How literally do you take the creation story?

[Hughes]

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

So sorry charley. DNA evidence isn't conclusive of anything but similarity.

In other words does DNA evidence prove we came from other animals? Or does it simply say that we have similar traits and therefore have similar DNA too?

[Areabird]

I can see that as demonstrated here...

" it would result in one massive, mixed up layer of sediment of all types, in which we'd have millions of people from all cultures, dinosaurs, building, cattle, etc. Such a layer doesn't exist"

They did the science and proved that the Scientists assumptions of sedimentary rock has to be re accessed.

http://www.physorg.com/news116777974.html

But since you choose to keep your head in the sand so be it.

That story is three years old. Has anyone else reproduced those results? Seems if it were truly shaking up the old theory then there would be more information about this particular study....

[SilverKnight]

Here is a very simple point of contention. What is belief and what is fact?

The earth isn't flat or covered by a dome... yes you are correct, we can test this today and verify it's not flat or covered by a dome (which, by the way the bible calls the earth a sphere.)

The Earth is older than 6,000 years old. This isn't a fact, it's a belief.

No this is a fact.

Did you know that 6000 years ago the Sumerians had just invented glue, the Chinese were tilling their rice fields and domesticating horses and The Egyptians were building cities along the Nile?

It can't be tested or verified (ie the scientific method which requires observation).

Yes it can. The methods to measure the age of the earth are every bit as accurate, reliable and testable as those to measure the age of a tree or a human being.

[Katzpur]

Folks, in the last thread I oppened, some people (quite more than I expected, actually) expressed that they took the creation story not as a hard historical fact but as a symbol. The obvious question now is, how literally do you take the genesis as accounted in LDS scripture to be? In particular, how much of the "Adam and Eve" story do you take as actually having occured?

Also, how much of what goes on in the temple do you take as actually having occured and how much just as a symbol that didn't necessarily happen? ...obviously, without getting too specific.

I don't take it literally at all, although when debating the details with someone whose perspective of Adam and Eve is very negative, I generally treat the topic in a pretty literal way. For instance, I will argue that until they partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they didn't have a knowledge of good and evil and did not therefore "sin." I have my own opinion as to exactly who Adam and Eve were, with respect to prehistoric human-like beings. It's not scriptural, but I have to go with it since I simply can't convince myself that such individuals never existed. I do believe in Adam and Eve, though, and in a "Fall" that put the Plan of Salvation into motion.

[Katzpur]

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

Have you ever considered the possibility that they were just the first ones who were created "in the image of God"? Could pre-historic man (even homo-sapiens) have existed, but not as God's spirit offspring? Does that make sense?

[Katzpur]

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

So what do you believe? (I'm not asking to pick a fight, trust me. I'm pretty liberal when it comes to these things.) Was there ever an Adam and Eve? If not, who was the first "real" prophet?

What should the church do with us?

Probably what it's already doing -- let us believe what we want. Actually, I don't think we're all that dangerous.

[Ceeboo]

The methods to measure the age of the earth are every bit as accurate, reliable and testable as those to measure the age of a tree or a human being.

Absolute utter nonsense!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Hughes]

You'll find that no credible source takes the flood story seriously. But if we think about what a flood would look like, it would result in one massive, mixed up layer of sediment of all types, in which we'd have millions of people from all cultures, dinosaurs, building, cattle, etc. Such a layer doesn't exist.

It doesn't add up. The moment you say, "don't be so literal," is the moment you've lost the argument. There was no literal global flood to begin with. The story is probably an exaggeration of a real event - a localized flood, which is something that happens all the time all over the world.

You talk as if you know what would happen, and what the results would look like if a global flood were to occur. Do you think this is a mite bit arrogant on your part?

You see, the text doesn't tell us what the results were on land, that we were to understand later when we looked at them. But, consider that not one layer but thousands of layers were laid down in just 9 hours at Mt. St. Helens, and just a short time after that a mud flow cut it 30 feet deep. And what is interesting is that none of this was predicted to happen before that occurred. Before that layers were thought to have formed slowly and the erosion was thought to also occur slowly. I only relate that as an example of how we just can't say we know for sure this is how it happened or not...

[urroner]

But, consider that not one layer but thousands of layers were laid down in just 9 hours at Mt. St. Helens, and just a short time after that a mud flow cut it 30 feet deep.

1000's of layers? What do you mean 1000's of layers? Was there a distinct boundary between each layer? How about the 100s of 1000s of layers in the sandstone out west. There is a distinct boundary between each layer. Also, the sandstone became hardened only after undergoing extreme pressure for a very, very long time. No global flood lasting for a few months or even a year or so would have enough pressure nor time to make the sand turn to stone.

[Areabird]

Explain please.

From the middle link...

http://www.physorg.c...s116777974.html

1) They have proven that the way in which sedimentary rock forms and therefore the bones and other artifacts contained in it are depositing... has nothing what so ever to do with the age of the bones.

2) They have also proven that largely straified expanses of back filled sediments can be deposited in an instant. A matter of a few minutes to a few hours in fact.

Do the scientists who did these experiments agree with you that a global flood is possible based on the results? You seem to be saying that is the case, but I don't know that you are qualified to make that link. Have you contacted them to see what they believe their own work indicates is possible?

[Hughes]

Not quite. More like a plate.

1. Isa. 40: 22 22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

There is a prefeclty good Hebrew word for sphere, but its not the word used here.

A plate indicates it's flat. Sorry incorrect.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

[Hughes]

That story is three years old. Has anyone else reproduced those results? Seems if it were truly shaking up the old theory then there would be more information about this particular study....

Old myths die hard. Proving that science has as much faith in itself as any religion does.

[Hughes]

No this is a fact.

Did you know that 6000 years ago the Sumerians had just invented glue, the Chinese were tilling their rice fields and domesticating horses and The Egyptians were building cities along the Nile?

Yes it can. The methods to measure the age of the earth are every bit as accurate, reliable and testable as those to measure the age of a tree or a human being.

Let's take a look of any of the methods of measuring "time". What are you actually measuring? What is time?

If you really look at it you're not measuring time, but movement of some sort.

Like the decay rates of various isotopes are common.

Now understand that measuring decay rates and then associating those data with time is not an observable and repeatable test. Hence, it's not empirical or "accurate, reliable, testable..."

WHY? Because no one has observed these time spans, nor could they. And I'm not disputing thousands of years, I'm disputing the billions of years.

And since they aren't observable, philosophically, they fall under the purview, not of science but of faith. As exemplified by the absolute statements, made by those who believe in these great time spans.

[Hughes]

1000's of layers? What do you mean 1000's of layers? Was there a distinct boundary between each layer? How about the 100s of 1000s of layers in the sandstone out west. There is a distinct boundary between each layer. Also, the sandstone became hardened only after undergoing extreme pressure for a very, very long time. No global flood lasting for a few months or even a year or so would have enough pressure nor time to make the sand turn to stone.

How do you know how long it took to harden? Were you there? If not it's just your faith talking.

[Areabird]

How do you know how long it took to harden? Were you there? If not it's just your faith talking.

So by your logic, we don't know that the sun has shown for the past 6 thousand years because none of us was there to see it happen all six thousand years....

[Tarski]

So sorry charley. DNA evidence isn't conclusive of anything but similarity.

In other words does DNA evidence prove we came from other animals? Or does it simply say that we have similar traits and therefore have similar DNA too?

It shows that we came from other animals. It tells a very detailed story in this regard and independent evidence from several scientific fields corroborates the story several times over.

The childish conceptual confusions, ignorance and scientific illiteracy displayed on this thread is astounding and surpassed only by the arrogance with which it is displayed.

If this is the fruits of religion then I can rest my case.

[Hughes]

So by your logic, we don't know that the sun has shown for the past 6 thousand years because none of us was there to see it happen all six thousand years....

We know that if the sun didn't shine the past 6 thousand years, that we wouldn't be here now.

[Hughes]

It shows that we came from other animals. It tells a very detailed story in this regard and independent evidence from several scientific fields corroborates the story several times over.

The childish conceptual confusions, ignorance and scientific illiteracy displayed on this thread is astounding and surpassed only by the arrogance with which it is displayed.

If this is the fruits of religion then I can rest my case.

It's a huge mistake to think that similarities of forms or DNA equals only one conclusion.

On top of that it's also a faith based assertion not a factually based one. Which is the larger issue here.

For example. Let's say that Chimps and Humans are 99 percent similar, in their DNA... The conclusion that somehow this shows that evolutionary connections can be made, isn't based on facts but theoretical ideas alone.

Here's another way to say it. What can't be demonstrated and repeated in the laboratory, is based on faith.

Human's and Chimps evolving from a common ancestor is a belief that is based on faith, since the key component, "the evolving" can't be repeated or studied by science.

[Areabird]

We know that if the sun didn't shine the past 6 thousand years, that we wouldn't be here now.

Okay, then, what about the stars?

[Tarski]

It's a huge mistake to think that similarities of forms or DNA equals only one conclusion.

It isn't just similarities. The similarities form a pattern that tells a story. I don't have time to educate you but the relationsships are of the exact sort one would expect to see if the history of all life were one of a branching tree of relatedness that unfolded though time. It is even more than that. It becomes literally obvious.

On top of that it's also a faith based assertion not a factually based one.

Creationist talking point. Boring and wrong.

Here's another way to say it. What can't be demonstrated and repeated in the laboratory, is based on faith.

Is it mere faith that there was an American civil war? Is it mere faith that canyons are formed by erosion? Is it mere faith that the sun is a locus of thermonuclear fusion? Is it mere faith that mountains existed before there were scientists?

You grossly mischaracterize the nature of scientific knowledge. Most of what we know cannot properly be tested in a literal laboratory. Yet we find ways to test every truly scientific theory in some possibly indirect way and we do this from many angles and points of view. There is even such a thing as scientific retrodiction. Scientist's methods of bringing things into the circle of the empirical are far more clever that you imagine.

[urroner]

How do you know how long it took to harden? Were you there? If not it's just your faith talking.

I guess the laws of physics before the flood, during the flood, and after the flood were all very, very different. Yeah, I know, the speed of light has changed dramatically in the past 6000 years and all that tommyrot.

Maybe the laws of physics were so different that water could have just been H6O and now what it is today, H2O and that is why the level of water went down after the flood because God caused water to lose the other four hydrogen atoms, thus reducing its volume.

Such silliness.

Let me state again:

Insufficient data ---> POOF!!!!!!!! ---> Man

[urroner]

We know that if the sun didn't shine the past 6 thousand years, that we wouldn't be here now.

How do we know that. Maybe God was busy changing the law of nature, so that now we need the Sun, but back then, before the flood, the sun wasn't necessary and it was dark the whole time because it couldn't reach the Earth's surface because of the thick clouds that surrounded the Earth which eventually condensed and became the rain which became the water in the global flood and covered all the Earth and caused the single continent to break up to form the different continents we know today and it wiped out all the dinosaurs and the unicorns.

[Tsuzuki]

Or does it simply say that we have similar traits and therefore have similar DNA too?

The similarities are also in the parts of our DNA that don't code for any traits.

[Zakuska]

A plate indicates it's flat. Sorry incorrect.

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth..." (Isaiah 40:22,NIV). (By the way, the Hebrew language at that time did not have a word for "sphere," only for "circle.")

"He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing" (Job 26:7, NIV).

The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician who converted to Christianity mid-life.

He rejected all the Greek philosophers, and in doing so also rejected a spherical Earth. His views were considered heresy by the Church Fathers and his work was ignored until the Renaissance (at which time some humanists revived his writings as a model of good Latin, and of course, his flat Earth view also was revived).

If Isaiah didn't have a word for "Sphere" as you suggest. Then why did he reference a "Ball" in another verse?

Isaiah 22:18

18 He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a ball into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord

[Hughes]

Okay, then, what about the stars?

What about them?

If you think that they must have been there for millions of years because they are millions of light years away, then let me ask you this.

Which is more difficult for God?

To create a fully developed Earth in 6 literal days, with fruit and a fully grown Man and Woman on it. OR

To create a Star millions of light years away, with the light already reaching the Earth?