Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) One can be a child of god, built with the elements of an amoeba.I know I know jk..... Edited January 18, 2012 by Jeff K.
ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 One can be a child of god, built with the elements of an amoeba.I know I know jk.....But who did the building?
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 The only builder that can do the building. This is a soul contractor job. No competition allowed, and the work seems to be continuous without end.
ERayR Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 The only builder that can do the building. This is a soul contractor job. No competition allowed, and the work seems to be continuous without end.Are you sure he didn't just throw a bunch of parts in a box overnight and when he came back in the morning, walla, there it was. It just happened.
cinepro Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 I suspect this may be the most important comment in the entire thread so far. It says clearly in one sentence what so many have only hinted at.And in case anyone thinks I'm overstating things, we should remember this thread:How literally do you take the creation story?As far as I can tell, a belief in evolution, at least for some people, leads towards a belief in a non-literal Adam and Eve and fall. This is the danger that has always been warned about, and it appears to be very real.
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 cinepro:As I have repeatedly said. I have no problem at all with Adam and Eve being real live humans. What I can not do as a scientist is prove that God put them in a garden AFTER creating them That is a religious belief that I have and not part of science that I employ.
Jeff K. Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 And in case anyone thinks I'm overstating things, we should remember this thread:How literally do you take the creation story?As far as I can tell, a belief in evolution, at least for some people, leads towards a belief in a non-literal Adam and Eve and fall. This is the danger that has always been warned about, and it appears to be very real.Some may feel compelled to accept that conclusion, but I do not see it as being the only option. I believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve, and I believe that their existence is allowable under evolution, which in my opinion is not as random towards the environment as we may believe it is.
zerinus Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 cinepro:As I have repeatedly said. I have no problem at all with Adam and Eve being real live humans.What alternative is there to their being "real live humans?" . . . "Unreal dead humans?"What I can not do as a scientist is prove that God put them in a garden AFTER creating themSo you think it is more scientific to believe that God put them in the garden BEFORE creating them?That is a religious belief that I have and not part of science that I employ. So it is more religious to believe that God put them in the garden after He created them, but more scientific to believe that He put them there before He created them?
thesometimesaint Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 (edited) zerinus:The only alternative to a real live person is a story made up about an imaginary one. Along the lines of a talking snake, or a talking a$$.I've never claimed to be only a scientistAs a scientist I can't prove Adam and Eve ever existed. Nor can I prove the existence of any God(s).As a member of the Church. How about he used evolution to create them then put them in the garden. Meets the Scriptures far better than saying a few magic words and everything popping into existence about 7,000 years ago. Edited January 18, 2012 by thesometimesaint
zerinus Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 zerinus:The only alternative to a real live person is a story made up about an imaginary one. Along the lines of a talking snake, or a talking a$$.So I take it that you don't believe in talking snakes or a talking a$$es. In that case, why should you believe in anything else that is outside of our normal human experience, in Mormonism or any other religion for that matter?I've never claimed to be only a scientistAs a scientist I can't prove Adam and Eve ever existed. Nor can I prove the existence of any God(s).As a member of the Church. How about he used evolution to create them then put them in the garden. Meets the Scriptures far better than saying a few magic words and everything popping into existence about 7,000 years ago.Why? Religious belief is founded on miraculous and extraordinary stuff, such as the resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles of Moses with the aid of his rod, the ancient prophets foretelling future events etc. If you find the creation of Adam and Even in one piece 7,000 years ago do unbelievable, why should you find anything else in Christianity or Mormonism to be believable?
Bic Pentameter Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Evolution can and does occur through the process of mutation and natural selection. However, can the two processes working in conjunction, do more than fine-tune attributes of the existing organisms (randomly adjusting the sizes of finch beaks or the colors of moth wings for example)?If random mutation and natural selection can produce change, how much change? Is random mutation and natural selection the best theory for the rise of new and innovative function and information in the cell based on our working knowledge of the cause and effect relationship of the universe?How, as a Latter-Day Saint believers in evolution, do you distinguish yourself from the body of scientific materialists that believe that reality as we know it, is ultimately impersonal: matter and energy determine all things and, in the end, only matter matters? As the materialist credo goes "In the beginning were the particles. And the particles became complex stuff. And the complex stuff reacted with other stuff and became alive. As the living stuff evolved, it eventually became conscious and self-aware, but only for a time."I'm interested in finding out:Where, in the period of creation (as Latter-Day Saints understand it), do you believe the Creator creates?At what points in the timeline does the Creator produce, guide or interfere with natural law?
Mariner Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Why? Religious belief is founded on miraculous and extraordinary stuff, such as the resurrection, the virgin birth, the miracles of Moses with the aid of his rod, the ancient prophets foretelling future events etc. If you find the creation of Adam and Even in one piece 7,000 years ago do unbelievable, why should you find anything else in Christianity or Mormonism to be believable?Exactly.President Hinkley put it like this:"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."
cinepro Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 President Hinkley put it like this:"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."Does that quote apply to other churches and religions, or just the LDS?
zerinus Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Does that quote apply to other churches and religions, or just the LDS?I should have thought it applies to every religion. Why shouldn't it?
cinepro Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 I should have thought it applies to every religion. Why shouldn't it?Doesn't seem very ecumenical to call all the other churches and religions "great frauds", but I guess if that's what they are, that's what they are....
Jeff K. Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) I disagree with the idea they are frauds. Fraud implies a knowledge of falsehood. Most people in other churches believe in what they are doing, they are sincere and Christlike in their mannerisms. I do not see that as fraud as I do lack of knowledge but still doing the best they can. Edited January 19, 2012 by Jeff K.
cinepro Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 I disagree with the idea they are frauds. Fraud implies a knowledge of falsehood. Most people in other churches believe in what they are doing, they are sincere and Christlike in their mannerisms. I do not see that as fraud as I do lack of knowledge but still doing the best they can. I agree, but I accept that the same could be true about the LDS church, and thus don't agree with President Hinckley's dichotomy.
zerinus Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) President Hinkley put it like this:"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud."Does that quote apply to other churches and religions, or just the LDS?I should have thought it applies to every religion. Why shouldn't it?Doesn't seem very ecumenical to call all the other churches and religions "great frauds", but I guess if that's what they are, that's what they are.... Sorry cinepro, I couldn't understand how you came to that conclusion. Can you explain? Edited January 20, 2012 by zerinus
thesometimesaint Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 zerinus:Virgin birth is easy. Ever hear of in vitro fertilization?Reserrection is a little more problematic, but I'm willing to go with it until the Atheists are proven right.
zerinus Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Virgin birth is easy. Ever hear of in vitro fertilization?Reserrection is a little more problematic, but I'm willing to go with it until the Atheists are proven right.How about Moses and the burning bush, or the parting of the Red Sea; or the Brother of Jared commanding the mountain Zerin to remove, and it removed; or Jesus raising people from the dead; or Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon with the aid of his miraculous spectacles etc.? Are these easy too? Since when was any miracle easy? If these are possible with God, then why not manufacturing Adam in one piece in the Garden of Eden?
Mariner Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 I agree, but I accept that the same could be true about the LDS church, and thus don't agree with President Hinckley's dichotomy.The quote from President Hinkley that I posted was referring specifically to the "first vision". It is well known because he made the statement in an interview for the PBS documentary The Mormons. However, other Presidents of the Church have made similar "all or none" statements regarding acceptable belief in Mormonism.As zerinus points out, when it comes to Mormon orthodoxy, there is really no middle ground. Here is a more general statement on the subject by President Hinkley, which excludes middle ground, as given in a talk in General Conference in 2003."Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
thesometimesaint Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 (edited) Zerinus:http://www.millernur...ct_detail&p=556http://en.wikipedia....ing_the_Red_SeaOld Arabic saying. If the mountain won't come to Muhammad then Muhammad will come to the mountain.In Jewish tradition they weren't dead.With his face in a hat.I'm not saying that any of those didn't happen. I am saying that those are religious beliefs and with no applicability to science.Ps; Do you believe that Pi is equal to exactly 3? It says so in the Standard Works of the Church. Edited January 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint
Rob Osborn Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 I am not sure how one could discount actual miraculous events from "science" saying they have no applicability? Supposing that Darwinian evolution is true, let's make some miraculous claims and see what the deal is-The first life form coming into being from nothing- had to be a miraculous event as it has never been documented in scienceThe human eye evolving froma spot on skin- again- had to be a miraculous event or series of them. Science still can't fully explain just how intricate the eye even works in detail.Why is DNA a written code? How did that come about from matter that had no intelligence to even comprehend anything remotely intelligent? That had to be some miraculous feat. Science still has no explanation for how or why.Why are humans so astronomically more intelligent than all the billions of other life forms? That certainly must have been some miraculous event for one species (it just happened to be us) to emerge from it all with such a large gap in the intelligence department.When you look at just a few of the examples above, I see no difference with Moses parting the Red sea as it being a scientific event and life first evolving- they seemingly both defy what we know to be laws in nature. This brings up an interesting point because it really isn't for us to decide what can be science and what can't be science. 1
ERayR Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 To Me the most miraculous of all is sometimes the interpretation of data. There is a fossil find, partial skeleton which is found scattered over a football field area. The bones are so crumbly that they pulverize when picked up. From this a whole scenario from daily activities to sexual habits is constructed in detail. And I am somehow deficient in rejecting this and believing that God created or transplanted Adam and Eve from somewhere else. Who has the greater faith. My hat is off to those who can place their faith so fully in the hands of the fertile imaginations of the evolutionary advocates. Somehow I can't come up with that much faith. 1
Recommended Posts