Anti-Evolution and the Church

[Hughes]

"A particularly damaging crack in the foundation of Intelligent Design theory arises from recent revelations about the poster child of ID, the bacterial flagellum. The argument...rests on the presumption that the individual subunits of the flagellum could have had no prior useful function of some other sort, and therefore the motor could not have been assembled by recruiting such components in a stepwise fashion, driven by the forces of natural selection...Comparison of protein sequences from multiple bacteria has demonstrated that several components of the flagellum are related to an entirely different apparatus used by certain bacteria to inject toxins into other bacteria they are attacking...Presumably, the elements of this structure were duplicated hundreds of millions of years ago, and then recruited for a new use; by combining this with other proteins that had previously been carrying out simpler functions, the entire motor was ultimately generated." (Francis Collins, The Language of God, 191-192)

Either you didn't read what I wrote or you are agreeing with me that Darwin's criteria was met and falsified.

3) Even darwinian apologists admit there is no direct evolutionary pathway for the BF to arise, instead offering many speculative indirect routes.

"That that critics refuse to accept falsification it also means that critics are placing Darwinian evolution in an effectively unfalsifiable position, where no level of complexity can falsify it. Proponents of Darwinism are effectively arguing that if an explanation is merely possible, then it defeats counter-arguments."

taken from Article: Link

Hughes:

Behe's argument hasn't changed since his book published in '96.

The fact that it's portrayed as changing doesn't make it so.

[thesometimesaint]

Senator:

By the same token this forum is not a free for all. Baiting does nothing to further the discussion in fact it limits and sidetracks it. For that reason I believe it is best to severely limit baiting tactics.

Sorry mods if that came across as forum nanny.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I suppose by this point in the thread, somebody has brought up the creation account in the Book of Abraham, which sounds like it can fit comfortably within an evolutionary process.

Something about the Gods commanding the waters to bring forth life, and then watching until they were obeyed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It also says man was formed from the "dust of the earth"..."for dust thou art and unto dust thou wilt return".

[LDS Guy 1986]

Further I am a scientist, albeit a Social one. I am also a faithful member of the Church and resent your attempt to claim that I can not be both.

I respect your resentment, I hope you find the love of Christ to come and understand that I have no ill towards, to cause such offense towards your brother.

I don't see a reason to resent, disagreement is not a reason to resent, but a reason to discuss and understand each other better.

When you get over your pride enough to resolve this offense you have against me I will be glad to continue discussion with you!

I still disagree though a man can only have one master, you must choose that either God is correct or man is correct at one point when science conflicts with the word of God. You cannot believe that both God and man is right, I side with the word of God over the best guess of man every time.

[Jeff K.]

Review again the new and improved forum name, Jeff.

It's not a debate forum anymore. It's dialogue and discussion.

Baiting discussion is not a sin; in fact, it's a skill.

Baiting is never a skill senator. It is however an exercise in arrogance and demeaning to both the person baiting, who finds no satisfaction in the exercise, and the person who is baited, because that person in effect is being bullied into a false position.

[kolipoki09]

I still disagree though a man can only have one master, you must choose that either God is correct or man is correct at one point when science conflicts with the word of God. You cannot believe that both God and man is right, I side with the word of God over the best guess of man every time.

Unless you believe that the Bible explains how the earth was created instead of why, you've failed to convince anyone here that you're correct.

BYU Evolution Packet - October, 1992

EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN

This packet contains, as far as could be found, all statements issued by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the subject of evolution and the origin of man, and a statement on the Church's attitude toward science. The earliest First Presidency Statement, "The Origin of Man," was issued during the administration of President Joseph F. Smith in 1909. This was followed by a First Presidency Message in 1910 that included brief comments related to the study of these topics. The second statement, "Mormon View of Evolution," was issued during the administration of President Heber J. Grant in 1925. Although there has never been a formal declaration from the First Presidency addressing the general matter of organic evolution as a process for development of biological species, these documents make clear the official position of the Church regarding the origin of man.

This packet also contains the article on evolution from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992. The current First Presidency authorized inclusion of the excerpt from the First Presidency minutes of 1931 in the 1992 Encyclopedia article.

Various views have been expressed by other Church leaders on this subject over many decades; however, formal statements by the First Presidency are the definitive source of official Church positions. It is hoped that these materials will provide a firm foundation for individual study in a context of faith in the restored gospel.

Approved by the BYU Board of Trustees

June, 1992

*

"The Origin of Man" by the First Presidency.

Improvement Era 13:75-81. Nov. 1909.

Words in Season From the First Presidency

Deseret Evening News Dec. 17, 1910, part 1, p. 3.

In this Christmas message, the First Presidency devoted several sentences to the Church's position with regard to questions raised by science:

Diversity of opinion does not necessitate intolerance of spirit, nor should it embitter or set rational beings against each other. The Christ taught kindness, patience, and charity.

Our religion is not hostile to real science. That which is demonstrated, we accept with joy; but vain philosophy, human theory and mere speculations of men, we do not accept nor do we adopt anything contrary to divine revelation or to good common sense. But everything that tends to right conduct, that harmonizes with sound morality and increases faith in Deity, finds favor with us no matter where it may be found.

Editors' Table: "Mormon" View of Evolution

Improvement Era, Vol. XXVIII September, 1925 No. 11

A statement by the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them."

In these plain and pointed words the inspired author of the book of Genesis made known to the world the truth concerning the origin of the human family. Moses, the prophet-historian, who was "learned" we are told, "in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," when making this important announcement, was not voicing a mere opinion. He was speaking as the mouthpiece of God, and his solemn declaration was for all time and for all people. No subsequent revelator of the truth has contradicted the great leader and law-giver of Israel. All who have since spoken by divine authority upon this theme have confirmed his simple and sublime proclamation. Nor could it be otherwise. Truth has but one source, and all revelations from heaven are harmonious one with the other.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is "the express image" of his Father's person (Hebrews 1:3). He walked the earth as a human being, as a perfect man, and said, in answer to a question put to him: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 14:9). This alone ought to solve the problem to the satisfaction of every thoughtful, reverent mind. It was in this form that the Father and the Son, as two distinct personages, appeared to Joseph Smith, when, as a boy of fourteen years, he received his first vision.

The Father of Jesus Christ is our Father also. Jesus himself taught this truth, when he instructed his disciples how to pray: "Our Father which art in heaven," etc. Jesus, however, is the first born among all the sons of God--the first begotten in the spirit, and the only begotten in the flesh. He is our elder brother, and we, like him, are in the image of God. All men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally sons and daughters of Deity.

Adam, our great progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and, like Christ, he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of pre-existence pours wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.

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. By his Almighty power God organized the earth, and all that it contains, from spirit and element, which exist co-eternally with himself.

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Heber J. Grant,

Anthony W. Ivins,

Charles W. Nibley.

First Presidency.

Evolution

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 2

by William E. Evenson

The position of the Church on the origin of man was published by the First Presidency in 1909 and stated again by a different First Presidency in 1925:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, declares man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. . . . Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes (see Appendix, "Doctrinal Expositions of the First Presidency").

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded,

Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church ... .

Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race" [First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931].

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

Forgive me if I am wrong but my reading of your statements says that I can't be a good scientist and a faithful member of the Church at the same time. That is clearly not the case in mine and many others experience.

I hold no ill will neither towards you, or anyone on this Message Board, but do take comments on my faithfulness seriously. I was and am a faithful member of the Church from before you were born. I fully accepted the love and forgiveness that my Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ offered me 40 years ago this month.

One of the areas where the Church has always fascinated and encouraged me is in the belief that "truth is always truth no matter where we find it". The Church has actively encouraged, and supported me in the pursuit of greater wisdom and knowledge concerning how and why this earth was formed for our benefit. To better understand how, and why people react to and interact with others of our fellow human creatures.

I got plenty of pride, but my science isn't one of those areas. I have no problem with admitting I'm wrong, but require more than just an I told you so. If You are making a scientific argument back it up with science(IE. The Nation Academy for the Advancement of the Sciences is a good start). If you are making a religious argument back it up with articles the Church regards as binding on the Saints.

Again I hold no personal ill will towards you. I hope to continue many discussions with you. But please do not question my loyalty or faithfulness to the Church I love.

[thesometimesaint]

Hughes:

I noticed nowhere where the video said that Behe has changed his mind. More's the pity to hold onto a idea that flies in the face of known facts.

[Doctor Steuss]

[Deleted... not in accordance with new purpose/direction of board]

[LDS Guy 1986]

Unless you believe that the Bible explains how the earth was created instead of why, you've failed to convince anyone here that you're correct.

Jehovah created the Earth through the priesthood of God, he organized the matter that was here into it's forms. Us in the pre mortal world assisted Jehovah in the work to help prepare us to come to Earth and inherit bodies of flesh and bone. The how is there especially in the Restored Gospel that we have through the prophet Joseph Smith, if you refuse to look for it then that is your own loss.

See the problem is you feel that the opinions of men is science, God is science, he is the creator he is the scientist. Man is only trying to understand God cause God is science, he made all of this because he knows all of this. Your are correct the Church is not against science, seeing that God made science and the Church is not against God.

The Church is against men who distort the truths of science, just like the Church is against those who distort the Gospel which is the spiritual truth of God.

Whether is men distorting the physical eternal truths from God (science), or the spiritual eternal truths from God (the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ) the Church does resist it.

We know that genetic mutation is observable in nature, but the false and twisted theory that species can mutate into new species is total untruth. The science doesn't support this, because God didn't make one creature and have it evolve into everything else, the scriptures is clear he made each species and commanded them to reproduce after there own kind and fill the earth. He also said that he made man from the dust of the ground and after the image of God.

To theorize that man comes from another ancestor and evolved into man is against the revealed will of God regarding the creation. As I have said before unless you reject God and his scriptures you cannot believe in the theory of evolution.

Also if you want to compare the scriptures to the theory of evolution, evolution loses hands down.

The Bible tells us where we come from, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells is why we are here, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells us the purpose of being here, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells us what happens when we pass away, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells us what will happen in the future so we can prepare now, evolution cannot ever do this.

Evolution is taken by so many as a origin of life argument, and it fails because there has been nor will ever be and evidence that species can evolve. This is why they will not show these transitional forms, your theory hinges on tranistional form and we have yet to see them. Now science depends on data to be vetted, religion depends on faith. So religion has it's evidence, evolution does not, when evolution decides to support itself then I will consider the idea that species can evolve into other species over millions of years. (which there is no evidence at all of any living thing on the planet older than 4,000 years old so to claim the earth is billions of years old is a little unfounded)

[ELF1024]

I don't have a problem with the idea of evolution FOR THE MOST PART.

There are many things that do make sense to me personally as far as the idea of evolution is concerned.

HOWEVER, man was created.

Evolution is an interesting view as to how things may have been created by God. However, I do think at some level it is fundimentally flawed.

[consiglieri]

[Deleted... not in accordance with new purpose/direction of board]

I hope it was about me . . .

[consiglieri]

He also said that he made man from the dust of the ground and after the image of God.

I am having trouble taking seriously your quest for the truth of the matter inasmuch as you are assiduously ignoring my quotes from Brigham Young.

If Brigham Young did not take literally the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, why do you feel so compelled?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

Forgive me if I am wrong but my reading of your statements says that I can't be a good scientist and a faithful member of the Church at the same time. That is clearly not the case in mine and many others experience.

I hold no ill will neither towards you, or anyone on this Message Board, but do take comments on my faithfulness seriously. I was and am a faithful member of the Church from before you were born. I fully accepted the love and forgiveness that my Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ offered me 40 years ago this month.

One of the areas where the Church has always fascinated and encouraged me is in the belief that "truth is always truth no matter where we find it". The Church has actively encouraged, and supported me in the pursuit of greater wisdom and knowledge concerning how and why this earth was formed for our benefit. To better understand how, and why people react to and interact with others of our fellow human creatures.

I got plenty of pride, but my science isn't one of those areas. I have no problem with admitting I'm wrong, but require more than just an I told you so. If You are making a scientific argument back it up with science(IE. The Nation Academy for the Advancement of the Sciences is a good start). If you are making a religious argument back it up with articles the Church regards as binding on the Saints.

Again I hold no personal ill will towards you. I hope to continue many discussions with you. But please do not question my loyalty or faithfulness to the Church I love.

Once again you take offense to something that isn't offensive, it seems like a reenactment of the Book of Acts. The learned Pharisees lashing out at the ancient saints because they follow the Gospel with there whole heart. All I said is you can choose the follow the flawed opinions of men guessing to bases your understanding of the origin of life and other matters of spiritual importance or you can choose the revealed will of the Lord found in the scriptures.

You can't sincerely do a little of both, either man is right and we evolved from an cell, or God is right and we were all made by his hand. Like we are told a man cannot have two masters, for he will love one and hate the other.

It's like water and oil, man's opinions don't mix with God's eternal truths. One is right the other wrong, now God has a perfect tract record so far and men have screwed everything up at every turn and have only begun to figure out the elementary aspects of the world around them.

Go where you want for your knowledge, I seek the wisdom from God over the teachings of men. If some seek the opposite that is well to them, all I say is beware the cunning devices of man, they are there to trap you not free you!

The real shock is for someone that proclaims to have spent 40 years studying the gospel you really don't know much about it. What I am saying isn't some junk I made up off the top of my head this is the admonishments and exhortations of the ancient prophets of the Bible and Book of Mormon, we are to be skeptic of the cunning theories of man for the deceiver lurks behind there clever ideas.

I know that things change, this is why we have so much diversity WITHIN the species, different types of cats, dogs, people, birds, turtles, bats, rats, ect. But a cats make cats, dogs make dogs, people make people, birds make birds, turtles make turtles, bats make bats, rats make rats, and ect make ect.

There is no evidence at all to support the notion that mutations create new genetic material, the opposite is true mutations destroy genetic material and cause defects. Mutations do not make new species they cause a loss of genetic material that over time lowers the subjects survivability. Look at purebred dogs, the more pure the bloodline the shorter the lifespan. Mutating genes has never nor will ever create new material only damage existing material and yes that will cause changes WITHIN the species, but it will never allow the species to become another species.

Dogs are bred from wolves, the only difference between a dogs and wolves is that we have bred out certain traits through selective breeding. We didn't add anything to dogs from wolves, we took away from wolves to make dogs.

You have no cases of selective breeding adding to a creatures survivability only taking away.

Yet millions of people blindly follow the lies of clever men and turn away from the eternal truths established by God without any evidence at all, and all evidence observed in nature showing that species cannot evolve into another species that has a better chance of surviving.

[thesometimesaint]

LDS Guy 1986:

"...but the false and twisted theory that species can mutate into new species is total untruth.".

Is as laughable as an idea to those who understand evolution as it is to you. Evolution claims no such thing. What evolution does say is that through genetic drift, and reproductive isolation one species of animal may change enough to where it is no longer able to reproduce with the parent specie. To give but one example: today's birds are just dinosaurs that escaped extinction.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I am having trouble taking seriously your quest for the truth of the matter inasmuch as you are assiduously ignoring my quotes from Brigham Young.

If Brigham Young did not take literally the creation of Adam from the dust of the earth, why do you feel so compelled?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Because Brigham Young is speaking as a man and the scriptures are the revealed will of God, none of these teachings are accpeted as scripture by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so they are note germane to the topic and only serve for you to derail so I respectfully ignore this and stay on topic.

[consiglieri]

Yet millions of people blindly follow the lies of clever men and turn away from the eternal truths established by God without any evidence at all . . .

Including Brigham Young . . . ?

[Senator]

Baiting is never a skill senator. It is however an exercise in arrogance and demeaning to both the person baiting, who finds no satisfaction in the exercise, and the person who is baited, because that person in effect is being bullied into a false position.

It depends on the intent of your baiting.

If your intent is to trap or corner, then yes, baiting is a negative.

If however, your intent to to entice thought and lure conversation, then it is a positive.

[LDS Guy 1986]

LDS Guy 1986:

"...but the false and twisted theory that species can mutate into new species is total untruth.".

Is as laughable as an idea to those who understand evolution as it is to you. Evolution claims no such thing. What evolution does say is that through genetic drift, and reproductive isolation one species of animal may change enough to where it is no longer able to reproduce with the parent specie. To give but one example: today's birds are just dinosaurs that escaped extinction.

Ok, believe your flawed opinion of man I will stay with the truths of the Gospel, each species was made by the hand of God, they only produce there own kinds and do not produce other kinds of creatures.

Why would God tell us this is the way and intentionally deceive us all this time?

There is only three possible answers:

1) There is no God

2) There is a God, but the Church is bunch of fat liars, they do not receive the revelations of God, it is all a great hoax, so they cannot fix the errors from the OT (about the creation of the world) because we are still in the Great Apostasy (or in another Great Apostasy).

3) There is a God, the Church is true and man with all there pride in there trivial amount of understanding in comparison of God's understanding thinks they know better.

For me, I choose number 3, the scriptures show us that the proud of knowledge always think they know better than God, todays "scientists" are simple the modern day Pharisees. They know so much that they know absolutely nothing at all, the only thing all the pride in what they know does is keep them from the eternal truths of the Restored Gospel.

We are commanded to gain knowledge and understanding but we are also warned to continue to fear god and be humble with that knowledge. Pride is the sin of Lucifer, he too though he knew better than God, he though his plan was better, just like modern scientists think there plan (evolution) is better than God's plan (creation). As Saint's it is our job to resist such rebellion and stand courageously in defense of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I have, do, and will continue to do this, all are entitled to believe what they want. All I do is show the eternal truths of the Restored Gospel, I present the real truths and allow you to decide what to follow.

[SilverKnight]

There is only three possible answers:

1) There is no God

2) There is a God, but the Church is bunch of fat liars, they do not receive the revelations of God, it is all a great hoax, so they cannot fix the errors from the OT (about the creation of the world) because we are still in the Great Apostasy (or in another Great Apostasy).

3) There is a God, the Church is true and man with all there pride in there trivial amount of understanding in comparison of God's understanding thinks they know better.

Your ham-fisted fundamentalism is shared by only the most ignorant, uneducated and dogmatic members of the church.

Go take a biology class at BYU and you might get a clue what educated, reasonable, yet still faithful LDS think of this discussion.

[consiglieri]

Because Brigham Young is speaking as a man and the scriptures are the revealed will of God, none of these teachings are accpeted as scripture by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so they are note germane to the topic and only serve for you to derail so I respectfully ignore this and stay on topic.

Did you receive your endowment after 1990?

Just curious . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ELF1024]

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

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So BY didn't believe that Adam was made of clay. He also didn't say that it was by evolution that Adam was created. He didn't specify how Adam was created. I assume your trying to make some kind of point..

Even if you do believe in Evolution we are "techincally" made of (many of the) same elements which make up clay. Clay is as good a figurative term as carbon, water, iron, organic materials, and such...

[kolipoki09]

Jehovah created the Earth through the priesthood of God, he organized the matter that was here into it's forms. Us in the pre mortal world assisted Jehovah in the work to help prepare us to come to Earth and inherit bodies of flesh and bone. The how is there especially in the Restored Gospel that we have through the prophet Joseph Smith, if you refuse to look for it then that is your own loss.

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33).

See the problem is you feel that the opinions of men is science, God is science, he is the creator he is the scientist. Man is only trying to understand God cause God is science, he made all of this because he knows all of this. Your are correct the Church is not against science, seeing that God made science and the Church is not against God.

The problem is you're dismissing evolution because you've continually read ID/creationist propaganda and dismissed science merely because it fails to grasp the entire picture. But only God has a full deck of cards. Neither science or the Church is playing with a full deck, hence the reason why Paul referred to mortality as "seeing through a glass darkly." When observations suggest that evolution was or possibly is part of the process of the Lord's creation, should I dismiss it? No. The fallacy of your assumption is that you continually claim without evidence that evolution destroys the idea of a creator, which it does not.

The Church is against men who distort the truths of science, just like the Church is against those who distort the Gospel which is the spiritual truth of God.

Whether is men distorting the physical eternal truths from God (science), or the spiritual eternal truths from God (the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ) the Church does resist it.

If creationism were shown to be "distorting the truths of science," should the Church therefore, accept ID/Creationism as you have? Caricature and misrepresentation of science is something you're evidently no stranger to, especially in the 100+ posts you've made in the last 48 hours.

We know that genetic mutation is observable in nature, but the false and twisted theory that species can mutate into new species is total untruth. The science doesn't support this, because God didn't make one creature and have it evolve into everything else, the scriptures is clear he made each species and commanded them to reproduce after there own kind and fill the earth. He also said that he made man from the dust of the ground and after the image of God.

You're failing to grasp the fundamental theory behind evolution, and instead create a strawman. When a single species experiences genetic mutation over a short period of time, the life forms with the genes thriving in a given environment will often die out when food sources or other environmental factors eliminate a necessary food source. The remaining life forms of that given species that are able to adapt to a new environment do so because of random mutations within their genetic structures. As environments change, different genetic strains adapt to given environments and begin to thrive, eventually creating new life forms much different from ancestral life forms, and as a result create new species. What causes the variations in heredity is unknown (which could leave the door open for divine intervention), but evolution is certainly observable.

Unfortunately, ID/Creationism is not compatible with LDS doctrine. The Aristotelian scala naturae worldview is not supported by science or the scriptures.

To theorize that man comes from another ancestor and evolved into man is against the revealed will of God regarding the creation. As I have said before unless you reject God and his scriptures you cannot believe in the theory of evolution.

Also if you want to compare the scriptures to the theory of evolution, evolution loses hands down.

The Bible tells us where we come from, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells is why we are here, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells us the purpose of being here, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells us what happens when we pass away, evolution cannot.

The Bible tells us what will happen in the future so we can prepare now, evolution cannot ever do this.

Evolution is taken by so many as a origin of life argument, and it fails because there has been nor will ever be and evidence that species can evolve. This is why they will not show these transitional forms, your theory hinges on tranistional form and we have yet to see them. Now science depends on data to be vetted, religion depends on faith. So religion has it's evidence, evolution does not, when evolution decides to support itself then I will consider the idea that species can evolve into other species over millions of years. (which there is no evidence at all of any living thing on the planet older than 4,000 years old so to claim the earth is billions of years old is a little unfounded)

Evolution goes against a strict, fundamentalist interpretation of the word of God, but not the scriptures per se. Just because you've failed to examine the evidence in support of evolution doesn't mean no evidence exists.

The Old Tijkko Norwegian Spruce Tree in Sweden is 9550 years old and is the oldest tree known to man, not to mention the Pando Quaking Aspen colony in Utah that is 80,000 years old (yes, this is a living thing). I would ask you to reconsider your position in light of this evidence.

[cinepro]

LDS Guy 1986, if you feel like you've gone down the rabbit hole and are a little disoriented by some of the LDS you've encountered here, try googling "Internet Mormons" and "Chapel Mormons" and things might be made more clear.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Did you receive your endowment after 1990?

Just curious . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I converted in 2004 and I will next weekend be receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood, so I have only been to temple to do baptisms.