Man, The lineal and literal offspring of deity

[LDS Guy 1986]

You have God's DNA in your cells and (therefore) his blood coursing through your veins? Really?

If Jesus were to provide a saliva sample, it would show that his father was also in your family tree?

Do you show God as your literal ancestor on your Family Pedigree Chart? If not, why not?

Your post is another example of why Mormon apologists do more harm than good to the Mormon Church.

At least the Scientologists have the good sense not to preach their "advanced technology" unfounded beliefs (think Xenu) on public forums.

Well Genesis 1:26 says that Adam and Eve are made in the image of God, this implies to me that they are perfect copies of Heavenly Father's and Heavenly Mother's image right down to the DNA. Since we are all the descendants of Adam and Eve by default that means we have the same DNA that God does.

So I fail to see how you arrive at your conclusion, God creates Adam in his image and we are all descended from Noah who is a descendant of Adam who's body is made in the image of Heavenly Father's.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Science vs. Intelligent Design

Moderator:We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)Moderator:Hey, what are you doing?(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design Advocate's kneecap.)Intelligent Design Advocate:Yeaaarrrrrrgggghhh! You broke my kneecap!Scientist:Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.Intelligent Design Advocate:Aaaaah! The pain!Scientist:Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!Intelligent Design Advocate:You jerk! You know you did it!Scientist:I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.Intelligent Design Advocate:That's a load of bull sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!(Scientist turns to audience.)Scientist:And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form garbage; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

I am the Imp of the Perverse Perverse

Knowing this won't help you, either

Wow, this is not only silly but has no purpose besides killing braincells.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Rob:

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT. Our spirit is not something science can address as science can not address anything that is supernatural.

Nothing is a "fact" only our best educated guess, you are not using fact in a scientific term but a political term. There is no such thing as a "fact" as you present it in science there is only data and empirical evidence which supports various theories and scientific laws. Nothing if absolute fact though, everything is subject to further experimentation and additional gathering of evidence. We have observed microevolution, which is adaption and change within a species to gain desired or at time undesired traits. Micro evolution can happen in nature and by selective breeding by man made design. The data and evidence strongly supports the theory that a species can adapt to it's environmental condition and even be worked upon by outside forces (man made selective breeding) to gain certain traits.

Macroevolution, one species changing into anther over millions of years, has never been observed, there is absolutely no evidence or data for it. It is speculation and poor science, no verifiable transitional forms have ever been found. There is no science behind the fraudulent claim that man is a product on millions of years of evolution.

One cannot sincerely believe that any other species of creature living or existence evolved into man, and say they believe the Bible. The two positions are polar opposites, the Bible says man is created in the image of God on the sixth day of creation and has lived on this Earth for about 6,000 year. Macroevolution claims that man is the consequence of millions of years of random mutations that created mankind a few hundred thousand years ago.

The two are not and cannot ever be reconciled, one is the testimony of a holy prophet of God revealing the inspired will of God to mankind. The other is a poorly built theory of men that offers no explanation other than "we don't know what made us, all we know is that it wasn't God".

[LDS Guy 1986]

Vance:

Evolution is a FACT. The explanation of that FACT is a Theory. In all sciences beyond mathematics a Theory is the highest state an explanation of the FACTS can have.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

http://www.youtube.c...feature=channel

I was taught about scientific theory and scientific law in school, never heard of scientific fact though! Guess your school taught a different science than mine!

Here is the definition of fact from www.thefreedictionary.com:

fact (fkt)n.1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences

See this has nothing to do with theoretical science especially macro-evolution, we have never observed a species evolve into another species, there is no fossils of transitional species. So there is no fact only theory, also any true man or woman of science never uses loaded words like fact. The use words like theory, cause, effect, correlation, probable, ect. Science isn't out to prove something is a fact, it is out there to discover data and make theories based on that data.

I was taught in school that fact is a political term (never a scientific term) used by people to try and say that there is no way to dispute something, something that is unfalsifiable is not scientific since it cannot be disputed by data or evidence.

So your constant use of fact in correspondence with macroevolution shows you care nothing for science only the politics involved.

[ERayR]

Since "man" is a spirit combined with a physical body, and evoluton only explains the creation of the physical body, and it is the spirit that is the direct offspring of God, evolution in no way implies that man evolved from lower life forms.

And this conflicts with evolution how?

Not trying to argue but I have a question that has, for sometime now, bothered me. If I accept macro-evolution as the vehicle of the creation how do I reconcile the scriptural assertion that man fell from the presence of God with the fact that the evolutionary concept is a climb up from the primevil condition? It seems to me to be a 180 degree difference.

[Rivers]

I am interested in your feelings regarding the revealed truth to the prophets that man is the direct and lineal offspring of deity. What do you make of that statement given by the church in regards to our origins revealed to the prophets? The church has made it clear that Adam is the son of God and not of a lower order of animal life. What are your thoughts in regards to this revelation

We are literal descendants of God as spirits. We are the spirit children of Heavenly Father. As to the exact mode our bodies were created, it is not revealed in scripture.

Here is the an excerpt from the 1910 first presidency statement on evolution:

Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God;

whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time;

whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been,

are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.

Evolution is suggested as a possible mode for which the bodies of man were created. The scriptures do not address this issue. The scripture simply say that man was created from the dust of the earth. And that is open to many interpretations.

In a recent Ensign article, Elder Oaks mentions science as a source for truth:

The threefold sources of truth about man and the universe: science, the scriptures, and continuing revelation

[ERayR]

Rob:

Evolution of our physical bodies is a FACT. Our spirit is not something science can address as science can not address anything that is supernatural.

The only real fact of evolution is that evolution is change. How far reaching that change is is a matter of discussion and is in no way clearly defined.

[LDS Guy 1986]

That's fine as long as you don't teach Intelligent Design aka Creationism as the doctrine of the Church.

You are flat our wrong here, and I have the repeated doctrine of the Church on my side as found in the First Presidency Message in the Feb. 2002 Ensign , this article is actually a reprinting of a 1909 declaration of the First Presidency on Evolution.

Here is what the prophet of God said on the issue, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was

[bu11fr0g]

You will have to do much better than an Ensign article to definitively say something is the doctrine of the Church. There have been multiple discussions about when something becomes doctrine, but an Ensign article is certainly not it.

You are flat our wrong here, and I have the repeated doctrine of the Church on my side as found in the First Presidency Message in the Feb. 2002 Ensign , this article is actually a reprinting of a 1909 declaration of the First Presidency on Evolution.

Here is what the prophet of God said on the issue, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was

[Rivers]

Not trying to argue but I have a question that has, for sometime now, bothered me. If I accept macro-evolution as the vehicle of the creation how do I reconcile the scriptural assertion that man fell from the presence of God with the fact that the evolutionary concept is a climb up from the primevil condition? It seems to me to be a 180 degree difference.

There are several different hypotheses' of how the doctrine of the fall fits in with evolution. This is what I think: There was a long creative process before God's children came to earth to possess bodies. This creative period/process involved the natural mechanism of evolution. The earth was finished and called "good," the spirits of the first man and woman were placed into their bodies. But they were placed in a state in which they were still in the presence of God. They had to exercise their free will and choose to leave God's presence in order to learn and progress.

This same process of choosing to leave God's presence is something we all go through. We all went through this process in the pre-earth life. Remember that Adam and Eve can also symbolize all of us. When I read the Adam and Eve account, I try to think of myself.

Not only do we choose to leave God's presence in the pre-earth life, we all grow up from being little children and become accountable for out actions. By becoming accountable, we are capable of sinning and experience spiritual death. We choose to leave God's presence through are actions.

There are many ways to view the Adam and Eve account. I think many people have the problem of viewing everything in it too literally. The story is filled with so much rich symbolism. General authorities have taught that Eve coming from Adam's rib is symbolic of the unity of man and woman. We simply don't know how much of the story is literal and how much is symbolic.

I try to keep in mind that the story was written in the bronze age and they didn't have all the scientific knowledge that we have today. Instead of using their minds for science, they used their minds for spiritual and philosophical knowledge. That kind of knowledge is what we get from the scriptures.

[bu11fr0g]

To say that mankind was created independently of the animals requires heroic mental twistings to accommodate findings. Francis Collins book The Language of God goes into some detail from a theist who deeply understands genetics.

The presence of pseudogenes, color vision (gene duplication), loss of vitamin C metabolism, ordering of genes, locations of viral inserts, etc., are facts. I can't see how it is possible to conceive of an independent origin other than to say that God was intentionally doing things to fool us or that God Himself evolved from animals.

As everyone knows, I am a harsh critic against evolution. The crown jewel of evolutionary theory is to be able to show how man has evolved from a lower order of animal. On the other hand, the crown jewel of the church has been to show that man is of divine heritage and as such can claim glorious and eternal blessings. The two remain at odds with each other. In this post I want to put forth the official doctrine put forth by the church and discuss it a bit further. The prophets have published as official doctrine of the church the following-

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity.

To me this presnets us with the most pleasing and relevent truth in our dispensation. Regardless of what some of the greats in science have said and propose about our origins, prophets have revealed to us the truth concerning man's true origins. In the above statement, part of a much larger address, reveal that man is the "direct and lineal offspring of deity".

For most this is a simple open and shut case of coming to know that Adam and Eve's physical parents were the Gods themselves and that through Adam and Eve, they carry on the direct and lineal line of deity in their physical seed. This is what the scriptures refer to an eternal blessing of carrying on the seeds eternally for married Gods.-

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them

[Rivers]

You are flat our wrong here, and I have the repeated doctrine of the Church on my side as found in the First Presidency Message in the Feb. 2002 Ensign , this article is actually a reprinting of a 1909 declaration of the First Presidency on Evolution.

Here is what the prophet of God said on the issue, "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+fact

scientific fact:

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+theory

Theory:

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Evolution doesn't not state that one species changes into another.

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

[BCSpace]

Since "man" is a spirit combined with a physical body, and evoluton only explains the creation of the physical body, and it is the spirit that is the direct offspring of God, evolution in no way implies that man evolved from lower life forms.

The text states that man is the "direct lineal offspring of deity". I take this literally to mean that man as a physical body is the direct offspring of God.

It is. How does evolution preclude that? Are you thinking Adam-God which BY never taught and that the Church does not accept as doctrine or are you thinking a certain NT verse set for which you may not have read the JST correction?

I don't think I said the Creationism is incompatible with LDS doctrine. But unlike evolution, it is problematic in several areas. The age of the earth for one. Also, LDS doctrine is quite friendly with science and science and creationism don't mix.

The age of the mortal earth according to the scriptures is right in line with Creation.

But not Creationism. If you had read the LDS OT Institute Manual section 2-3, you would know that:

"While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation. Therefore, while Latter-day Saints are commanded to learn truth from many different fields of study (see D&C 88:77

[Nathair/|\]

Wow, this is not only silly but has no purpose besides killing braincells.

My link

http://www.turoks.net/Cabana/images/IntelligentCreator.jpg

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

http://dictionary.re...scientific+fact

scientific fact:

Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted.

Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

http://www.thefreedi...ientific+theory

Theory:

A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

Evolution doesn't not state that one species changes into another.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=channel

Well if you want a scientific definition you don't go to a dictionary since a dictionary deals with common usage not science!

EPIC FAIL

[Loran Howard Blood]

Kitzmiller has already proven otherwise.

I'm sorry bc, but we'll have to diverge here, as I'm not one to accept court rulings as settling deep and complex philosophical matters (the present threat to human health and economic welfare from the EPA is due precisely to a court ruling in which CO2 was declared a "pollutant.") and the difference between Protestant fundamentalist "Creationism" and ID, which crosses boundaries from theism, to Deism, to clear non-religious critique, are, or should be, rather obvious.

Indeed, acceptance of LDS doctrine rather forces some form of "intelligent design" as it places God's creative activity at the center and ground of all organized reality. Its only the interpretation of the terms here, not the concept itself, that is at issue.

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary,

[Loran Howard Blood]

Vance:

Evolution is a FACT. The explanation of that FACT is a Theory. In all sciences beyond mathematics a Theory is the highest state an explanation of the FACTS can have.

This is just nonsense. A theory, by definition, is a model of reality that moves inferentially beyond observation and experiment into the unknown. Theories exist in an indeterminate state of greater or lesser confirmation, but they are never actually known, settled representations of reality. If they were, there would be no need for the theory at all, and we would just speak of directly perceived and comprehended phenomena without the necessity of the theoretical explanatory framework.

Macroevolution is a theory precisely because it attempts to explain, based upon what evidence is available, the developoment of organic life on earth, the processes of which and the details of which are utterly beyond reclamation as direct empirical phenomena. Macroevolution goes well beyond what present evidence actually suggests and makes inferences regarding what may have happened long in the past. Its level of resolution is very poor (it cannot possibly reconstruct the actual evolutionary pathways for any organisms outside the level of speciation with any degree of empirical or logical consistency) even though its general conception of the process itself may by very accurate.

The idea that historical, non-empirical, speculative reconstructive theories such as macroevolution are facts, and that theories explain facts, is just what I would call pop positivism. Facts do not need theoretical structures to explain them. Moving from the general to the particular, outside of observed reality into explanations for that observed reality and its deeper principles, do require theories, precisely because their are no "facts" with which to work in any direct sense. And the same empirical "facts" have, and always will, elicit different, competing theories to account for them. One theory will usually trump the others because it better explains the available data, but no theory can ever be anything more than the best theory. It can never be a "canon" that is not open to addition and revision.

[Loran Howard Blood]

Loran Howard Blood:

Of Panda's and People is not a Evolution handbook.

You are very good at calling names but you can not escape the fact that it is the Creationist/IDer's that let the cat out of the bag with http://www.antievolu...ures/wedge.html and cemented their modus operandi with http://ncse.com/crea...-proponentsists

As I've already pointed out, "creation science" is the construct of the Protestant fundamenalists, and is based on rigid Biblical literalism. "Intelligent Design" is a movement based in philosophical and scientific critique of macroevolutionary theory from across theistic/non-theistic perspectives, and dates all the way back to the work of Eddington, Whitehead, and Jeans ("the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine.

[Loran Howard Blood]

You bring up ID and creationism from the angle that it shouldn't be a part of LDS doctrine. But, I have to ask- what part of ID or Creationism is not compatible with LDS doctrine? Personally I see no disagreements in general between ID theory and LDS doctrine- We both believe that life is not a mistake. We both believe that someone or something intelligent designed life into existance. We both agree that randomness in nature does not create complexity. So where is the dispute?

Evengelical Protestant fundamentalism promotes "creationsim," which teaches that the earth is not much more than 6,000 years old, that it and the cosmos were created in an instant by God's command ex nihilo, and that all organic life on earth was specially created sometime after the creation of the earth in fundamenally the forms they have now. There has been no evolution, of any substantial kind, since that time.

Intelligent Design is a critiqe of the inferential, logical, and empirical gaps in evolutionary theory who's primary goal, unlike Creationsim, is not nfecessarily to discredit the idea of evolution of all life forms from a common ancestor, but to question the idea that such development was purely random and undirected, and/or that "natural selection" was the only or primary mechanism of that development. It also questions and critiques the even more vastly speculative extrapolations of evolutionary theory to the origins of organic life (the "prebiotic soup" concept and life arising spontaniously out of non-libing organic matter) and the finely tuned and calibrated structure of the universe (its hierarchy, symmatry and the consmic constants etc.).

All of this is quite compatible (indeed, I would say, demanded by) the restored gospel, even thought the Church does not subscribe to any particular theoretical body of arguments respecting it.

The Protestant fundamentalist movement is clearly way out of bounds, both scientifically, phlosophically, and with respect to the Church.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Intelligent Design is a critiqe of the inferential, logical, and empirical gaps in evolutionary theory who's primary goal, unlike Creationsim, is not nfecessarily to discredit the idea of evolution of all life forms from a common ancestor, but to question the idea that such development was purely random and undirected, and/or that "natural selection" was the only or primary mechanism of that development. It also questions and critiques the even more vastly speculative extrapolations of evolutionary theory to the origins of organic life (the "prebiotic soup" concept and life arising spontaniously out of non-libing organic matter) and the finely tuned and calibrated structure of the universe (its hierarchy, symmatry and the consmic constants etc.).

I agree here, that Intelligent Design at it's core is not there to discredit evolution as much as it it there to add a creator to the evolution picture. This is why the evolutionists that dismiss ID as "another creationism" are ignorant fools that fail to impartially look at the critique of there claims.

This is why I am not an ID guy (I was a few year back) but a creationist, I use the Bible as my source of truth.

[ERayR]

There are several different hypotheses' of how the doctrine of the fall fits in with evolution. This is what I think: There was a long creative process before God's children came to earth to possess bodies. This creative period/process involved the natural mechanism of evolution. The earth was finished and called "good," the spirits of the first man and woman were placed into their bodies. But they were placed in a state in which they were still in the presence of God. They had to exercise their free will and choose to leave God's presence in order to learn and progress.

This same process of choosing to leave God's presence is something we all go through. We all went through this process in the pre-earth life. Remember that Adam and Eve can also symbolize all of us. When I read the Adam and Eve account, I try to think of myself.

Not only do we choose to leave God's presence in the pre-earth life, we all grow up from being little children and become accountable for out actions. By becoming accountable, we are capable of sinning and experience spiritual death. We choose to leave God's presence through are actions.

There are many ways to view the Adam and Eve account. I think many people have the problem of viewing everything in it too literally. The story is filled with so much rich symbolism. General authorities have taught that Eve coming from Adam's rib is symbolic of the unity of man and woman. We simply don't know how much of the story is literal and how much is symbolic.

I try to keep in mind that the story was written in the bronze age and they didn't have all the scientific knowledge that they have today. Instead of using their minds for science, they used their minds for spiritual and philosophical knowledge. That kind of knowledge is what we get from the scriptures.

[Rivers]

I agree here, that Intelligent Design at it's core is not there to discredit evolution as much as it it there to add a creator to the evolution picture. This is why the evolutionists that dismiss ID as "another creationism" are ignorant fools that fail to impartially look at the critique of there claims.

This is why I am not an ID guy (I was a few year back) but a creationist, I use the Bible as my source of truth.

And you throw science under the bus.

[Rivers]

.

[ERayR]

There are several different hypotheses' of how the doctrine of the fall fits in with evolution. This is what I think: There was a long creative process before God's children came to earth to possess bodies. This creative period/process involved the natural mechanism of evolution. The earth was finished and called "good," the spirits of the first man and woman were placed into their bodies. But they were placed in a state in which they were still in the presence of God. They had to exercise their free will and choose to leave God's presence in order to learn and progress.

Lest you think me new to this Ihave been studying it for 50 years. I didn't say I didn't know the hypothesis proferred. I said I don't see how you reconcile it with: 1) The scriptures say man fell from the presence of God not that man climbed from a primevil ooze. God didn't need to develop bodies, he had already non that. The whole "worlds without number" thing. What I want to know is how you reconcile that.

This same process of choosing to leave God's presence is something we all go through. We all went through this process in the pre-earth life. Remember that Adam and Eve can also symbolize all of us. When I read the Adam and Eve account, I try to think of myself.

Not only do we choose to leave God's presence in the pre-earth life, we all grow up from being little children and become accountable for out actions. By becoming accountable, we are capable of sinning and experience spiritual death. We choose to leave God's presence through are actions.

There are many ways to view the Adam and Eve account. I think many people have the problem of viewing everything in it too literally. The story is filled with so much rich symbolism. General authorities have taught that Eve coming from Adam's rib is symbolic of the unity of man and woman. We simply don't know how much of the story is literal and how much is symbolic.

I try to keep in mind that the story was written in the bronze age and they didn't have all the scientific knowledge that they have today. Instead of using their minds for science, they used their minds for spiritual and philosophical knowledge. That kind of knowledge is what we get from the scriptures.

Again I am not a novice to the creation story. I also do not subscribe to the idea that man has climbed from the caves to the stars in a slow uphill climb. There are too many anomolies for that to be the case. There have been periods of great technological advancement in times before currently recorded history. I do not subscribe to a six thousand year history. I also do not subscribe to the ameoba to man doctrine either.