Anti-Evolution and the Church

[WalkerW]

Also your history is a bit rusty, Mose grew up in Egypt not Babylon! It would be an Egyptian science book not a Babylonian science book by your standards.

Genesis 1 reflects strains of Babylonian science and cosmology. My history is just fine.

EDIT TO ADD: Parts of Genesis date around the Neo-Assyrian era. Even the Covenant Code of Exodus was influenced by the Law of Hammurabi. See David P. Wright, Inventing God's Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University Press, 2009).

[WalkerW]

If that arrogance make you a liar it does!

What exactly is he lying about in The Greatest Show on Earth or even the video Tyler posted?

[LDS Guy 1986]

What exactly is he lying about in The Greatest Show on Earth or even the video Tyler posted?

He is lying about the legitimate claims of his critics, he insists they are uneducated and falsely states that ID is creationism under a different name.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Genesis 1 reflects strains of Babylonian science and cosmology. My history is just fine.

So the fact that it was recorded by a man that lived long before the rise of the Babylonian empire and there science/cosmology became popular around the known world has no problem with you?

Did you ever think that it is possible the opposite is true also and that the Babylonians adapted there science/cosmology from the Genesis story?

Remember that the Israel was conquered by Babylon at least one and there most notable citizens taken into captivity!

[Loran Howard Blood]

You are totally wrong if you falsify information, you are done in the scientific community.

Apparently you've never heard of AGW.

[LDS Guy 1986]

EDIT TO ADD: Parts of Genesis date around the Neo-Assyrian era. Even the Covenant Code of Exodus was influenced by the Law of Hammurabi. See David P. Wright, Inventing God's Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi (Oxford University Press, 2009).

This is a bold statement to make without any evidence, one more I pose the question.

How do you know that Exodus is the one copying the Laws of Hammurabi and not vice versa?

[WalkerW]

He is lying about the legitimate claims of his critics, he insists they are uneducated and falsely states that ID is creationism under a different name.

Stating that Intelligent Design is creationism under a new name is hardly a lie. It may be wrong (which overall I don't think it is), but being wrong isn't the same as lying.

I think you're completely wrong about ancient Near Eastern imagery in Genesis being "a crock." But I wouldn't accuse you of lying. And if you had reasons for your claims, then I would look at them. Just because Dawkins is a bit of a prick doesn't make his science bad.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Apparently you've never heard of AGW.

I have heard of the global warming myth and there is plenty of those that resist this junk because of the blatant lies in it.

Just because it is shown to be false, doesn't mean that those who want to desperately cling to it will stop teaching it as true.

Just because something is shown to be wrong doesn't mean that people instantly stop believing it.

A perfect case it Pluto, it has been accepted and shown that Pluto is not a planet in the solar system but the closets of a grouping of rouges that are on the very edge of our solar system. That didn't stop the tens of thousands who protested Pluto's downgrading by the international astronomy community.

If people automatically accepted truth when shown it, then there would be no discussion or debate!

[WalkerW]

This is a bold statement to make without any evidence, one more I pose the question.

How do you know that Genesis is the one copying the Laws of Hammurabi and not vice versa?

What is a bold statement is saying that there is no evidence. You're more than welcome to pick up the book and read it.

And it is Exodus, not Genesis that contains the Covenant Code.

Enjoy: http://books.google.com/books?id=YiLZWVcRebgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inventing+god's+law&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=sIR-TZiBIZOcgQf66siDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Bokovoy even assisted in the research for the book.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Stating that Intelligent Design is creationism under a new name is hardly a lie. It may be wrong (which overall I don't think it is), but being wrong isn't the same as lying.

I think you're completely wrong about ancient Near Eastern imagery in Genesis being "a crock." But I wouldn't accuse you of lying. And if you had reasons for your claims, then I would look at them. Just because Dawkins is a bit of a prick doesn't make his science bad.

Yes it is, creationism says Genesis is the truth, God made man from the dust of the ground.

Intelligent Design says evolution is right about the diversity of life but wrong about the origin of life, life was designed by a intelligent creator and evolved from that point forward.

To claim ID is another creationism is a big fat lie, plain and simple.

I didn't say Dawkins was a jerk, if he was simply a jerk I would have not problem with him. He is a hypocrite, a liar, a fraud, he makes false statements.

If you are a liar that casts doubts on everything that you say regardless of the subject.

If Dawkins made a genuine mistake about ID and but his foot in his mouth I could see that. But he knows what ID is and he knows what creationism is, he admits that he knows what ID is and that ID is possible and intriguing given the unique signature our DNA has that makes it appear that life is designed (he simple refuses to believe that a God designed it it had to of been some advanced aliens)

[LDS Guy 1986]

What is a bold statement is saying that there is no evidence. You're more than welcome to pick up the book and read it.

And it is Exodus, not Genesis that contains the Covenant Code.

Enjoy: http://books.google.com/books?id=YiLZWVcRebgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inventing+god's+law&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=sIR-TZiBIZOcgQf66siDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Bokovoy even assisted in the research for the book.

Yes, you are right I messed up managing several threads at once. I apologies for the slip, will try and keep a closer eye out next time.

Still though how do you now that it must be Exodus copying and not vice versa?

Added by Edit:

Looking at it from an LDS perceptive also, we have a understanding that revelation doesn't happen in a vacuum. That prophets can be influenced to seek the will of the lord because of something that they see or hear from a non divine source.

The Word of Wisdom is a great example (Emma asked Joseph to consider banning the use of tobacco in meetings because of the mess it made, when Joseph inquired of God he received revelation that prohibited tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea. It also gave guidelines for the consumption of grains, veggies, and meats.)

Also look at the First Vision had there been no religious revivals at that time in Palmyra NY, Smith would of never studied the Bible found James 1:5 and sought after the Lord to tell him which Church of join.

Could it not be equally probable that even if the Covenant Code (aka the Law of Moses) is part or whole based on other traditions of laws that these things simply inspired Moses to seek the will of the Lord and receive the Covenant Code?

We know that modern day prophets have been inspired by outside sources when they received revelation.

Look at the endowment ceremony it was at least partly inspired by Masonic traditions and rituals, but LDS accept it as the will of God.

Most infamous is Brigham Young's decision to ban blacks from the priesthood and the end of that ban in 1978. No doubt that this decision was influenced or inspired by the views that were held by blacks in the mid 19th century.

Both cases though the Lord has allowed it to happen and used it to his will, why would Exodus be any different if this is the case.

[WalkerW]

He is a hypocrite, a liar, a fraud, he makes false statements.

But not about evolution, which is what the conversation is about.

You have nothing regarding his actual research. You just don't like his rhetoric about ID.

[LDS Guy 1986]

But not about evolution, which is what the conversation is about.

It doesn't matter what he is lying about if he is a liar you cannot trust anything he says.

For example would you trust the CEO of Enron who lied to thousands on employees with anything?

Added by Edit:

You have nothing regarding his actual research. You just don't like his rhetoric about ID.

You can't trust a liar to conduct scientific research, plain and simple, I don't know what universities you attend but they are not any universities I would attend.

Your credibility is directly linked to your honesty and your morality, look at the most recent incident with Northwestern. That professor is on the hot seat for his immoral actions with that sex show he put on after class, his reputation is in jeopardy and if he is released by Northwestern then his academic career is over even though that decision had nothing to do with his research or his teaching.

Look at Pete Rose for crying out loud, he got caught cheating once in baseball and he not only is banned from the sport for life but he will never ever get into the Hall of Fame.

One poor choice, ruined a lifetime or work in Pete's case and could do so in the Northwestern case also.

[WalkerW]

Yes, you are right I messed up managing several threads at once. I apologies for the slip, will try and keep a closer eye out next time.

Still though how do you now that it must be Exodus copying and not vice versa?

Added by Edit:

Looking at it from an LDS perceptive also, we have a understanding that revelation doesn't happen in a vacuum. That prophets can be influenced to seek the will of the lord because of something that they see or hear from a non divine source.

The Word of Wisdom is a great example (Emma asked Joseph to consider banning the use of tobacco in meetings because of the mess it made, when Joseph inquired of God he received revelation that prohibited tobacco, alcohol, coffee, and tea. It also gave guidelines for the consumption of grains, veggies, and meats.)

Also look at the First Vision had there been no religious revivals at that time in Palmyra NY, Smith would of never studied the Bible found James 1:5 and sought after the Lord to tell him which Church of join.

Could it not be equally probable that even if the Covenant Code (aka the Law of Moses) is part or whole based on other traditions of laws that these things simply inspired Moses to seek the will of the Lord and receive the Covenant Code?

We know that modern day prophets have been inspired by outside sources when they received revelation.

Look at the endowment ceremony it was at least partly inspired by Masonic traditions and rituals, but LDS accept it as the will of God.

Most infamous is Brigham Young's decision to ban blacks from the priesthood and the end of that ban in 1978. No doubt that this decision was influenced or inspired by the views that were held by blacks in the mid 19th century.

Both cases though the Lord has allowed it to happen and used it to his will, why would Exodus be any different if this is the case.

I'm very aware of this.

I'm also aware that comments about evolution being a lie of the devil don't happen in a vacuum either.

[cinepro]

The President of the Quorum of the 12 does not have the authority to receive separate revelation for the church while there is a President of the Church. ETB was in the 12 when he gave this talk at BYU. To accept all talks given at BYU as infallible scripture is to tremendously trivialize scripture.

bullfr0g, while you are correct that ETB gave the talk at a BYU devotional, it's important to remember that the Church subsequently published the talk in The Liahona, the Church's official worldwide magazine.

In our current Gospel Principles manual, we read:

In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, the Liahona or Ensign magazine, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I'm also aware that comments about evolution being a lie of the devil don't happen in a vacuum either.

I agree with you but, when did the leaders of the Church, make a inspired statement to this nature?

Disagreeing with the lack of science in the theory of evolution doesn't mean one declared it satanic, your deflecting again be making the assumption that if you do not agree with evolution your declaring it satanic.

[CA Steve]

Look at Pete Rose for crying out loud, he got caught cheating once in baseball and he not only is banned from the sport for life but he will never ever get into the Hall of Fame.

One poor choice, ruined a lifetime or work in Pete's case and could do so in the Northwestern case also.

Will you throw out Jefferson's body of work because of Sally Hemings?

[WalkerW]

It doesn't matter what he is lying about if he is a liar you cannot trust anything he says.

You're assuming his remarks about ID are lies. I don't see them as being such. A misunderstanding, perhaps, but not lies.

For example would you trust the CEO of Enron who lied to thousands on employees with anything?

I trust that he knows a lot about business. You don't cheat the system that long and not know what you're doing.

You can't trust a liar to conduct scientific research, plain and simple

I don't know what universities you attend but they are not any universities I would attend.

You haven't demonstrated that he lies. You just keep commenting about how you don't like his rhetoric regarding ID. That isn't the same thing. And misunderstanding one's position is not the same as lying.

I don't know what universities you attend but they are not any universities I would attend.

Then how do you know you wouldn't attend it if you don't even know where I go?

Your credibility is directly linked to your honesty and your morality

I realize that. But you're still persisting in an ad hominem attack on Dawkins that doesn't address his research. It isn't like he is a biologist on the scientific fringe. He's very much in the mainstream with his findings. You're just mad because he thinks ID is ridiculous along with the scientific consensus.

[WalkerW]

I agree with you but, when did the leaders of the Church, make a inspired statement to this nature?

Disagreeing with the lack of science in the theory of evolution doesn't mean one declared it satanic, your deflecting again be making the assumption that if you do not agree with evolution your declaring it satanic.

Read the OP, which is what the thread is about.

I haven't deflected anything. All I've done is called you out on your insistence that Dawkins is nothing but a liar and that his science can't be trusted.

Pay attention.

[consiglieri]

Yes it is, creationism says Genesis is the truth, God made man from the dust of the ground.

Would it make any difference if a prophet disagreed with you?

Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.6, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853

Look for instance at Adam. Listen, ye Latter-day Saints! Supposing that Adam was formed actually out of clay, out of the same kind of material from which bricks are formed; that with this matter God made the pattern of a man, and breathed into it the breath of life, and left it there, in that state of supposed perfection, he would have been an adobie to this day. He would not have known anything. Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please--that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, p.285 - p.286, Brigham Young, October 9, 1859

Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. (Cited in Discourses of Brigham Young, p.104 - p.105)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[WalkerW]

Would it make any difference if a prophet disagreed with you?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Or that "rising from the dust" was a covenant and royalty term? See Walter Brueggemann, "From Dust to Kingship," Zeitschrift f

[LDS Guy 1986]

Read the OP, which is what the thread is about.

I haven't deflected anything. All I've done is called you out on your insistence that Dawkins is nothing but a liar and that his science can't be trusted.

Pay attention.

How is this an inspired statement?

what part of the standard works is it canonized in?

What issue of the Lihaona or Ensign is it published by the Church in?

What current manual of the Church is it taught from?

This point of inspired vs uninspired was brought up several times in the thread in regards to President Benson's 14 fundamentals talk at BYU.

The only one not paying attention is the one who didn't read the thread, I read it and refuted that there is any scripture (aka inspired teachings of the prophets) calling evolution satanic.

Even your poor example doesn't say that evolution is satanic it only says that Lucifer uses the theory of evolution to deceive people.

You can't blame the tool (in this case evolution) for what someone does with it.

Just like you can blame a gun because a murder used that gun to kill.

[WalkerW]

How is this an inspired statement?

I don't think it is. I think it is nonsense.

what part of the standard works is it canonized in?

What issue of the Lihaona or Ensign is it published by the Church in?

What current manual of the Church is it taught from?

What does this have to do with anything? You brought it up for whatever reason in response to my statement, "I'm also aware that comments about evolution being a lie of the devil don't happen in a vacuum either."

This point of inspired vs uninspired was brought up several times in the thread in regards to President Benson's 14 fundamentals talk at BYU.

Not by me and you're talking with me.

The only one not paying attention is the one who didn't read the thread

I did read the thread. But I never brought up Benson.

I read it and refuted that there is any scripture (aka inspired teachings of the prophets) calling evolution satanic.

I didn't use the word "satanic." I said "lie of the devil," which exacty what is said in the OP.

Even your poor example doesn't say that evolution is satanic it only says that Lucifer uses the theory of evolution to deceive people.

See above. Once again, pay attention. All my comments have been made directly at you or the OP. Nothing about President Benson.

[44Foxtrot]

He is lying about the legitimate claims of his critics, he insists they are uneducated and falsely states that ID is creationism under a different name.

It would appear that a Federal District Court agrees with Prof. Dawkins.

In Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688), Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design is a form of creationism.

The Court held that:

"Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."

Thus, it would seem that Prof. Dawkins and WalkerW are correct on this issue, as a matter of US law.

LDS Guy 1986,

Surely you knew about this Federal District Court ruling. Does it not make any difference to you that you are just plain wrong on this?

[LDS Guy 1986]

It would appear that a Federal District Court agrees with Prof. Dawkins.

In Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688), Judge John Jones ruled that intelligent design is a form of creationism.

The Court held that:

Thus, it would seem that Prof. Dawkins and Walker are correct, as a matter of US law.

LDS Guy 1986,

Surely you knew about this Federal District Court ruling. Does it not make any difference to you that you are just plain wrong on this?

US law is more politics than justice in controversial matters, look at every federal decisions of controversy, Roe V Wade, Heller V DC, MacDonald V Chicago, they are all decided by the political affiliations of the court not by justice.

Judical ruling do not = science by any means, your point is moot and your argument is by far the poorest one I have personally ever seen made.