How literally do you take the creation story?

[SilverKnight]

Generally you get that when you are the very seed of God himself and not some ancient monkey.

Indeed no mere monkey could have such divine attributes.

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, there is a difference between fact and belief. Scientists don't take evolution on faith - but rather on physical, factual evidence. Belief doesn't enter into it.

Hum...pretty much every biology textbook I pick up on the matter of evolution and mans evolution starts by somthing like- "Scientists believe..." They almost always start by giving an opening line of conjecture and then try to place evidence to support their conjecture. Belief is very much a part of it. If it wasn't, why do they debate the topic so heavily every time a new fossil relic is found?

Perhaps you need to study up on the issues because it is hottly debated (man's origins from different continents and fossil evidence)

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Evolution does not claim that we are descendant from monkeys. Nice straw man though.

Ok then, something monkey-like. But in reality they do not really claim where exactly we do come from- that is why they call it the missing link.

[Rob Osborn]

Indeed no mere monkey could have such divine attributes.

Exactly- they are animals and we are humans. They are the seed of monkeys and we are the seed of God. Intelligence of man alone blows them completely out of our league!

[thesometimesaint]

Rob Osborn:

Not monkey like either. Both humans and apes species have a common ancestor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

[Rob Osborn]

Brenda:

Please tell us all that Pi is equal to exactly 3 because it says so in the Scriptures.

I have a set of scientific encyclopedias from the 60's and they are wrong on a number of topics. Does this mean that science can be wrong? You bet. Man is fallible. Man writes books. Man sometimes translates books under Gods direction. Does this mean that every book of scripture is exactly 100% right? No. Hold the same criteria to your own precious bilogy books. Do they contain 100% truth. No!

[David T]

Exactly- they are animals and we are humans. They are the seed of monkeys and we are the seed of God. Intelligence of man alone blows them completely out of our league!

CFR the restoration scripture that clearly presents that our mortal physical bodies are the literal seed of God.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

Not monkey like either. Both humans and apes species have a common ancestor.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/7550033/Missing-link-between-man-and-apes-found.html

Listen to yourself. You contradict yourself. You state that we are not monkey-like and yet in the same breath claim a common ancestor between the two of us. It's no wonder we argue this forever- you cannot even get your own wording correct.

[David T]

Listen to yourself. You contradict yourself. You state that we are not monkey-like and yet in the same breath claim a common ancestor between the two of us. It's no wonder we argue this forever- you cannot even get your own wording correct.

I don't think you understand what 'common ancestor' means. And please answer my CFR.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Non sequitur. Science is built on the proposition that it can be proven wrong. Recently Pi was taken out to over one trillion decimal places. It is possible, a vanishingly small chance, but a chance just the same, that at sometime in the future it will be shown to be repeating. There is NO chance that it will be shown to exactly equal 3.

[urroner]

It's called the sedimentary layers that we see exposed because of the upthrust.

Rob, I'm not disagreeing with you that it's called sedimentary layers that was formed by the laying down of sand layers which eventually became rock and then were pushed up eventually to form mountains, but where is the evidence that these layers, which were laid down over hundred of thousands of years, were the result of a global flood? Plate tectonics do a great explanation of where the oceans fronts use to be and how the mountains were created. Throwing out the explanation that those layers were a result of Noah's Flood doesn't seem, in the slightest, to even be remotely possible and is extremely unsatisfying.

So, how are the hundreds of thousands of sedimentary layers found within the sandstone formations in the western mountains undeniable evidence of a flood that was suppose to have take place about 5000 years ago?

[urroner]

I have a set of scientific encyclopedias from the 60's and they are wrong on a number of topics. Does this mean that science can be wrong? You bet. Man is fallible. Man writes books. Man sometimes translates books under Gods direction. Does this mean that every book of scripture is exactly 100% right? No. Hold the same criteria to your own precious bilogy books. Do they contain 100% truth. No!

So you are using the Bible as a science book?

[cinepro]

CFR the restoration scripture that clearly presents that our mortal physical bodies are the literal seed of God.

Considering the subject and tenor of this thread, I'm not sure there is anything presented so "clearly" in the scriptures that its literalness can't be doubted by LDS who want to.

Interestingly, the only time the phrase "seed of God" has been used in official Church publications is a single talk in General Conference in 1983:

We are His children, begotten in His image and likeness. We are His seed and have the potential within us to become as He is.

For this to happen, our Heavenly Father prepared a plan. An earth would be created upon which our spirits could be born into physical bodies, a place where we could have experiences that would teach and test us, a place to develop the godly potential within us. Here we, the seed of God, can mature into the product of the harvest of the Father

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Do you know what Common Descent means?

[semlogo]

It's called the sedimentary layers that we see exposed because of the upthrust.

These layers are far older than the flood was supposed to have been.

In fact, we cannot find one single piece of evidence that we would expect to find if there had ever been a global flood.

[semlogo]

Generally you get that when you are the very seed of God himself and not some ancient monkey.

large brain size, check

binocular vision, check

opposeable thumbs, check

omnivore dentition, check

bilateral symmetry, check

[semlogo]

Hum...pretty much every biology textbook I pick up on the matter of evolution and mans evolution starts by somthing like- "Scientists believe..." They almost always start by giving an opening line of conjecture and then try to place evidence to support their conjecture. Belief is very much a part of it. If it wasn't, why do they debate the topic so heavily every time a new fossil relic is found?

Perhaps you need to study up on the issues because it is hottly debated (man's origins from different continents and fossil evidence)

Certain details about evolution ARE conjecture. Evolution itself, however, is not.

Reading comprehension: you cannot has.

[David T]

Considering the subject and tenor of this thread, I'm not sure there is anything presented so "clearly" in the scriptures that its literalness can't be doubted by LDS who want to.

Interestingly, the only time the phrase "seed of God" has been used in official Church publications is a single talk in General Conference in 1983:

But other than that, it's not a phrase that has gotten much traction.

And whether the good Elder Bradford was speaking literally or figuratively, and was expressing doctrine or personal opinion, we'll have to figure out for ourselves.

CinePro: Do you believe that physical human bodies are the result of literal physical reproduction/procreation from God?

[cinepro]

CinePro: Do you believe that physical human bodies are the result of literal physical reproduction/procreation from God?

I've always understood that Jesus was the "only begotten" because he was the only human that was the result of physical reproduction from God. So no, Adam couldn't have been the result of a literal physical reproduction from God.

Moses 5

9 And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.

[David T]

I've always understood that Jesus was the "only begotten" because he was the only human that was the result of physical reproduction from God. So no, Adam couldn't have been the result of a literal physical reproduction from God.

Alright. The question is not directed towards you, then, it is towards Rob, who has made one of his big attacks of the character and faithfulness against those who believe in organic evolution as the means by which the human physical body was created is that it is against the doctrine that our physical bodies are the literal seed of God. He has made that assertion many times.

Rob, if you do not address this specific CFR in your next post, I will assume you are not sincere, and are just interested in unsupported insults, and report you to the moderators.

[Rob Osborn]

Alright. The question is not directed towards you, then, it is towards Rob, who has made one of his big attacks of the character and faithfulness against those who believe in organic evolution as the means by which the human physical body was created is that it is against the doctrine that our physical bodies are the literal seed of God. He has made that assertion many times.

Rob, if you do not address this specific CFR in your next post, I will assume you are not sincere, and are just interested in unsupported insults, and report you to the moderators.

The geneology of Noah is traced back to Adam and from him to God. Obviously we are speaking of it in the physical sense.

22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.

(Moses 6:22)

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Non sequitur. Science is built on the proposition that it can be proven wrong. Recently Pi was taken out to over one trillion decimal places. It is possible, a vanishingly small chance, but a chance just the same, that at sometime in the future it will be shown to be repeating. There is NO chance that it will be shown to exactly equal 3.

So? And your point? Do a google search for biblical errors. There are many that have made long lists of all the errors in the scriptures. It proves nothing. What's your point? We both agree that anything written by man can and usually does have errors.

[David T]

The geneology of Noah is traced back to Adam and from him to God. Obviously we are speaking of it in the physical sense.

22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed.

(Moses 6:22)

Is that the sole scripture on which your assertion is made that God is the physical pro-creator of our physical bodies?

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, I'm not disagreeing with you that it's called sedimentary layers that was formed by the laying down of sand layers which eventually became rock and then were pushed up eventually to form mountains, but where is the evidence that these layers, which were laid down over hundred of thousands of years, were the result of a global flood? Plate tectonics do a great explanation of where the oceans fronts use to be and how the mountains were created. Throwing out the explanation that those layers were a result of Noah's Flood doesn't seem, in the slightest, to even be remotely possible and is extremely unsatisfying.

So, how are the hundreds of thousands of sedimentary layers found within the sandstone formations in the western mountains undeniable evidence of a flood that was suppose to have take place about 5000 years ago?

Like I said- can't see the forest because of all the trees.

If you have glasses on that only see things one way, you will never see them as they may really be. At some point you have to remove those glasses and entertain other ideas. Until then it is pointless because you will never see it even with it staring you in the face.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

Do you know what Common Descent means?

Yeah, it's a bunch of hogwash. The thing is that there seems to be a neverending set of missing links in building the human ancestor line in evolutionary biology. It's quite ridiculous. Heck, I can trace my ancestor line to Noah and from him to Adam and from him directly to God. Nowhere in there are any hominids as science proposes. So whatever skulls they do come up with are either animals with no relation whatsoever or they are human between Adam and me.