution

The second discusses the distinct approaches of "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" mainly in terms of how they are approached by scientists, and how the two concepts are actually quite distinct and incompatible:

Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties

Please let me know if you intend to read them, and then let us know when you do.

Hum....let's see. Two known LDS evolutionists write papers heavily biased in favor of evolution. I'm not buyiong it. I read Steven Pecks paper a few months ago and critiqued Steven himself on it and he blocked me from posting on his blog. He calls me a "troll" and doesn't like any dissent. People like him are a disgrace to the teaching at institutions like BYU. Steven Peck is in my book an atheist because he has no room for the Creator in LDS doctrine. The dis-service he does to mormonism in the name of mormonism is outright blatant!

Sorry, but that is how I feel about that man.

[zelder]

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

I can have some respect for that. At least you are honest with us and yourself.

[zelder]

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

....and jew and muslim. thanks.

[SilverKnight]

People like him are a disgrace to the teaching at institutions like BYU. Steven Peck is in my book an atheist because he has no room for the Creator in LDS doctrine.

To be fair, anyone who is not a medieval pitchfork-waving fundamentalist would be an atheist in your book.

You should ask yourself why every science professor at BYU (men who genuinely try to harmonize faith and reason) would be atheists in your book.

John A Widstoe, BH Roberts, James E Talmage, David O McKay and Henry Eyring would be atheists as well.

[David T]

Steven Peck is in my book an atheist

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[urroner]

To be fair, anyone who is not a medieval pitchfork-waving fundamentalist would be an atheist in your book.

You should ask yourself why every science professor at BYU (men who genuinely try to harmonize faith and reason) would be atheists in your book.

John A Widstoe, BH Roberts, James E Talmage, David O McKay and Henry Eyring would be atheists as well.

God would be an atheist also.

[cinepro]

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.

Do you believe the Article of Faith that actually refers to Adam and his transgression? If Adam was not a literally real person, and his transgression was not a literally real event, how does the second Article of Faith even make sense?

[zelder]

To be fair, anyone who is not a medieval pitchfork-waving fundamentalist would be an atheist in your book.

You should ask yourself why every science professor at BYU (men who genuinely try to harmonize faith and reason) would be atheists in your book.

John A Widstoe, BH Roberts, James E Talmage, David O McKay and Henry Eyring would be atheists as well.

The mockery and belittlement is annoying. I would be extremely surprised if any of those men didn't believe that Adam was the first man.

[SilverKnight]

....and jew and muslim. thanks.

... and Amazonian Cannibals, New Guinean Headhunters, Aboriginal Shamans, and African Witch Doctors.

They all have their own creation myths.

How do you know Genesis Creation account is the 'real' way it happened, and not the Creation Myths of one of the above peoples?

[David T]

Do you believe the article of faith that actually refers to Adam and his transgression?

Yes. I do not believe I am held responsible, in any way, for anything any hypothetical ancestors may or may not have done.

I chose to fall into mortality, and into sin. I wasn't forced into either by anyone, past or present.

[Ceeboo]

Last post for old Ceeb's (Gotta go get the kid from school)

I must say, I am really shocked that so many LDS seem to deny (or at least do not take literal), the very begining (Adam and Eve) from Scripture.

VERY Strange! (Just my opinion of course)

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Rob Osborn]

To be fair, anyone who is not a medieval pitchfork-waving fundamentalist would be an atheist in your book.

You should ask yourself why every science professor at BYU (men who genuinely try to harmonize faith and reason) would be atheists in your book.

John A Widstoe, BH Roberts, James E Talmage, David O McKay and Henry Eyring would be atheists as well.

Look,He does not try to harmonze our religion with his views on evolution. For instance- on one of the last pages of his paper he wrote he said this-

"If God, of necessity, used evolution to achieve His purposes,

what does that say about His being able to act in the world? I need

to add a cautionary note here. When I say God

[zelder]

... and Amazonian Cannibals, New Guinean Headhunters, Aboriginal Shamans, and African Witch Doctors.

They all have their own creation myths.

How do you know Genesis Creation account is the 'real' way it happened, and not the Creation Myths of one of the above peoples?

To me its all part of being mormon. Its like paying tithing and believing in the BoM or believing in secret combinations etc. It just one of the many crazy things we believe.

[SilverKnight]

I must say, I am really shocked that so many LDS seem to deny (or at least do not take literal), the very begining (Adam and Eve) from Scripture.

LDS believe in modern revelation!

[zelder]

Last post for old Ceeb's (Gotta go get the kid from school)

I must say, I am really shocked that so many LDS seem to deny (or at least do not take literal), the very begining (Adam and Eve) from Scripture.

VERY Strange! (Just my opinion of course)

Peace,

Ceeboo

I thought it was stange too but I don't think there are very many of them.

[cinepro]

Yes. I do not believe I am held responsible, in any way, for anything any hypothetical ancestors may or may not have done.

I chose to fall into mortality, and into sin. I wasn't forced into either by anyone, past or present.

You should write an article for the Ensign entitled "Adam: Our Hypothetical Ancestor".

[Rob Osborn]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I use it because it is an effective description of die hard evolutionists in the battle of evolution versus God. It is a very strong word yes, I admit that. But when we displace God from his own creation I have no option other than to question peoples actual beliefs in God himself. If we can't believe in the Creation under God's hand, then nothing in the scriptures is real- it's all a fable and there is no God as we know it.

I ask any evolutionist if they believe in an intelligent designer (God) and they disagree that he had anything to do with how life came about on this planet. Steven peck is a prime example of this view.

[semlogo]

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.

What does that mean, though?

[semlogo]

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

Peace,

Ceeboo

True, but science is self-correcting. Genesis is what it is.

[SilverKnight]

To me its all part of being mormon. Its like paying tithing and believing in the BoM or believing in secret combinations etc. It just one of the many crazy things we believe.

Fair enough.

What about LDS people (like me) who believe the Genesis account to be completely figurative (didn't really happen)?

What should the church do with us?

[zelder]

You should write an article for the Ensign entitled "Adam: Our Hypothetical Ancestor".

BWAHAHAHAH

[semlogo]

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

Science certainly has a better track record than, specifically, the Book of Genesis. None of it holds up very well if you take it literally.

[SilverKnight]

BWAHAHAHAH

Zelder-

Before you join Cinepro's cheer squad, you should know he is an unbelieving member who loves cynically playing 'Angel's' advocate to point out the hypocrisy of apologists.

[semlogo]

Zelder-

Before you join Cinepro's cheer squad, you should know he is an unbelieving member who loves cynically playing 'Angel's' advocate to point out the hypocrisy of apologists.

Maybe that's what Zelder is doing too.