No Death Before The Fall

[BCSpace]

But evolution theory is seriouslly flawed in my strongly held view when it precludes the possibility of control or intelligent input; when it insists on being a mechanism,wholly dependent on chance mutations and adaption to environmental pressures in order to produce whatever life there is.

How does evolution preclude intelligent control? There are plenty of outside influences that can be controlled (you mentioned environmental pressures). There really is no such thing as "randomness" as often what we once understood to be "random" actually turns out to be governed by a set of rules, etc. There is already human selection so why cannot natural selection be God's selection?

[blarsen]

How does evolution preclude intelligent control? There are plenty of outside influences that can be controlled (you mentioned environmental pressures). There really is no such thing as "randomness" as often what we once understood to be "random" actually turns out to be governed by a set of rules, etc. There is already human selection so why cannot natural selection be God's selection?

The common usage of evolution in a scientific sense precludes any 'outside' input, meaning input from a guiding intelligence, whether God or aliens, etc. You could say that there seems to be a natural set of rules in place that causes evolution to violate the law of entropy; but this still leaves open the question of whether or not an 'intelligence' set up the rules in the first place. Kind of like Fred Hoyle positing high order, behind the scenes intelligences that set up the 'coupling constants' governing the interaction of matter.

When I say intelligent control, this subsumes the possibility of God exerting such control

And you are right, 'human selection' is an excellent example of what you might call outside intelligent influencing 'natural' processes; and genetic engineering is an even better example of this. In my view, a major limitation of science is its inability to get a handle on, or even treat the question of intelligence as a causal agent, able to create and cause interaction between physical objects and processes.

Ironically, with the SETI program, science is being used to detect intelligent signals coming from outerspace using information theory and statistics; so they are starting to think in this direction. But currently, trying to bring up the possibility of intelligent design as operating in the supposed evolution process, is just about strictly vorbotten, taboo. Teachers/professors can lose their jobs in some quarters by just raising the issue as a serious possibility.

Edited July 30, 2011 by blarsen

[Hughes]

But currently, trying to bring up the possibility of intelligent design as operating in the supposed evolution process, is just about strictly vorbotten, taboo. Teachers/professors can lose their jobs in some quarters by just raising the issue as a serious possibility.

And you could get thoroughly attacked for doing that same thing here...

[Fig-bearing Thistle]

As cinepro has repeatedly tried to tell you, and in a very nice way I must say, someone saying "it isn't doctrine" is basically just saying "I don't believe it" in another way.

Brigham Young actually "taught" that our "HF" and "HM" came here and ate food grown on this planet by which elements of this Earth were taken into their bodies and from them Adam's and Eve's "physical" bodies were created for their "spiritual" bodies to inhabit.

You're simply one of those folks who doesn't believe what he "taught" on that issue is actually the "truth", and to justify your position you're saying you don't need to believe it because it's not included in the "standard" works.

That doesn't mean what he taught isn't scripture, though, and it doesn't mean that what he taught isn't the truth, either.

Someday I hope you figure that out as you continue to learn how you're supposed to find out what is true.

I've long believed that Adam and Eve were begotten by divine Beings. It explains the fact that Adam was immortal, had no blood, that he was literally the offspring of God physically as well as spiritually, and it sets humanity above the beasts morally and spiritually.

According to science, there never was a human being without blood.

[Jeff K.]

According to science, there never was dark matter, never was plate tectonics, the list goes on....

Science changes its mind quite often. At least according to science.

[BCSpace]

But currently, trying to bring up the possibility of intelligent design as operating in the supposed evolution process, is just about strictly vorbotten, taboo. Teachers/professors can lose their jobs in some quarters by just raising the issue as a serious possibility.

I know. But while I'm not a biologist, I have plenty of scientific background to know that it's bad science to conclude evolution precludes God or any sort of intelligent control. Every time you think you've answered a question, more arise and while you know this particle or cell "moves", you can't explain why or why to any degree that precludes control. There is always a deeper question.

Edited July 31, 2011 by BCSpace

[katherine the great]

It is tedious if you know exactly what to do. It is convoluted if you are guessing or presuming a great deal....

So few bone fragments and without a complete knowledge of the skull or hands and feet. Lots and lots of assumptions. This is fine for me, those assumptions seem to make sense. But we are often convoluted. I know its only my point of view.

Lucy is only the first and most complete Australopithecus skeleton. Since her discovery over thirty five years ago, there have been hundreds of other fossils discovered and classified as the same species. Nothing is convoluted, and any "assumptions" are firmly supported by evidence. Their "guesses" actually turned out to be very accurate once the other fossils were discovered to look exactly as the earlier scientists predicted. One could still argue that Lucy was not a human ancestor at all, but there really is no scientific evidence to support that argument. Newer genetic studies of Neanderthal and a very newly discovered species of human called Denisovan man show very strong evidence of ancestry to some modern human populations. Unfortunately, Lucy-aged fossils don't contain enough genetic material (if any) to test.

[cinepro]

Help us out here, Cinepro. Let's see something specific about the creation process, those five days, that precludes death.

I'm not sure what you mean by "specific".

I don't really expect the Prophets and Apostles to foresee the boundless creativity of apologists and preemptively word their teachings in such a way that apologist imaginations are shackled.

The Church teaches what it teaches, and if someone has a theory that contradicts what the Church teaches, then that theory would probably have to be classified as contradictory to Church teachings.

I might like to think that God is in fact a pink Unicorn, and as support for this belief, I could point out that no Church leader has in fact said that God isn't a pink Unicorn. But I would also have to admit that Church leaders have given a description of God and stated that He appears similar to a human man, and so while my theory hasn't specifically been contradicted, it certainly contradicts what has been revealed (unless He is a pink Unicorn that can change to appear as a man for His visits to man-Earth...)

Likewise, not every imaginable theory of Creation has been supported or denounced. But certain things have been taught very clearly (and consistently), and one of those things is that there was no physical death on the planet before the Fall of Adam. So while your theory may not have been specifically addressed (due to the limitations of time and imagination on the part of Church leaders), if it somehow involves physical death on the planet before the Fall of Adam, it is safe to say it has been categorically denounced.

Edited August 1, 2011 by cinepro

[Rob Osborn]

Lucy is only the first and most complete Australopithecus skeleton. Since her discovery over thirty five years ago, there have been hundreds of other fossils discovered and classified as the same species. Nothing is convoluted, and any "assumptions" are firmly supported by evidence. Their "guesses" actually turned out to be very accurate once the other fossils were discovered to look exactly as the earlier scientists predicted. One could still argue that Lucy was not a human ancestor at all, but there really is no scientific evidence to support that argument. Newer genetic studies of Neanderthal and a very newly discovered species of human called Denisovan man show very strong evidence of ancestry to some modern human populations. Unfortunately, Lucy-aged fossils don't contain enough genetic material (if any) to test.

This is typical of evolutionists. They claim mountains of evidence in words but when it comes to actually showing the proof in physical form it is only sparse pieces of the mountian. I asked a while back about these "hundreds" of other fossils. The closest evidence made available to me was a list with some partial photographs of some specimens. The majority of these "hundreds" were said to not even be direct ancestors to the human line. So, basically, all that really existed were just a handful of actual evidences and sketchy at that.

Typical evolution jargon...

[katherine the great]

This is typical of evolutionists. They claim mountains of evidence in words but when it comes to actually showing the proof in physical form it is only sparse pieces of the mountian. I asked a while back about these "hundreds" of other fossils. The closest evidence made available to me was a list with some partial photographs of some specimens. The majority of these "hundreds" were said to not even be direct ancestors to the human line. So, basically, all that really existed were just a handful of actual evidences and sketchy at that.

Typical evolution jargon...

No dear. I'm talking about hundreds of fossils from this one species--probably twelve or thirteen different individuals. I am not referring to the body of evidence of all ancient hominids ever found. You can bury your head in the sand if you like Rob but these human like creatures did exist whether you personally believe in them or not. I don't need to touch and feel them to believe the finds. The peer reviewed publications are enough for me.

[mfbukowski]

No dear......

Dang.

Why can't I get away with saying that in my posts?? It's just not fair!!

[BCSpace]

Likewise, not every imaginable theory of Creation has been supported or denounced. But certain things have been taught very clearly (and consistently), and one of those things is that there was no physical death on the planet before the Fall of Adam. So while your theory may not have been specifically addressed (due to the limitations of time and imagination on the part of Church leaders), if it somehow involves physical death on the planet before the Fall of Adam, it is safe to say it has been categorically denounced.

How does no death before the Fall preclude death before the garden? Especially when the doctrine differentiates between the time we worry about (the created earth) from the time we don't (it's preparation as a dwelling place for man). The bottom line is that while some may indivudally mean no death before the garden, they can't mean it doctrinally and typically they understand that which is why they say it the way they do. They are restrained from turning opinion into doctrine by existing doctrine.

[katherine the great]

Dang.

Why can't I get away with saying that in my posts?? It's just not fair!!

Well, cause you're a guy. And because I'm probably older than you.

[cinepro]

How does no death before the Fall preclude death before the garden? Especially when the doctrine differentiates between the time we worry about (the created earth) from the time we don't (it's preparation as a dwelling place for man).

There is another problem with BCSpace's theory about the "creation" period being different and having different properties than the period following the "creation". If evolution were a mechanism of "creation", then since evolution has continued unabated, we are still in the "creation" period.

BCSpace's theory appears to have God "creating" plants, animals and humans using thousands of years of evolution (including birth/death processes and fossilization), and then at some point God suspends evolution and makes Adam and Eve immortal, and then they "fall" and creation continues as if Adam and Eve and the Fall never happened.

In other words, someone needs to tell God that he left the cookies in the oven when he rested on the 7th day.

Luckily, BCSpace appears to be the only one who believes his theory, so little damage is being done. But just in case anyone was thinking about buying in, there's some food for thought...

Edited August 2, 2011 by cinepro

[mfbukowski]

Well, cause you're a guy. And because I'm probably older than you.

I betcha not.

When I played in the dirt as a kid, it was still clean!

[David T]

In other words, someone needs to tell God that he left the cookies in the oven when he rested on the 7th day[...] there's some food for thought...

Here's some additional food for thought:

In the Temple Drama of Creation, the 7th Day does not occur until Man is Redeemed. The period in which man yields to temptation, is given laws and has a Savior provided, is redeemed and resurrected, and comes again into the presence of God in eternal life and exaltation is all specifically called "the sixth day", and it is following these events that God says he will rest.

That being said, I do not agree with BCSpace's theory.

Edited August 2, 2011 by nackhadlow

[mfbukowski]

Here's some additional food for thought:

In the Temple Drama of Creation, the 7th Day does not occur until Man is Redeemed. The period in which man yields to temptation, is given laws and has a Savior provided, is redeemed and resurrected, and comes again into the presence of God in eternal life and exaltation is all specifically called "the sixth day", and it is following these events that God says he will rest.

That being said, I do not agree with BCSpace's theory.

The 7th day being the Millenium if I am not mistaken

[mfbukowski]

There is another problem with BCSpace's theory about the "creation" period being different and having different properties than the period following the "creation". If evolution were a mechanism of "creation", then since evolution has continued unabated, we are still in the "creation" period.

BCSpace's theory appears to have God "creating" plants, animals and humans using thousands of years of evolution (including birth/death processes and fossilization), and then at some point God suspends evolution and makes Adam and Eve immortal, and then they "fall" and creation continues as if Adam and Eve and the Fall never happened.

In other words, someone needs to tell God that he left the cookies in the oven when he rested on the 7th day.

Luckily, BCSpace appears to be the only one who believes his theory, so little damage is being done. But just in case anyone was thinking about buying in, there's some food for thought...

If you believe in eternal progression and the fact that the earth will become "re-created" into the celestial kingdom, and that God is still creating worlds without number, of course we are still in the creative period.

It is my understanding that the millenium corresponds to the day of rest and that hasn't happened yet. In fact, resurrection and/or further developments culturally could be seen as further evolution. Is going to the moon an advance over the Roman gladiatorial games? I certainly think so.

I don't know BC's theory well enough to make that a deal killer, but I don't think it does.

[BCSpace]

There is another problem with BCSpace's theory about the "creation" period being different and having different properties than the period following the "creation". If evolution were a mechanism of "creation", then since evolution has continued unabated, we are still in the "creation" period.

Not at all. The finished creation essentially refers to (as per LDS doctrine), when the earth was ready as a dwelling place for man (a literal spirit child of God). Why should evolution stop just because man is now on the earth? Life would be unable to adapt and would eventually die out if that were the case which I don't believe is part of God's plan.

BCSpace's theory appears to have God "creating" plants, animals and humans using thousands of years of evolution (including birth/death processes and fossilization), and then at some point God suspends evolution and makes Adam and Eve immortal, and then they "fall" and creation continues as if Adam and Eve and the Fall never happened.

Sure. Why not? Or, in the case of a local garden, time is merely suspended in the garden relative to the outside world.

In other words, someone needs to tell God that he left the cookies in the oven when he rested on the 7th day.

The earth as a dwelling place for man contains the evolutionary process. So what?

Luckily, BCSpace appears to be the only one who believes his theory, so little damage is being done. But just in case anyone was thinking about buying in, there's some food for thought...

Boy you are really straining here I think. It would seem that most who accept evolution also accept some part of my hypothesis, which, while I claim as my own, admittedly has been influenced by others.

[mfbukowski]

Not at all. The finished creation essentially refers to (as per LDS doctrine), when the earth was ready as a dwelling place for man (a literal spirit child of God). Why should evolution stop just because man is now on the earth? Life would be unable to adapt and would eventually die out if that were the case which I don't believe is part of God's plan.

Sure. Why not? Or, in the case of a local garden, time is merely suspended in the garden relative to the outside world.

The earth as a dwelling place for man contains the evolutionary process. So what?

Boy you are really straining here I think. It would seem that most who accept evolution also accept some part of my hypothesis, which, while I claim as my own, admittedly has been influenced by others.

For what it's worth, I think it is one of several perfectly plausible explanations which satisfy all the requirements conceptually. It isn't my personal first choice, but I have no problem with it at all.

The reality here is that we are talking about the supernatural, and none of us were there. Either we are going to limited what God wanted to do or not.

[BCSpace]

For what it's worth, I think it is one of several perfectly plausible explanations which satisfy all the requirements conceptually. It isn't my personal first choice, but I have no problem with it at all.

The reality here is that we are talking about the supernatural, and none of us were there. Either we are going to limited what God wanted to do or not.

What I like about my hyypothesis and what I strive for is a framework for doctrinicity. With such a framework, the details can be fleshed out in a variety of ways.

[mfbukowski]

What I like about my hyypothesis and what I strive for is a framework for doctrinicity. With such a framework, the details can be fleshed out in a variety of ways.

Yep, I can see how it works, it connects all the dots I think!

[LeSellers]

When I played in the dirt as a kid, it was still clean!

You had dirt?!

Lehi

Edited August 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[mfbukowski]

You had dirt?!

Lehi

Now that brightened my day! LOL!

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution in humans is still ongoing.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/07/22/Studies-Human-evolution-still-going-on/UPI-62771279837272/