Evolution And Varying Reconciliation Theories

[bu11fr0g]

The problem with a new on old is the nature of the relationships. Vegetation frim extinct animals has been brought to life, DNA from long extinct animals and Neanderthals has the same pieces as our DNA. The expected fallouts from this arent there.

[thesometimesaint]

Samlam:

"Usually the challenge is we can't see the forest for the tree, but in this instance I wonder if we shouldn't focus on the tree. There is little doubt that as explanations for the origins of man go, evolution really is a conundrum. There is no question that there is a story being told in the layers of rock and sediment that form this earth that lends credence to key aspects of the evolutionary theory. Many points that are problematic as well, but the evidence is compelling. I notice that it is this conundrum of circumstance that makes for difficult debate points for LDS minded folks. On one hand we want to accept the creation story, and on the other we have to concede some things just don't seem to mesh up with the science that sustains the theory. So in conversation with those that support the unquestioned validity of the theory we acquiesce and acknowledge the obvious so as not to look the fool in light of the multitude of problematic evidences that point to the evolutionary probability and the creationary conflict. Again, perhaps if we back away from the mass of conflicting evidence and take closer look at the tree itself, evolutionary theory will come into sharper focus".

I don't see the conflict that you seem to. Nor is it a conundrum. ALL the physical evidence points to our species having arisen from more primitive ape lke creatures some 200,000 years ago. ANY explanation aluding to a Supernatural "Spirit", "God", or "Heaven" is beyond the realm of science. It is only when religion makes falsifiable claims that science has any say.

I thoroughly enjoy analyzing what side people will take in a debate when the subject matter is one in which we cannot know the actual truth but sufficient information is provided to polarize some debate participants on one side of the discussion while others find validation in the opposing viewpoint. The evolution / creation debate is such. Bottom line we simply do not have enough facts to put forth an absolute detailed explanation of how this earth came into being. Even as a creationist, I can hardly give one good piece of empirical evidence to sustain my perspective against the volumes of compelling evidence to an altered perspective of billions of years of creation processes. I realize there are those who want to claim creationist testimony while repeating the oft rehearsed caveat that God’s creationary processes may be more involved and take much longer than the scriptural record indicates. While that in truth may be the case, for the most part I don’t buy it when most LDS toss that line of reasoning out. Call me silly but I think we are usually just trying to have our cake and eat it too and keep from looking like totally lame brains for looking over the obvious mass of data indicating a lengthy time frame. - Lukewarm with a hint of conflict and doubt of which way to turn to find the truth.

If you want facts go with the science. If you want truth that is another field. While there is still much to learn we know enough to state the Evolution was how it was done. If you want the why go to your favorite religion. That is an Ad Populum arguement. I doubt many LDS would like it very much if their religion was put to a popular vote. Then don't be silly. There is absolutely NO physical evidence for a 7000 year old earth.

Us creationists quite frequently like scriptures. They make us feel comfortable with our lack of definitive explanation because we can chalk everything up to one more mystery that we will have to wait and find the answers for. We can hunker down with a little Genesis or Pearl of Great Price anytime we feel threatened for the mass of conflict that the theory of evolution creates in our otherwise pristine and peaceful world. However, what if, maybe, and perhaps, we might consider, that the entire question has nothing to do with creation.

I too like the Scriptures just fine. I'm not comfortable with my lack of knowledge, and I dislike mysteries even more. Creation has always fascinated me. Creationism not so much.

As a creationist, I’ve got a scripture too. I'm entitled because after all I am a creationist and that's what we do. It’s fabulous and I think for situations where I want to choose sides in a debate over something that has no real definitive answer it is the perfect compass for which way I will invariably choose…even if there are volumes of compelling evidence to the contrary.

I've got the same Scripture you do. I just read it from a different perspective.

My scripture:

I prefer our Scripture.

Quote

Moroni 7: 16

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

No problem.

LDS and Christian creationists alike get overwhelmed by the forest of data when it’s the towering tree we should be focusing on. Why was this tree planted in the first place? What purpose does it serve? Should we as LDS compliment its lofty branches and swelling girth and continue to sustain its growth while basking in its light blocking shadow? Not me …as for me and my house… well you know the rest.

I see no reference to forrests or trees in those verses, and definitely no reference to Evolution.

The point is, this theory is and was floated and sustained by brilliantly cunning minds, who at the top of the food chain generally have only one ax to grind – they are too smart to believe there is a God at all. They delight in how polarizing the discussion has become and how many have been persuaded by its compelling “evidences”. Even more entertaining is how many creationists get confused about the real subject matter and are quelled into silence or acquiescence for fear of being swallowed by the avalanche of proofs against the 7 creative cycles or Adam as the first flesh.

I don't have a problem with God. I like him myself. Man is part of the food chain. Go swim with some sharks if you don't belive it. Science is based on evidence. Without which you're better off painting yourself blue and dance naked around the trees to appease the Gods just like my ancestors did. Evolution is a fact accepted by theists and nontheists alike.

This theory, when held up to Moroni’s standard is repulsive and evil for what it truly seeks to accomplish. If I believe outright and embrace wholeheartedly the theory of evolution do I believe in Christ more or less? Does it foster a belief that by doing good and being obedient I will advance God’s cause or does it open a view to no standard of right and wrong so live for today? Does the theory of evolution shine a light on anything or does is cast a pall of darkness over the minds of men who find their origins in the loins of apes as opposed to the kingdoms of God?

What does Evolution have to with Moroni's standard? What does believing in God have to do with Evolution? My ancestors painted themselves blue and danced naked around the trees some 3000 years ago. What does that have to do with my ability to know right from wrong? What if anything does our physical bodies having a common ancestor of an ape like creature some 200,000 years ago have to do with my belief in a God?

Now, here’s the real rub for us smart folks who don’t want to look like big dummies. We work really hard at not being disagreeable when we chat with our evolutionary friends. We acquiesce on the obvious points and play down the 7 days thing. We listen politely and except for the little twitch over our right eye when they forthrightly declare our Hominidae ancestry no one is the wiser for our evolutionary handicap. The point is this; more often than not the discussion is not about monkeys to men or amoebas to aardvarks…it’s about reason’s to deny the existence of God. It’s about justifying bad behavior because there is no accounting anyway. It’s about much, much, much bigger issues than the Origins of the Species – it’s about the souls of men. And when we play along with the game and let the debate gently flow by it is us that is being snookered.

If you don't want to look like a big dummy don't be one. There is never any excuse for being disagreeable, even if you disagree. The Pearl of Great Price doesn't refer to "days". What evolutionary handicap? We are the dominate species on this planet, living in every clime. We have explored other worlds, landed our species on our moon, and sent our spacecraft out of our solar system. While our closest living ancestor is confined to living in trees or held captive in Zoos for our entertainmenmt.

When all is said and done, we weren’t polite or congenial, or pleasant – we were duped. Duped by Satan to support, albeit weakly in many cases, a position that most of the time we do not even realize we are taking. Quite frequently when we engage those who sustain the theory we are not talking rocks, and fossils, and strata we are usually discussing why that person does not believe in God. All the while our pleasant little attitude is simply letting them think we agree with their evidences for why there is no God. While most of the time our politeness is better served and I don’t advocate differently, I do believe that if we really know what the discussion is about there may be occasions where we can see an opportunity to share something that we shouldn’t see as theoretical in the least. There is a God – and he has a plan.

So you want an excuse to be not polite, not congenial, and not pleasant. to our fellow man? Sorry I'm not duped by Satan, or clever religionists that deny evidence. I look at the rocks, plants, animals, fossils, and strata and see a wonderful God that prepared a special place for his children to live, grow, mature, and eventually return to him. To become like him.

The reason I enjoy analyzing what side people will take in these kinds of debates is because it shows me a little bit of what’s under the hood. It can demonstrate what kind of thinkers they are and if they have clear perspectives. Sometimes we are so busy being smart that we aren’t very bright. Even in the circles of LDS academia this discussion is entertained and lofty and soaring missives are written to reconcile the justifications of our science with the pleadings of our faith. Surely they understand the true discussion points.

I'm not very smart or bright. But God did give a good brain, and told me to use it. What a dreary world this would be without LDS, and non, academics to offer reasons to believe.

In a way, how we handle these types of discussions often illustrates valiancy and courage but more than anything else when we can’t really know the answer to the things we debate the side we choose illustrates most clearly, in the words of Boyd K. Packer, “which way we face.” I don’t choose to be a creationist because there is empirical data to support the decision; I choose it because I know which way I face. Maybe it doesn’t seem to be as well evidenced a position but I know of a certainty that “In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth” and whether I have all of the details figured out as to how or why, I refuse to give any credence to a logical, well developed and sophisticated theory that only really has one real purpose – to provide reason to believe there is no God.

If you don't want to look silly then don't be silly. So you deny the evidence in front of your face. That really is no better than painting yourself blue and dancing naked around the trees. They knew which way they faced too. BTW I believe in God, trust the Scriptures, and don't believe every interpretation of them.

I think, contrary to the popular wisdom, that it can be good to focus intently on the tree and then let the forest fade from view and perhaps, with less distraction, we may notice just how dark it really is under this massive towering tree. Perhaps then we can turn around and face towards the light of clear comprehension of who planted it in the first place.

I have no problem with God planting a tree. I do however have a problem with men telling me how God planted it.

Brock Lenox

TheSomeTimeSaint

Edited April 22, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Flyonthewall:

A scientific theory is so much more than a guess. It is the best explanation we have so far using all the available evidence. As such a theory is always tentative, but it isn't a guess.

I think barring some needed miracle like walking on water, turning water into wine, God really does work within the laws he himself made.

If you want a how God did it go with the science, if you want a why the Scriptures are a good place to go.

Created for us is fine, and I actually agree. Worlds that have passed away not so much. The details are nice to know, but have no bearing on my Testamony.

[changed]

The problem with a new on old is the nature of the relationships. Vegetation frim extinct animals has been brought to life, DNA from long extinct animals and Neanderthals has the same pieces as our DNA. The expected fallouts from this arent there.

I'm guessing that certain cycles repeat themselves (Alma 38:9 - no other way or means whereby man can be saved... so other worlds must progress through the same sort of plan that we do right?) anyways, if it is a repeating cycle, then what will happen here in the future could possibly be used as a model for what might have happened in the past? In the future the Earth will return to it's perfect "sea of glass" Eden type state, DC 133:24..and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided. ... what does this mean that the earth was divided, or that it will be reunited? Is this talking about the continents drifting apart? or is this talking about a celestial earth being divided from a terrestrial earth? (the earth like an onion, with different dimensional layers to it kind of thing?) Those who become Gods, that live on the Earth - where will their creations reside? seems like one possibility for a cycle could just involve going back and forth between the heavenly dimension that now surrounds the earth, and the fallen earthly dimension that we are now living on? (you could also incorporate the Adam-G-d theory into this, that Eden is the perfect celestial world the Gods are resurrected into, they then sacrifice, and come back into the terrestrial world kind of cycle)

it does seem that there is more to the Earth than meets the eye, and that the heavenly layers of the earth are somehow involved in the cycle?

(Old Testament | 2 Kings 6:16 - 17)

16 And he answered, Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.

17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha. - more than meets the eye...

Edited April 22, 2012 by changed

[Flyonthewall]

Flyonthewall:

A scientific theory is so much more than a guess. It is the best explanation we have so far using all the available evidence. As such a theory is always tentative, but it isn't a guess.

I think barring some needed miracle like walking on water, turning water into wine, God really does work within the laws he himself made.

If you want a how God did it go with the science, if you want a why the Scriptures are a good place to go.

Created for us is fine, and I actually agree. Worlds that have passed away not so much. The details are nice to know, but have no bearing on my Testamony.

I have often heard that a theory is an educated guess. It is a conclusion arrived at based on information we have, but when a piece is missing, it is still somewhat of a guess. I suppose "guess" implies randomness about it or being without education, so perhaps hypothesis might be a better term.

If we are to believe the bible and Jesus actually walked on water, turned water into wine or commanded the weather, until science can explain those things, there is a definate hole in our knowledge.

I agree, God does work within the laws he laid down, but it is our understanding of those laws that I question...He still knows some things we do not.

A new world created from old is simply an attempt to connect the dots. I may use more scripture than science than others.

When scripture and science don't overlap, a choice has to be made on whether you will lean more towards science or scripture.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed.

Jeremy, wish I could give you more than one point. I will have to find some of your other posts to ensure you get the credit you deserve for this one.

Agreed. Precisely right on the money.

There are probably dozens of possible theories to "reconcile" evolution with the gospel, include the very real possibility that there is no conflict in the first place, which is my position.

Why might we want to? Because we are thinking beings. Sticking one's head in the sand really is not the answer.

[SamIam]

What does Evolution have to with Moroni's standard? What does believing in God have to do with Evolution?

TSS,

I am crafting a response to yours and the other dissenting voices but I pose a question that seems could be asked of each of those that seem to have taken umbrage at my comments.

In each instance I have been told I don’t know scripture and in each instance I have been told I don’t know monkey’s – but you defend the monkey’s. Why?

You have provided yourselves the most convincing evidence for the point I was making. Answer that question truthfully and you will know by reading your own reactions to my comments the point I was attempting to make.

That has got to resonate somewhere in your psyche as a point of consideration.

[mfbukowski]

There are so many possible explanations for this that "what really happened", even if it could be characterized linguistically, which it can't, it would be unknowable as to which was "right".

I could easily believe that the earth is 6000 years old and God created it from nothing- that explanation is at least as good as any other, and somehow he got all the strata and fossils in place because he wanted us to go by faith.

That as I see it is one possibility. Why not?

If God wanted to do that- could he? Of course. I have seen enough miracles in my life to know that this world is indeed a miraculous place where just about anything can happen- and if God wanted it that way, he could have done it that way with a snap of his fingers.

But we can't know that.

The fact is that we can't really know much of anything except what God personally tells us, which may disagree with what he personally tells others, and that is because we all learn in our own ways and start out with different personalities and different needs.

Come up with all the simple answers you like- just know that they will be the simple answers YOU came up with.

At least I know I came up with mine, you might not be so lucky.

And trust me, that has absolutely nothing to do with being embarrassed about how stupid I am. That should already be abundantly clear.

It's people who think they have answers that make me suspicious.

Edited April 22, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That has got to resonate somewhere in your psyche as a point of consideration.

And your illusion that you know otherwise has to resonate just as loudly.

[shalamabobbi]

In each instance I have been told I don’t know scripture and in each instance I have been told I don’t know monkey’s – but you defend the monkey’s. Why?

Because they're so cute..

There is wiggle room with whether we know what we think we know from scripture. There isn't any with the facts of science. There might be some with the theories about those facts, but not with the facts themselves.

You can change the theory of gravitation from Newton's to Einsteins (which is a refinement only) but the fact of gravitation exists independent of any theory.

What happens with someone who has a little knowledge about the facts is they are free to invent an apologetic scenario that explains the few they are aware of. When they come across further facts they discover that their apologetic theory falls apart.

To enforce this false dichotomy between religion and science is to choose between faith and reality. With the exception that mfbukowski suggested and then we are in the matrix. Keep an eye out for repeating black cats ;-)

[mfbukowski]

To enforce this false dichotomy between religion and science is to choose between faith and reality. With the exception that mfbukowski suggested and then we are in the matrix. Keep an eye out for repeating black cats ;-)

Uh huh. Just a tad simplistic.

Do you really have trouble knowing if you are dreaming or not? You should see someone about that. Could be schizophrenia.

[shalamabobbi]

Uh huh. Just a tad simplistic.

Do you really have trouble knowing if you are dreaming or not? You should see someone about that. Could be schizophrenia.

mfbukowski - Always enjoy reading your posts. Please elaborate..

Edited April 22, 2012 by shalamabobbi

[Calm]

I could easily believe that the earth is 6000 years old and God created it from nothing.....

I can't.

From the earliest age, my dad would take us for vacations in Yosemite Park, hike up into the mountains, etc. Surrounded by all that mass, it always has given me a sense of endless time. It gave and gives me the impression of a patient Creator spending countless eons of hours bringing together all those elements to lovingly create perfection.

[mfbukowski]

I can't.

From the earliest age, my dad would take us for vacations in Yosemite Park, hike up into the mountains, etc. Surrounded by all that mass, it always has given me a sense of endless time. It gave and gives me the impression of a patient Creator spending countless eons of hours bringing together all those elements to lovingly create perfection.

Yeah- but wouldn't be cooler if he did it all in a nanosecond?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski - Always enjoy reading your posts. Please elaborate..

I always give your posts their due respect.

Edited April 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[shalamabobbi]

I always give your posts their due respect.

Ok - misunderstanding. We exchanged some PMs.

When I was typing my last reply I hit the shift key to capitalize the m in your board name. After posting I saw that I had held it down a little too long and had typed MFbukowski.

I was horrified and raced to edit it back to lower case..

[mfbukowski]

Ok - misunderstanding. We exchanged some PMs.

When I was typing my last reply I hit the shift key to capitalize the m in your board name. After posting I saw that I had held it down a little too long and had typed MFbukowski.

I was horrified and raced to edit it back to lower case..

Hey- I have been called variations of those letters many times in my life- no problem!

[DBMormon]

So...... 6 pages later... and tons of tangents... each explanation having major flaws and their own need for more reconciliation it boils down to one thing...... Have faith and move on folks... there is nothing to see here? lol

For me Adam and Eve have to be real. Prophets have testified that Adam is Michael and that he and Eve were real. that they are the first parents of the human family. I can be flexible with the age of the earth, evolution if Adam and on are separate group of beings and they are not reproducing with other humanoids.... So I will close my eyes and pretend I never started this thread...

have a great night

[mfbukowski]

My point about the matrix was just that indeed no one ever actually thinks they are a brain in a vat, unless they are actually psychotic. All the criticisms against subjectivity being a legitimate point of view usually- at least on this board- come down to some variation of a "matrix" comment or or "Hah- bukowski doesn't know if he is dreaming or awake!" so I get a bit touchy about going over this for the umpteenth time!

The reality is that there is no way that a first person statement can be logically equivalent to a third person statement. They are different points of view.

"The cup is on the desk" cannot be logically equivalent to "I see the cup on the desk". This is a pretty trivial point on its own, but the implication of it is quite important. One of these implications is that "Bukowski's brain is in chemical state A" (assuming a perfectly detailed description of a physically observable electro-chemical brain state substituted for the simple sentence) can never be logically equivalent to "Bukowski sees the cup on the desk".

Another way of saying this is the way Nagel puts in, as quoted in my siggy:

The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.

But there are greater implications to that. The implication is that ANY statement about what anybody perceives can never be reduced to a statement about something beyond that perception- ie: to a statement about "the world".

Technically, every statement made in science should be preceded by a statement like "It was observed that the water boiled at 100 degrees", NOT that "water boils at 100 degrees". The two statements are not logically equivalent strictly speaking.

So in a very real sense, we only make statements about our perceptions, not about the way "things are" whatever that means. Everything we know is filtered through our brains- our experience and our perceptions- we are all wearing "rose colored glasses" and those glasses color EVERYTHING so we can never see the "true color" as it were, of anything.

So if someone sees that as being "the matrix" then welcome to the matrix. That's where we have been living forever, you just didn't know it.

"But you are wrong- what we see is what is real".

Ok if you want to describe it that way. But please notice that is YOUR definition/ interpretation/ description of the meaning of the word "real". In the long run, "all" it amounts to is a definition. Put it any way you like, you can still never get rid of the rose colored glasses even if you are convinced that everything really IS rose-colored.

Everything we speak about is someone's explanation/interpretation/definition of their perceptions.

Yes, they can be replicated so we can all agree about them- my thermometer really does also read 100 degrees in bubbling water on the stove but someone invented that thermometer and someone invented the temperature scale and calibrated the thermometer around that observation, and said that it only works at something else arbitrarily defined as "sea level". But of course given tides, the ocean is hardly ever AT "sea level" etc.

It all relies on all those definitions and interpretations and perceptions to make it what we call "true".

Ain't culture wonderful? And you say we have to wait til we're dead to "organize a world"? We do it every day!

[mfbukowski]

So...... 6 pages later... and tons of tangents... each explanation having major flaws and their own need for more reconciliation it boils down to one thing...... Have faith and move on folks... there is nothing to see here? lol

For me Adam and Eve have to be real. Prophets have testified that Adam is Michael and that he and Eve were real. that they are the first parents of the human family. I can be flexible with the age of the earth, evolution if Adam and on are separate group of beings and they are not reproducing with other humanoids.... So I will close my eyes and pretend I never started this thread...

have a great night

Yeah, life gets tricky when you actually start thinking about things, huh?

PS- they ARE "real". Once you define it correctly.

[blackstrap]

Thanks mfb for clearly outlining the ....uh...ambiguities.

[BCSpace]

How does one see God using evolution to carry out the plan so that all gospel requisites are met such as Adam and Eve in the Garden without sin not knowing good from evil... ect...

Everything evolves just as science says it does. Pre Adamite modern homo sapiens, around for a quarter of a million years or more, do not have literal spirit children of God within them. Their spirits are lesser spirits, a possible explaination for why homo sapiens have been around for so long without developing civilization.

When all is ready, two pre Adamite children are born with literal spirit children of God as spirits. They are placed in the garden as Adam and Eve to precipitate the Fall. What happens to the rest of the pre Adamites depends on whether or not the whole world is in a garden state or it's just a local garden. After the Fall, evolution and death proceeds apace.

That is it in a nutshell and it can stand tall with LDS doctrine AND science and without conflict. It doesn't require violating science and it doesn't require God to have done anything not already described in the scriptures or doctrine.

The 1931 statement allows for pre Adamites.

The lesser spirits of the pre Adamites meets the doctrine that all living things have spirits and it helps us meet the first man (gospel definition of man) requirement. It also keeps us from worrying about their salvation pre Fall.

Besides the 1931 statement, there is also 2 Nephi 2:22 which tells us that man was finished being created before being placed in the garden state. The BoA creation account tells us that the Gods waited until the elements obeyed, an excellent match for a BIg Bang/Evolution description.

The published doctrine on Genesis tells us that the Church has no stance on the age of the earth so it could be 4.5 billion years long. The published doctrine on D&C 77 tells us that the time periods referred to do not include the earth's preparation for man (of course I like to assume the gospel defintiion of man, a spirit child of God in a homo sapiens body).

The garden state could have lasted for a few years or a few decades or even a few hundreds of years without anything for science to discern regarding the evolutionary delay.

We already know that evolution teaches everything reproduces after it's own kind.

etc. etc.

Edited April 23, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

So...... 6 pages later... and tons of tangents... each explanation having major flaws and their own need for more reconciliation it boils down to one thing...... Have faith and move on folks... there is nothing to see here? lol

Mine, described above, has no such problems. Well, of course one must have faith regarding the existence of God. My hypothesis assumes the LDS Church is true.

For me Adam and Eve have to be real. Prophets have testified that Adam is Michael and that he and Eve were real. that they are the first parents of the human family.

Amen. My hypothesis keeps those.

I can be flexible with the age of the earth, evolution if Adam and on are separate group of beings and they are not reproducing with other humanoids....

That can work too, but, imho, mine is a more elegant solution.

So I will close my eyes and pretend I never started this thread...have a great night

Hopefully, you will open them in the morning and see a better hypothesis.

Edited April 23, 2012 by BCSpace

[mfbukowski]

That can work too, but, imho, mine is a more elegant solution.

And we all all know that is what makes it "true".

I rest my case. The best story wins.

Edited April 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

That can work too, but, imho, mine is a more elegant solution.

And well all know that is what makes it "true".

I rest my case. The best story wins.

Amen. The best story is the one that takes care of the most hurdles and matches the most doctrine and still admits to being an hypothesis.

Nothing else is required for reconciliation on this subject.

Edited April 23, 2012 by BCSpace