Bulding Blocks Of Dna Found In Meterorites

[Ron Beron]

No matter what you think the implications are, you gotta admit this is cool.

One thing that is kinda interesting is that if we were "seeded" by genetic pieces from an extraterrestrial origin then other planets might have been as well. Therefore, we would have beings out there that share similar consciousness.

[Hughes]

Hughes:

I'm fine with disagreement on evolution. But that disagreement needs to be based on more than mere opinion. The science behind evolution is well established and HUGE. So much so that modern biology is dependent on it.

Being that I used to be an Atheist and an Evolutionist believer, and I have no vested interest in either side (saying I'm not a scientist nor do I get grants of any sort), and I have no emotional tie to either side (meaning I honestly don't care how it happened). You can characterize my view as mere opinion, and that's ok, because I don't really care. But, it is a view that I've come to from a life long analysis.

Basically, scientists are not immune to prejudice and being deceived by their own wishful thinking. Your statement that the science behind evolution is well established is huge, is your opinion. From my experience it's a house of cards built on many unprovable hypotheses. And no modern biology isn't based on evolutionary theory, rather modern biology is based on experimental and observational evidence, just like all of good sound science. "Evolutionary" is just a useless term that means "change of over time" but doesn't add anything to modern biology. All one has to do is analyze it further. What sort of changes have occurred because of supposed evolution that can be demonstrated?

Edited August 14, 2011 by Hughes

[Franktalk]

Franktalk:

Sorry I don't understand your comment.

Obviously

The point of the OP was to show that if building blocks rained down on the earth life would sprout from the seeds. That is complete faith and has no basis in reality. That is like expecting new cars to drive out of wreaking yards. Which can happen if someone puts them together.

Tell you what, why don't you run an experiment. Take some life forms and place them in a can. Then heat up the can so the life dies. Now in the can are much more than a few amino acids. So using the assumption that life comes from these parts we should expect life to start anew in the can. Then run this experiment billions of times over many years. Which actually has been done by the way. Now point to one NEW life form from one of the cans. It has not happened. So if life can't come from a collection of systems and all of the parts why are we to believe that a few molecules from space can make new life?

Edited August 15, 2011 by Franktalk

[BCSpace]

This thread is about finding the building blocks for amino acids in meteorites - not about fundamentalism and evolution.

Why does every thread have to become another Scopes trial?

Amen. I'd rather have it become Kitzmiller.

But since we know that meteorites have been striking the earth and the rest of the solar system for billions of years, the notion that life may have drifted here that way also rules out any young earth hypothesis.

Edited August 15, 2011 by BCSpace

[Franktalk]

One day God was thinking about placing spirit children on the earth. So He waited for meteors to rain down amino acids on the earth. Then He waited for the amino acids to form chains. Then He waited for one of the chains to become a duplicator. Then He waited while copies were made of the existing chains. Then He waited for each part to mutate and form that would make life. Then He waited for the parts to come together in a cell. Then He waited for the cell to mutate and form collections of cells. Then He waited while all of the complex subsystems were made by the mutation process. etc etc etc

or

God took the dust of the earth and made life.

[BCSpace]

One day God was thinking about placing spirit children on the earth. So He waited for meteors to rain down amino acids on the earth. Then He waited for the amino acids to form chains. Then He waited for one of the chains to become a duplicator. Then He waited while copies were made of the existing chains. Then He waited for each part to mutate and form that would make life. Then He waited for the parts to come together in a cell. Then He waited for the cell to mutate and form collections of cells. Then He waited while all of the complex subsystems were made by the mutation process. etc etc etc

or

God took the dust of the earth and made life.

Seems like exactly the same thing to me. "Dust of the earth" is wonderfully allegorical when one thinks about how that dust came to be; made in the furnances of stars. Plus, the creative period is undefined in LDS doctrine with no details applied to it, including time. LDS doctrine on D&C 77 puts the physical creation of the earth outside temporal time. Even Spencer W. Kimball said:

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]

President Spencer W. Kimball, The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood, Ensign, March 1976

If the rib story is figurative, then why not "dust of the earth"?

[Franktalk]

Seems like exactly the same thing to me. "Dust of the earth" is wonderfully allegorical when one thinks about how that dust came to be; made in the furnances of stars. Plus, the creative period is undefined in LDS doctrine with no details applied to it, including time. LDS doctrine on D&C 77 puts the physical creation of the earth outside temporal time. Even Spencer W. Kimball said:

“And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. [The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.]

President Spencer W. Kimball, The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood, Ensign, March 1976

If the rib story is figurative, then why not "dust of the earth"?

I don't think God waits billions of years for accidents to line up so He can use the results. And if you don't go along with accidents then why wait?

So where did the meteor come from that had amino acids in it? Was there ever a first planet where God made life then after that all life is by meteor seeding? If that is what you believe that is fine.

Where do you stop with figurative interpretation? 14.5 billion years equals 6 days. Jesus was dead for three days, maybe it was three seconds. After all time is figurative. Jesus spent 40 days in the desert, or maybe 40 minutes. The seventy weeks of Daniel are maybe seventy billion years. After all they are just numbers. Moses said they would spend a generation in the desert, it was written as 38 years. But it is just a number, maybe it is something else. But Jesus said that the generation in front of Him would experience the destruction of Jerusalem. But that was 38 years. Why match up with Moses if the numbers can mean anything?

And if scripture is figurative then we can interpret it differently for each of us and all of us are correct. Maybe we can extend the figurative thing to all scripture. Maybe we should hate our fellow man since love and hate are so close together as emotions. Just where do you stop with figurative interpretation? Or is figurative interpretation a figurative thing and each of us can pick and choose.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

One day God was thinking about placing spirit children on the earth. So He waited for meteors to rain down amino acids on the earth. Then He waited for the amino acids to form chains. Then He waited for one of the chains to become a duplicator. Then He waited while copies were made of the existing chains. Then He waited for each part to mutate and form that would make life. Then He waited for the parts to come together in a cell. Then He waited for the cell to mutate and form collections of cells. Then He waited while all of the complex subsystems were made by the mutation process. etc etc etc

Sounds good to me. I might posit slightly more intentionality here and there, the occasional tweak, but for the most part, I think God allows natural laws to follow their course. I don't think God has ever told us that the only way to make worlds or humans and the other animals is through His power, though some fallible mortals might have wrongly inferred such an idea. We only know that in this instance, we have records of conversations in which we are told that our world was an intentional act.

First chapter of Moses says that God has created "worlds without number" for his "own purpose" - the purpose being "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man". He set in motion the events which culminated in the organization of the particular system of heavens and earths that we know of.

Doesn't mean that's the only way to do it.

Besides, this only pushes the issue one step back: if God created this world, then cool. But what created God?

Joseph Smith taught that God couldn't create Himself; "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits."

He found Himself in the midst of it all. Being a good man, He wanted to help others: "A man filled with the love of God, is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race." He's a scientist, trying to give useful technology to others; He's a doctor, trying to heal the people He comes into contact with. The details of the origin of the doctor aren't particularly important for this; what matters is his existence. If he shares a common ancestor with a chimp, and further back a single-celled organism, then what of that? He's still the one prescribing the medicine.

The word "universe" is not used anywhere in the scripture, and it is never stated that God made it himself; we should be cautious about assuming God has created everything, everywhere. Moses 1:35 says, "only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man." Abraham 4 and 5 describe a lengthy and unspecified time during which different periods of growth are instituted in ways which are not explicitly described. All we are told is that the Gods "went down" where there was space, "prepared" seeds and animals, and "organized" things. But the crucial bit comes at 4:18:

"And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." (Emphasis added.)

If they had to wait and watch "until" they were "obeyed", the implication is that there was a wild, untamed, primordial time full of accidents and false starts when they had not yet been obeyed. How can this be if all things everywhere at all times are designed and calibrated down to the slightest molecule? Why the mass extinctions of entire swathes of different species? Why can't this be describing the natural process of organic evolution?

The constant metaphor is that of the Lord descending from the Council in Heaven to tend the Garden, the vineyard "which is the earth and [all] the inhabitants thereof" (JST Matthew 21:56) If the Gods didn't cause everything to spring into existence instantaneously and simultaneously, then they must have harnessed some sort of preexisting process for their own purposes. They worked by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned to help the living Intelligences surrounding them to find their way into suitable bodies so they could be exalted.

D&C 88 says that "all kingdoms have a law given; and there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions." "Spirit" is merely more refined matter; it is a physical substance. "Matter" and "spirit", then, are not inimical as they are in much of traditional Christianity, which posits an opposition between material existence and nonmaterial soul seen as a fundamental dichotomy; to us, they are just gradations along the same scale, working under a different sphere of Law.

The only thing that matters about our Creation accounts is the record of the intentionality of the act somewhere down the line, though we are told that this wisdom remains in God and therefore we don't know the exact details at this point. Causal chains extend in uncountable directions; maybe God sent the meteors, or pushed something else that pushed them, watching over the planet they collided with until they obeyed and yielded life. "By small means the Lord can bring about great things" (1 Nephi 16:29) Dominoes after dominoes falling in endless looping lines; "as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words." (Moses 1:38) "Behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. (Moses 1:4)

So maybe God physically made mankind out of the dust with His bare hands. Or maybe He pushed a bit of the swirling dust of an early universe in such a way that the natural laws it followed would combine with meteorite hits a process of trial and error to lead to beautiful animals arising from the minerals of the earth in a complex evolutionary process until He had bodies to pour us into.

Either way we look at it, we're dealing with powers and forces that we don't yet understand. But while I have seen plants and animals bred for different traits resulting in very different-looking creatures in just a few years, I have yet to see someone clumping mud together into a living creature. While I have read poetic descriptions of natural processes which are less complex than the technical jargon needed to describe them more accurately, I have not seen anyone literally rise out of dust. Maybe that's a lack of faith, but I think as uncreated Intelligences, scientists can use their brains independently and test their ideas and receive inspired insights as they wrestle with the Lord like Enos. Evolution has predictive power; we find the Tree of Life which binds all life into a vast genetically related family spread throughout the fossil and genetic records.

So why are enormous lengths of time and "waiting" seen as issues? If we have an immortal perspective, what does time even matter? It's just change and movement. Evolution, you might say. Eternal progression. A billion years are a blink. We can accept Darwin and the Prophets both.

Edited August 15, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Franktalk]

JeremyOrbe-Smith,

Nice post.

If we look at the character of God maybe we can see if He waits or not. We can also examine the stage He set on the earth to see if He lets us follow a natural order.

God set the stage in the garden of Eden. The tree of knowledge and the tree of life are not natural trees. The fruit of these trees do not provide substance to continue life but to change life. In an unnatural way. When the earth was filled with evil God flooded the earth. He intervened and caused His will to happen, He did not wait for a natural event to wipe out the earth and then wait for life to start anew. God lit a spiritual fire on a bush on the mountain Sinai knowing that Moses would seek the light. God did not wait for a natural fire. God brought destruction to Egypt to force Egypt to release the Jews, yet God hardened Pharaoh's heart so Egypt would experience the destruction. He took away Pharaoh's free will so God could exercise His will. And the list goes on and on of God's intervention on the earth and of man.

We are spirits placed inside of these bodies. We live in this world surrounded by choices of good and evil. But God adds spiritual pressure on us as well. Satan and demons tempt our spirit with suggestions. Good angels live among us and prophets give us knowledge of God outside of a natural process.

The earth right now is being held in stasis by God. This is clearly described in 2 Peter. So with God intervening in all levels of our spirit and physical existence I find it hard to accept that God waits for anything except that which He chooses to wait on. In fact in 2 Peter He describes the fact that He suffers while He waits.

2 Peter 3

9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

I ask God to intervene in my life. He has and the changes not only effect me but all those around me. So God's will blankets the world. So with all of this intervention why would I believe that God waits for nature? What is really going on is an attempt to reconcile with the theories of science. You are allowing the conclusions of science to define God in the past. But if we take God at His Word then He Himself paints a different picture. Why would I place the ideas of man above the Word of God?

[Hughes]

Hebrews 11:3 "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

[Robert F. Smith]

One day God was thinking about placing spirit children on the earth. So He waited for meteors to rain down amino acids on the earth. Then He waited for the amino acids to form chains. Then He waited for one of the chains to become a duplicator. Then He waited while copies were made of the existing chains. Then He waited for each part to mutate and form that would make life. Then He waited for the parts to come together in a cell. Then He waited for the cell to mutate and form collections of cells. Then He waited while all of the complex subsystems were made by the mutation process. etc etc etc

or

God took the dust of the earth and made life.

Does this make J. Craig Venter a god, since he has now created self-replicating, synthetic life? See here.

Does this make Intelligent Design a legitimate theory?

By the way, apropos of nothing, Venter was born in SLC in 1946 to an excommunicated, drunken Mormon father.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

Cool article.

I think it was Jesus who said: Ye ARE Gods.

[LeSellers]

I think it was Jesus who said: Ye ARE Gods.

And He said it twice.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

True.

[mfbukowski]

Being that I used to be an Atheist and an Evolutionist believer, and I have no vested interest in either side (saying I'm not a scientist nor do I get grants of any sort), and I have no emotional tie to either side (meaning I honestly don't care how it happened). You can characterize my view as mere opinion, and that's ok, because I don't really care.

Oh, ok, so you are just arguing for the sake of arguing-- is that your point?

Then why not waste people's time on another thread instead of derailing this one?

For that matter, why post on this topic ever again?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Frank,

Much of your response is founded on assumptions not everyone shares. For instance, I do not accept the idea that there was something unusual about the fruit of the tree. Genesis is not a science textbook; the purpose, in my view, is to give us an understanding of morality. There was nothing "unnatural" about it; indeed, I question whether there can be anything that is "unnatural".

The idea that there is a separate subset of events which occur which are not a "natural" part of the universe is a product of post-Apostasy Christianity trying to reconcile their conception of a timeless, unchanging, omnipresent God with the natural world. Mormonism has no such difficulty with philosophical materialism - everything God does is a part of nature. I like how Orson Scott Card put it in his Alvin Maker series: "the Maker is the one who is part of what he Makes." Prophets give us knowledge, yes, but it is an entirely natural process, since everything is. We simply don't understand the mechanism yet.

I don't accept the idea that the entire earth was literally flooded. I think that, as far as Noah could see, it was a really dang big gush. But I simply don't see the geological evidence to support a worldwide inundation. Besides, there are numerous middle eastern flood stories with conflicting details. Something happened, but it's so far back it's difficult to see what.

I do agree that in very extraordinary circumstances, God directly intervenes. This is actually in opposition to some schools of thought, which hold that much of the Exodus narrative did not occur, at least as written - I'm kinda retrograde in that area. However, the reason the burning bush, etc. are so extraordinary is, in part, because they are so rare. It's also very problematic to presume that the ancient practice of ascribing all events to God's will is an accurate reflection of reality. Contrary to your assertion, we know from the Joseph Smith Translation that God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. (JST Ex. 7:13, etc: "And Pharaoh hardened his heart")

I think that what God usually does - similar to what you say - is give us spiritual direction. Most of the work of the Church, it seems to me, is to give guidance for how we should live our lives. We receive "interventions" from God in the form of those promptings, but I deeply disagree with, say, the missionary tall tales of God magically finding the favorite lost hat after an intense bout of prayer. He is the Governor, trying to shape our communities into Zions. It's very rare for Him to come down personally, and in those instances there is usually a much larger purpose He's trying to accomplish. (How many people suffering in cruel bondage has He not rescued with a personal visit and plagues? I'd say most of 'em. If He is all-powerful and every little thing is under control because His "will blankets the world", then wouldn't He be an evil God for allowing such things to happen? Or maybe this life is, as the scriptures say, a time of probation in a mortal state, and God simply doesn't micromanage our lives. Where would our agency be if everything that happens is according to His will?)

I see nothing in 2 Peter that "clearly" describes "stasis". I actually see the opposite: a Plan which is constantly alive and moving and responding to our free wills. Your 3:9 quote from 2 Peter actually works against your view; in fact, in verse 8, he states that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." He's long-suffering, yes, but how does that preclude evolution? I think it rather supports it. He's willing to take vast amounts of time to accomplish His ultimate purposes. His ways are not our ways; why couldn't he, in your words, choose to "wait on" evolution?

I utterly disagree that I'm not "taking God at His word." What's "really going on" is that I disagree with your interpretation of what God's word actually is. And it's really not helpful to argue from that stance; for instance, I can just as easily turn around and ask: "Why would I place the ideas of man (yours, for instance) above my interpretation of the Word of God, which does not conflict with evolution?" To insist that evolution is by definition incompatible with God's purposes is to preemptive attempt to assert that your interpretation of the Gospel is correct, when that is the entire issue at stake.

There is nothing wrong with reconciling with the theories of science. If we really are Gods, as Christ said, and all people are alike to God, who is no respecter of persons, then careful scientists have just as much right to guidance as anyone else. Of course they can be wrong, and science is as fallible as any other human endeavor. But at least some people are actively trying to figure out the natural world, rather than being slothful servants who wait to be commanded. Personally, I'm glad we've reconciled ourselves with the idea that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. During His mortal ministry, Christ spoke against the philosophies of men because at that time they were wrong, positing an incorporeal God in obedience to the fashions of Alexandria. This is not a blanket condemnation of philosophy and science in general. To the contrary, the D&C explicitly commands us to search out wisdom from the best books so we can understand; Isaiah 1:18 records God as calling us to "reason together".

God is an exalted man. He has ideas. We are capable of understanding them, if we want to dig in and not settle for easy answers. “The things of God are of deep import, and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity."

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hughes, Blake Ostler has a great piece discussing that very verse: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=590

[Franktalk]

Frank,

.....I don't accept the idea that the entire earth was literally flooded. I think that, as far as Noah could see, it was a really dang big gush. But I simply don't see the geological evidence to support a worldwide inundation. Besides, there are numerous middle eastern flood stories with conflicting details. Something happened, but it's so far back it's difficult to see what......

I don't base my acceptance of scripture on geologic evidence. I base it on other sources.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

What do you think Peter meant when he wrote eight souls were saved by water?

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Here we see the world of the ungodly. Do we know if that was the whole world?

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

It seems that Noah was some kind of exception. And why would God say the fowls of the air if they could just fly away from a local flood?

Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.

Why would God say all flesh if this was a local flood and there were survivors of man and beast? And why is it that as the descendants of Noah spread out they did not come across all of those people outside the local flood?

Isa 54:9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

If Noah was a local flood and we have had local floods then what exactly was God saying here? Did He lie?

Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Did Christ make a mistake here? Should He have said "took some away"?

If you wish to rewrite scripture based on a geology book you can do that. I will not.

[blackstrap]

To paraphrase a quote on the announcement as presented on the OP. "we now know how to explain the music of Bach because we have found some naturally occuring ink "

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I haven't "rewritten" the scriptures. As far as I can tell, I have yet to erase a single word of Genesis, which is still readable in many different places, not the least of which is the Church's standard works.

It's a little frustrating to me that you've focused on such a tiny portion of my reply while simply not responding to much of the meat. You're also positing a false dichotomy. We're dealing with records which have been written and rewritten by fallible human beings; if there is an error in them (and we know there are many), why do we have to make the unjustified jump to thinking God is a liar? From what I can see, He uses whatever stories are available in the culture to speak in the language that His followers can understand. As Joseph Smith said, "If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”

I think Genesis was a written redaction of many different earlier histories, couched in the language of very intelligent men who transcribed their records in the language and understanding that they had available to them. I think Isaiah heard correctly that God used a story he was familiar with to illustrate a point but not necessarily guarantee its absolute historical veracity. I think Peter was a good man who had read or listened to the stories contained in those fallible scriptures who then interpreted them as a smart dude in the 1st century in the middle east would. Doesn't mean he was correct. I think Christ wasn't interested in correcting people's misunderstandings of geological processes, and was far more concerned about how they acted towards one another.

But let's turn this around: why do you accept the Biblical Flood story and not, say, the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Hindu tale of Manu? They are definitely Flood narratives, but they contain quite significant differences from our account. Why does the Biblical version have to be a word-for-word record of exactly what God said? Why does the Flood have to be literally global in scale, killing all flesh (except eight people), while somehow neglecting to leave geological evidence of the incomprehensibly vast layer of fossils and sedimentary layers which would accumulate from the absolutely horrendous pile of dead bodies and churned-up soil?

As Hugh Nibley wrote in "Before Adam" (which is a great essay, even though I don't agree with him either about the particulars of evolution - find it here: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=73 ):

We might well ask: What about those people who lived before Cain and Abel? What about those who disappeared from sight? What about those who were not even warned of the Flood? What about those many, many who visited the earth as resurrected beings? What about the Watchers? What about the sons of God who should not marry the daughters of men, and vice versa? And what about the giants they begot when they did marry? What about the comings and goings of Enoch's day between the worlds? What about his own status as "a wild man, . . . a strange thing in the land"? (Moses 6:38.) Who were his people, living in a distant land of righteousness, who never appear on the scene? What about the Three Nephites, whose condition so puzzles Moroni, until he is told that they are neither mortal nor immortal? (Mormon 8:10—11.) What about the creatures we do not see around us? What about the Cainites? What about the nations among whom Noah will have surviving progeny?

Speaking of Noah, God promised Enoch "that he [God] would call upon the children of Noah; and he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed [Enoch's through Noah] should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand; and the Lord said: Blessed is he through whose seed Messiah shall come." (Moses 7:51—53.) Methuselah boasted about his line as something special. (Moses 8:2—3.) Why special if it included the whole human race? These blessings have no meaning if all the people of the earth and all the nations are the seed of Noah and Enoch. What other line could the Messiah come through? Well, there were humans who were not invited by Enoch's preaching—not included among the residue of people not entering Enoch's city. They were "the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain . . . had not place among them." (Moses 7:22.)

Incidentally, if you are meaning your last two sentences to imply that your refusal to consider evidence not contained in the Scriptures is somehow more faithful than a worldview which attempts to reconcile many different sources of information, I would again disagree very strongly. We believe that if there are errors in the Scriptures, they are based on the weaknesses of men, who have limited understanding. Good science is compatible with faith.

"I beg leave to say unto you, brethren, that ignorance, superstition, and bigotry placing itself where it ought not, is oftentimes in the way of the prosperity of this Church." - Joseph Smith

[mfbukowski]

Frank,

Much of your response is founded on assumptions not everyone shares. For instance, I do not accept the idea that there was something unusual about the fruit of the tree. Genesis is not a science textbook; the purpose, in my view, is to give us an understanding of morality. There was nothing "unnatural" about it; indeed, I question whether there can be anything that is "unnatural".

The idea that there is a separate subset of events which occur which are not a "natural" part of the universe is a product of post-Apostasy Christianity trying to reconcile their conception of a timeless, unchanging, omnipresent God with the natural world. Mormonism has no such difficulty with philosophical materialism - everything God does is a part of nature. I like how Orson Scott Card put it in his Alvin Maker series: "the Maker is the one who is part of what he Makes." Prophets give us knowledge, yes, but it is an entirely natural process, since everything is. We simply don't understand the mechanism yet.

I don't accept the idea that the entire earth was literally flooded. I think that, as far as Noah could see, it was a really dang big gush. But I simply don't see the geological evidence to support a worldwide inundation. Besides, there are numerous middle eastern flood stories with conflicting details. Something happened, but it's so far back it's difficult to see what.

I do agree that in very extraordinary circumstances, God directly intervenes. This is actually in opposition to some schools of thought, which hold that much of the Exodus narrative did not occur, at least as written - I'm kinda retrograde in that area. However, the reason the burning bush, etc. are so extraordinary is, in part, because they are so rare. It's also very problematic to presume that the ancient practice of ascribing all events to God's will is an accurate reflection of reality. Contrary to your assertion, we know from the Joseph Smith Translation that God did not harden Pharaoh's heart. (JST Ex. 7:13, etc: "And Pharaoh hardened his heart")

I think that what God usually does - similar to what you say - is give us spiritual direction. Most of the work of the Church, it seems to me, is to give guidance for how we should live our lives. We receive "interventions" from God in the form of those promptings, but I deeply disagree with, say, the missionary tall tales of God magically finding the favorite lost hat after an intense bout of prayer. He is the Governor, trying to shape our communities into Zions. It's very rare for Him to come down personally, and in those instances there is usually a much larger purpose He's trying to accomplish. (How many people suffering in cruel bondage has He not rescued with a personal visit and plagues? I'd say most of 'em. If He is all-powerful and every little thing is under control because His "will blankets the world", then wouldn't He be an evil God for allowing such things to happen? Or maybe this life is, as the scriptures say, a time of probation in a mortal state, and God simply doesn't micromanage our lives. Where would our agency be if everything that happens is according to His will?)

I see nothing in 2 Peter that "clearly" describes "stasis". I actually see the opposite: a Plan which is constantly alive and moving and responding to our free wills. Your 3:9 quote from 2 Peter actually works against your view; in fact, in verse 8, he states that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." He's long-suffering, yes, but how does that preclude evolution? I think it rather supports it. He's willing to take vast amounts of time to accomplish His ultimate purposes. His ways are not our ways; why couldn't he, in your words, choose to "wait on" evolution?

I utterly disagree that I'm not "taking God at His word." What's "really going on" is that I disagree with your interpretation of what God's word actually is. And it's really not helpful to argue from that stance; for instance, I can just as easily turn around and ask: "Why would I place the ideas of man (yours, for instance) above my interpretation of the Word of God, which does not conflict with evolution?" To insist that evolution is by definition incompatible with God's purposes is to preemptive attempt to assert that your interpretation of the Gospel is correct, when that is the entire issue at stake.

There is nothing wrong with reconciling with the theories of science. If we really are Gods, as Christ said, and all people are alike to God, who is no respecter of persons, then careful scientists have just as much right to guidance as anyone else. Of course they can be wrong, and science is as fallible as any other human endeavor. But at least some people are actively trying to figure out the natural world, rather than being slothful servants who wait to be commanded. Personally, I'm glad we've reconciled ourselves with the idea that the earth goes around the sun and not the other way around. During His mortal ministry, Christ spoke against the philosophies of men because at that time they were wrong, positing an incorporeal God in obedience to the fashions of Alexandria. This is not a blanket condemnation of philosophy and science in general. To the contrary, the D&C explicitly commands us to search out wisdom from the best books so we can understand; Isaiah 1:18 records God as calling us to "reason together".

God is an exalted man. He has ideas. We are capable of understanding them, if we want to dig in and not settle for easy answers. “The things of God are of deep import, and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity."

One of the things I am constantly aware of is the fact that these events are so remote in antiquity and so culturally embedded that it is impossible to determine what "really happened" (whatever that means in this context) and that we can take these things to be literally true, or to be myths, and it really doesn't matter much which it is. What is important is our understanding of our relationship with God, and that is what the stories (or histories) tell us.

So did Exodus happen as written? Could God have done it that way if he wanted? Sure!

Could it be a total myth written hundreds of years later? Sure!

I feel I can say I "believe" either one equally, without conflict.

For me, it doesn't matter one whit. I am not ready to affirm or deny anything in any absolute manner about any of these stories- the only thing I affirm without doubt is my personal experience- and with that, for me, there can be no doubt whatsoever.

[Franktalk]

I haven't "rewritten" the scriptures. As far as I can tell, I have yet to erase a single word of Genesis, which is still readable in many different places, not the least of which is the Church's standard works.

"I beg leave to say unto you, brethren, that ignorance, superstition, and bigotry placing itself where it ought not, is oftentimes in the way of the prosperity of this Church." - Joseph Smith

You are a smart guy and I am not saying that anything you are doing or not doing is in error. I hold to a very strict interpretation of scripture. I know what that means. But I do run across people who do not really look at the way they interpret scripture. You may be correct in what you do. But for me I have rejected the world. When I was studying physics I came to realize that this reality is but a simulation. A very good one but the greater reality is much more than we can perceive. It is with this worldview that I read the Bible for the first time. So when I accepted that there is a God and that the spirit world is the real reality it made perfect sense to me. I trust my faith more than I trust my eyes or ears.

I have cast off what most believe. My faith is strong. My connection with the Holy Ghost is strong. Now is that because of what I believe or is it some other reason. Those kind of answers do not come.

Now did God seed the earth with molecules from space? I sure don't know. But I accept the widest possible explanations. So when I see someone who seems to "know" the past I point out what I see as inconsistencies with scripture. Like I said it does not mean I am right it just means there is another view.

Try casting off the world sometime as an exercise. Let go of man's logic and form a construct of just what God has written. Imagine that reality and see this one as a stage. You will be amazed at the insight it will bring. I am sure it will turn up the volume on that small voice. Live in the spirit. Walk in the spirit. Talk to God in the spirit. He cares not for this world. All of the book learning in the world does not prepare one for that walk. It is letting go not obtaining that gets you there.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

I can't be so literal. IE; What is the value of Pi acccording to the Bible?

[Zakuska]

Franktalk:

I can't be so literal. IE; What is the value of Pi acccording to the Bible?

3.14

That's pretty good. A lot more accurate than the sumarians and egyptians of the time.