thesometimesaint Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 zerinus:Evolution is about the changes life has made AFTER it first originated.
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Zerinus, you have yet to respond to what I said about the verse in Genesis about how God commanded the waters to bring forth life. This is what evolution says regarding the origin of life, that it began in the oceans. How do you interpret this verse if you don't think it refers to evolution?The creation of marine life in Genesis is part of the creation of all life, including terrestrial life, and has nothing to do with Evolution:Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Edited January 15, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 It doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life.I said nothing about "life". I said species. Nevertheless, it also has an implications for the origin of life.
thesometimesaint Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Zerinus:I accept the genesis account of why God did it, NOT the method by which he did do it.Please stop my friend. You are becoming a parady of yourself.
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 zerinus:Evolution is about the changes life has made AFTER it first originated.Who said anything about "life"?
thesometimesaint Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Without life there can be no species.
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Zerinus:I accept the genesis account of why God did it, NOT the method by which he did do it.Please stop my friend. You are becoming a parady of yourself.I haven't a clue what you are talking about. Try to be a bit more coherent.
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Without life there can be no species.And? Edited January 15, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Double post Edited January 15, 2012 by zerinus
thesometimesaint Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 zerinus:Are you claiming that there is no life?
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 zerinus:Are you claiming that there is no life?When did I do that?
katherine the great Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Why don't you explain what you believe the proper interpretation of the data that leads the entire reputable scientific community to interpret as evolution, then maybe we can continue the conversation meaningfully.
altersteve Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) The creation of marine life in Genesis is part of the creation of all life, including terrestrial life, and has nothing to do with Evolution:Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.The specific passage (verses 20 and 21) says that God commanded the waters to bring forth "every creature that moveth," not just marine life. Once again, evolution says life originated in the waters. So how do you interpret this? Edited January 15, 2012 by altersteve
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) The specific verse (verse 20) says that God commanded the waters to bring forth life, not just marine life. Once again, evolution says life originated in the waters. How do you interpret this?Verse 24 says, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, . . ." What is the difference between that, and "commanding the waters to bring forth life"? Edited January 15, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Why don't you explain what you believe the proper interpretation of the data that leads the entire reputable scientific community to interpret as evolution, then maybe we can continue the conversation meaningfully.I don't claim to have the correct explanation for that. I am even willing to accept that the scientific explanation is probably the most reasonable explanation from their point of view. But I don't accept that it is an inevitable explanation; and I am willing to question it on the basis something that the scientific community cannot and will not accept; and that is divine revelation. Edited January 15, 2012 by zerinus
katherine the great Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) on the basis something that the scientific community cannot and will not accept; and that is divine revelation.Well of course they cannot and will not. Divine revelation cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Science cannot (and shouldn't try to) explain spiritual things. By the same token, maybe it's best that spiritual leaders don't venture to explain natural phenomenon (unless they are scientists.)BTW: I consider good science a type of divine revelation. Edited January 15, 2012 by katherine the great
zerinus Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Well of course they cannot and will not. Divine revelation cannot be subjected to the scientific method. Science cannot (and shouldn't try to) explain spiritual things. By the same token, maybe it's best that spiritual leaders don't venture to explain natural phenomenon (unless they are scientists.)That is a premise that I am not willing to accept. I work on the basis that God knows something that scientists don't know, or have not yet discovered, or may never be able to discover; and that God is capable of revealing that knowledge to men when their faith is sufficient to receive it. It is possible for man to obtain knowledge by revelation from God which scientists have not yet discovered, and may never be able to discover. It is possible for the scientific theory of Evolution to be false, and the scientists do not know it yet, but God does, and can reveal it to a prophet.BTW: I consider good science a type of divine revelation."Good science" is the operative word here. I agree that the truths that scientists know or discover is ultimately given to them by a form of revelation. But there are different kinds of revelation. The kind of revelation that is given through a prophet is a superior kind of revelation than the kind that is given to a scientist--or artist, or architect, or any other kind of human creative endeavour.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) The kind of revelation that is given through a prophet is a superior kind of revelation than the kind that is given to a scientist--or artist, or architect, or any other kind of human creative endeavour. CFR.From President Hugh B. Brown's Final Testimony: "I admire men and women who have developed the questing spirit, who are unafraid of new ideas as stepping stones to progress. We should, of course, respect the opinions of others, but we should also be unafraid to dissent - if we are informed. Thoughts and expressions compete in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth emerges triumphant. Only error fears freedom of expression.Both science and religion beget humility. Scientists and teachers of religion disagree among themselves on theological and other subjects. Even in our own church men and women take issue with one another and contend for their own interpretations. This free exchange of ideas is not to be deplored as long as men and women remain humble and teachable. Neither fear of consequence or any kind of coercion should ever be used to secure uniformity of thought in the church. People should express their problems and opinions and be unafraid to think without fear of ill consequences.We should all be interested in academic research. We must go out on the research front and continue to explore the vast unknown. We should be in the forefront of learning in all fields, for revelation does not come only through the prophet of God nor only directly from heaven in visions or dreams. Revelation may come in the laboratory, out of the test tube, out of the thinking mind and the inquiring soul, out of search and research and prayer and inspiration. We must be unafraid to contend for what we are thinking and to combat error with truth in this divided and imperiled world, and we must do it with the unfaltering faith that God is still in his heaven even though all is not well with the world." Edited January 15, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith
altersteve Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 CFR.I'll have to ask for a reference here too, Zerinus. I strongly disagree that revelation given to a prophet is "superior" to revelation to anyone else. Revelation is revelation, no matter who it is given to. It's still the voice of God.
katherine the great Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 "Good science" is the operative word here. I agree that the truths that scientists know or discover is ultimately given to them by a form of revelation. But there are different kinds of revelation. The kind of revelation that is given through a prophet is a superior kind of revelation than the kind that is given to a scientist--or artist, or architect, or any other kind of human creative endeavour.When genetics, paleoanthropology, anatomy, geology, archaeology, biological anthropology, and on and on and on all have bodies and piles of physical evidence that all support each other and come to same conclusions, THAT is good science.
frankenstein Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Perhaps another thread is in order to the point an official statement from the 1st presidency is not doctrine when at least one person claiming it is not doctrine claims the official statements are doctrine.
katherine the great Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Perhaps another thread is in order to the point an official statement from the 1st presidency is not doctrine when at least one person claiming it is not doctrine claims the official statements are doctrine.Huh?
zerinus Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 The kind of revelation that is given through a prophet is a superior kind of revelation than the kind that is given to a scientist--or artist, or architect, or any other kind of human creative endeavour.CFR.I take that on faith, based on what God has revealed in scripture. It is a faith principle. For example, the prophet Amos in the Bible says, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7). That is never said of "scientists". Heck, most scientists nowadays don't even believe in God. God has always spoken to man through His prophets, not "scientists". Prophets have seen and known God, and conveyed His messages to man. Moses for example knew God "face to face" (Exodus 33:11). Einstein never claimed to do that, nor did Newton--possibly the two greatest scientists who have ever lived (and both of them believers in God). Neither of them in their wildest dreams would have claimed equality with Moses for example, or with any other prophet.
Nominee Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I'll have to ask for a reference here too, Zerinus. I strongly disagree that revelation given to a prophet is "superior" to revelation to anyone else. Revelation is revelation, no matter who it is given to. It's still the voice of God.I don't understand. What do you think the purpose of the prophet is ~if revelation is revelation no matter who it is given too? I ask in sincerity.The prophet is the only one with the authority to receive and relay revelation for the world. Edited January 16, 2012 by Nominee
zerinus Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 I'll have to ask for a reference here too, Zerinus. I strongly disagree that revelation given to a prophet is "superior" to revelation to anyone else. Revelation is revelation, no matter who it is given to. It's still the voice of God.See my previous post.
Recommended Posts