Anti-Evolution and the Church

[consiglieri]

I'm commanded by God to love everyone, though I often fall far short.

I'm here to make it a challenge.

And now for a baiting serious question:

If you (LDS Guy) believe that God literally created Adam from the dust of the earth, are you similarly compelled to believe there is a solid, crystalline dome over the earth in which are set the sun, moon and stars, and above which are contained great oceans of water?

I would follow up with whether you believe the crystalline dome has windows in it which are opened in order to let down the rain, but I think the first question will suffice for now.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[WalkerW]

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.

"Once again, humans are not descended from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys...No animal gives birth to an instant new species, or at least not one as different from itself as a man is from a monkey, or even a chimpanzee. That isn't what evolution is about. Evolution not only is a gradual process as a matter of fact; it has to be gradual if it is to do any explanatory work." (Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Free Press, 2009)

[ELF1024]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

How was it dated?

[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..

Actually, Brigham Young did specify how Adam was created, but that would definitely be a derail to the subject of this thread.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[WalkerW]

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.

So we all disagree with you because we are prideful. How...humble of you.

[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.

Fair enough, and good on you.

I will refrain, then, from advising you that had you received your endowment prior to 1990, you would have been instructed that the creation account is purely figurative insofar as the man and the woman are concerned.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ELF1024]

Actually, Brigham Young did specify how Adam was created, but that would definitely be a derail to the subject of this thread.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, that wasn't presented in your cherry picked quotes. You also know exactly how much of the JoD is taken as scripture. (and no, I don't have my endowments, I hope to be re-baptized in the near future...)

[SilverKnight]

I will refrain, then, from advising you that had you received your endowment prior to 1990, you would have been instructed that the creation account is purely figurative insofar as the man and the woman are concerned.

I did not know this Consig.

Do you have a reference?

[Jeff K.]

Did you receive your endowment after 1990?

Just curious . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Not germane to the issue, unless you believe that such changes in effect change the nature of God. Regardless, such tactics you are using are wrong since it opens up the discussion of the temple process, something which many of us hold too sacred to discuss, even while some of us use the temple process to bait others. I take it you don't value your covenants highly?

[WalkerW]

I did not know this Consig.

Do you have a reference?

Here you go. It's down at the bottom.

[LDS Guy 1986]

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.

I didn't know that there was actual terminology used for these two groups though I understand that both existed. Every faith have the orthodox and unorthodox in there ranks. All I am here to do is dispel the most obvious untruths, when you advocate something that is clearly against all the teachings of the standard works of the Church, and try and act like it isn't I step into the fry to sort out misrepresentations.

I fully admit that I am very orthodox that I believe that the Standard Works of the Church combined with the inspired words of the living prophets are only guidance mankind needs on spiritual and temporal matters that impact one's salvation.

I accept that there is various ways to interpret every scripture and that not every part of the Bible is literal (do you really think that somewhere in the cosmos there is an invisible lake of fire and brimstone, this is obviously a symbolic representation of the torment of the full weight of the guilt for there sins one feels in spirit prison and/or outer darkness) but many parts are literal if they were supposed to be symbolic heavenly father would reveal this to us and if he does a later times then I very well could and would reconsider, but that is a totally different topic.

What I stand against is this mixing of modern culture and theories into the sacred and holy revealed truths of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such things are the seeds of apostasy and as a devout disciple of Jesus Christ I am compelled to resist such things. Mixing mortal philosophy and theory into the scriptures and acting like it is truth is very dangerous. Especially given how many people simply seek to take these non doctrinal things and use them against the Church.

I am an apologist but I don't try and make the scriptures fit the world, I try and make the world fit the scriptures. The scriptures will lead us to the tree of life the world will only lead us to death, so I will work with all my might to change the world and make it into the paradise we are promised instead of taking the filth of the world and muddying the pure and eternal truths of the Restored Gospel.

[consiglieri]

Here you go. It's down at the bottom.

You are an inexhaustible wealth of information, WalkerW.

It will be a privilege to share an eternity of banishment with you.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

I feel sorry for Walker, and more importantly Consig, the fact you seem to celebrate such reflects how far you have gone from the church.

[WalkerW]

The Aristotelian scala naturae worldview is not supported by science or the scriptures.

Even some Aristotelian-Thomist philosophers disagree with ID. To them, it smacks of Paley's watchmaker argument.

By the way, I enjoy Aristotelian metaphysics. Not necessarily in its explanation of God, but in its teleological nature.

[SilverKnight]

Here you go. It's down at the bottom.

Thanks.

I wonder why they chose to remove that sentence.

[WalkerW]

I feel sorry for Walker, and more importantly Consig, the fact you seem to celebrate such reflects how far you have gone from the church.

I feel sorry for Jeff K that he doesn't know tongue-in-cheek humor when he sees it. Apparently, he is too busy condemning us to actual eternal banishment.

[consiglieri]

Well, that wasn't presented in your cherry picked quotes. You also know exactly how much of the JoD is taken as scripture. (and no, I don't have my endowments, I hope to be re-baptized in the near future...)

I think it is wonderful that you are getting re-baptized in the near future, Elf. I also think it is fantastic that LDS Guy is receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood in short order.

We are not enemies here, remember.

But I see that Pahoran Parroting Disorder (PPD) seems to be contagious. ("Cherry picked quotes," indeed.)

I do not claim to know how much of the Journal of Discourses is scripture, but I know what Brigham Young said about some things that evidently cause a good deal of dyspepsia around these parts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDS Guy 1986]

Fair enough, and good on you.

I will refrain, then, from advising you that had you received your endowment prior to 1990, you would have been instructed that the creation account is purely figurative insofar as the man and the woman are concerned.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I am sorry but your interpretation is really out of context from the source provided.

It doesn't say that the actual event of the creation, when Elohim, Jehovah, and Michale created the world is figurative. It says the reenactment they are showing is figurative for our purposes, which is truth we cant' represent what we don't understand. We only know that the world was organized, precisely what happened each moment of those 6,000 years of creation we will never know in this lifetime.

They say there representation is figurative not that the actual creation is figurative, your can twist all you want but you cannot distort truth. The reason why they probably removed this in 1990 was they figured out so many used this to twist the truths of the Gospel around like you attempt to.

If you take a sentence out of context it is very easy to make your falsehoods sound real, but if you take it in context you are left with nothing but empty and wanting.

[Senator]

I did not know this Consig.

Do you have a reference?

Yes, for some reason I'm recalling that that statement is still present. Am I moving an old memory up to the front of the line?

EDITED: never mind. weird!

[consiglieri]

I feel sorry for Walker, and more importantly Consig, the fact you seem to celebrate such reflects how far you have gone from the church.

Nyah! Nyah, Walker!

Jeff feels sorrier for me than he does for you!

[ELF1024]

I think it is wonderful that you are getting re-baptized in the near future, Elf. I also think it is fantastic that LDS Guy is receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood in short order.

We are not enemies here, remember.

But I see that Pahoran Parroting Disorder (PPD) seems to be contagious. ("Cherry picked quotes," indeed.)

I do not claim to know how much of the Journal of Discourses is scripture, but I know what Brigham Young said about some things that evidently cause a good deal of dyspepsia around these parts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, if it was PPD, then it was unintentional. I guess I would be infected with CDS (consiglieri derangement syndrome).

[WalkerW]

Nyah! Nyah, Walker!

Jeff feels sorrier for me than he does for you!

I'm so offended. I'm going inactive.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Thanks.

I wonder why they chose to remove that sentence.

They removed it because people used it out of context to destroy the creation story. The intention of the sentence is to let the audience know that this is dramatic presentation not the literal second by second account of the 6,000 years of creation. But those who seek to twist the scriptures to the world, and lead the membership away from the Iron Rod into divers paths to destruction.

[consiglieri]

If you take a sentence out of context it is very easy to make your falsehoods sound real, but if you take it in context you are left with nothing but empty and wanting.

There really is no LDS source that will sway you from your preconceived fundamentalist dogmatism, is there?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I guess I would be infected with CDS (consiglieri derangement syndrome).

Now you're talking!