Evolution And Mormonism

[Ahab]

You lump all of them together and attribute the most outlandish of claims to all. Refute the claims instead of mock.

Outlandish? She was talking about what I have been saying for a long time around here. It's not an outlandish idea. It's the idea that makes the most sense.

Oh, but that would be too simple for her. She needs to think it was a lot more complicated, and nothing but starting from nothing will do for her.

Why not just take a planet like Mars, add lots and lots of hydrogen and oxygen for water, and then let it sit around for a day or two so the H and O stuff can permeate the air for a while. And then what? How about we bring in some plants for carbon which will support a lot of other living beings, besides the plants. That would take like, what, another day or 2 days, depending on how fast we could bring in all the plants we want to bring over. And then what? Oh, let's go ahead and add some animals. I know where we can get lots of those. Another day or 2 for that, probably, considering how many and what kinds we would want to bring over. And then what? Oh, now that it's all nice and everything with plenty of water and good air for us to breathe, why don't we send someone over to live there while recalling everyone who has assisted in getting the planet set up. A young couple would do nicely, since we'd like them to have a lot of children. And let's give them something so they'd forget everything they learned here on Earth, at least in their conscious minds, so we can see how well they would do. If they ever need our help we can always go over there to assist them but the more they can learn to do on their own, the better, since we want them to learn to be self-sufficient.

Oh, but No, God wouldn't do anything like that if he were to establish another planet. He likes to do things the hard way.

[ERayR]

Outlandish? She was talking about what I have been saying for a long time around here. It's not an outlandish idea. It's the idea that makes the most sense.

Oh, but that would be too simple for her. She needs to think it was a lot more complicated, and nothing but starting from nothing will do for her.

Why not just take a planet like Mars, add lots and lots of hydrogen and oxygen for water, and then let it sit around for a day or two so the H and O stuff can permeate the air for a while. And then what? How about we bring in some plants for carbon which will support a lot of other living beings, besides the plants. That would take like, what, another day or 2 days, depending on how fast we could bring in all the plants we want to bring over. And then what? Oh, let's go ahead and add some animals. I know where we can get lots of those. Another day or 2 for that, probably, considering how many and what kinds we would want to bring over. And then what? Oh, now that it's all nice and everything with plenty of water and good air for us to breathe, why don't we send someone over to live there while recalling everyone who has assisted in getting the planet set up. A young couple would do nicely, since we'd like them to have a lot of children. And let's give them something so they'd forget everything they learned here on Earth, at least in their conscious minds, so we can see how well they would do. If they ever need our help we can always go over there to assist them but the more they can learn to do on their own, the better, since we want them to learn to be self-sufficient.

Oh, but No, God wouldn't do anything like that if he were to establish another planet. He likes to do things the hard way.

I was speaking in generalities and not specifics. My complaint is that he/she is attributing, by implication, positions to me that I do not hold. Your position may be as valid as his/hers and since Occams razor has been invoked I would say wins. It can be made to fit the known facts and is certainly much more simpler but I will leave you all to argue the merits of your respective positions. I don't find the problem of that much concern for me. What I do fink interesting and a bit tiring is that evolutionists seem to think they have to deride other viewpoints to win the argument. I have a different view from what I have glean than either of you.

Edited March 14, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

Outlandish? She was talking about what I have been saying for a long time around here. It's not an outlandish idea. It's the idea that makes the most sense.

Oh, but that would be too simple for her. She needs to think it was a lot more complicated, and nothing but starting from nothing will do for her.

Why not just take a planet like Mars, add lots and lots of hydrogen and oxygen for water, and then let it sit around for a day or two so the H and O stuff can permeate the air for a while. And then what? How about we bring in some plants for carbon which will support a lot of other living beings, besides the plants. That would take like, what, another day or 2 days, depending on how fast we could bring in all the plants we want to bring over. And then what? Oh, let's go ahead and add some animals. I know where we can get lots of those. Another day or 2 for that, probably, considering how many and what kinds we would want to bring over. And then what? Oh, now that it's all nice and everything with plenty of water and good air for us to breathe, why don't we send someone over to live there while recalling everyone who has assisted in getting the planet set up. A young couple would do nicely, since we'd like them to have a lot of children. And let's give them something so they'd forget everything they learned here on Earth, at least in their conscious minds, so we can see how well they would do. If they ever need our help we can always go over there to assist them but the more they can learn to do on their own, the better, since we want them to learn to be self-sufficient.

Oh, but No, God wouldn't do anything like that if he were to establish another planet. He likes to do things the hard way.

Where are you going to get all hydrogen and oxygen? Even if you could the gravity on Mars is insufficient to hold them. Not to mention that most of our atmosphere is nitrogen. Kind of a nice thing as a pure oxygen and hydrogen atmosphere would combust.

Where are you going to get all those plants? The lack of a Martian magnetic field allows deadly radiation to kill any plant life that you could bring. Not to mention that it is really cold on Mars. High daytime temperatures even at the equator are less than 70 F. with nigh time lows of -130 F. At more extreme latitudes it is even worse, with the poles of solid CO2.

Where are you going to get all those animals? The lack of a Martian magnetic field allows deadly radiation to kill any animal life that you could bring. Not to mention that life on this planet is dependent on many trillions of microscopic and barely visible plants and animals.

Right now it takes more than a million dollars per pound to put anything into space. The cost to terraform Mars would is incalculable.

To remove the knowledge base from any explorers/settlers on Mars would guarantee failure.

God can do pretty much what he wants. But for some odd reason he seems to follow natural laws when setting up a planet.

[ERayR]

Right now it takes more than a million dollars per pound to put anything into space. The cost to terraform Mars would is incalculable.

God can do pretty much what he wants. But for some odd reason he seems to follow natural laws when setting up a planet.

Somehow I don't think cost is a problem with God.

The way I read the account is that he already had the planet set up before he brought people into the picture.

[Stone holm]

The introduction of sin into the world. Christ atoned for sin.

Still don't see the connection. I don't think anyone is arguing that humans are "mere" animals, and I know of no doctrine that suggests that animals are capable of committing sin. What the evolutionists are arguing is how you get to Adam and Eve, not what happens after you get there. And in order to argue that Adam and Eve were placed here from elsewhere, or specifically created here, you don't have to reject evolution for everything else just because of the doctrine that the knowledge of good and evil was acquired by Adam and Eve in some manner and that gave them the capacity to sin and fall. So where is the connection?

[Ahab]

Where are you going to get all hydrogen and oxygen? Even if you could the gravity on Mars is insufficient to hold them. Not to mention that most of our atmosphere is nitrogen. Kind of a nice thing as a pure oxygen and hydrogen atmosphere would combust.

Where are you going to get all those plants? The lack of a Martian magnetic field allows deadly radiation to kill any plant life that you could bring. Not to mention that it is really cold on Mars. High daytime temperatures even at the equator are less than 70 F. with nigh time lows of -130 F. At more extreme latitudes it is even worse, with the poles of solid CO2.

Where are you going to get all those animals? The lack of a Martian magnetic field allows deadly radiation to kill any animal life that you could bring. Not to mention that life on this planet is dependent on many trillions of microscopic and barely visible plants and animals.

Right now it takes more than a million dollars per pound to put anything into space. The cost to terraform Mars would is incalculable.

To remove the knowledge base from any explorers/settlers on Mars would guarantee failure.

God can do pretty much what he wants. But for some odd reason he seems to follow natural laws when setting up a planet.

Okay, sure, so there a a few complications. I'm sure God already has all of that figured out, though.

Where are you going to get all hydrogen and oxygen?

From wherever there is some, or maybe there is some way to make some by converting some of the elements already there.

Even if you could the gravity on Mars is insufficient to hold them.

What is it that makes it so that we have an atmosphere like the one we have here? Have you figured that out yet?

Not to mention that most of our atmosphere is nitrogen. Kind of a nice thing as a pure oxygen and hydrogen atmosphere would combust.

Okay, so we'll send over some nitrogen, too, or make some of that from the elements that are already there. Anything else?

Where are you going to get all those plants?

We have lots of them here. Maybe sending all kinds at once may not work out the best but we can send some over until we get the planet ready for more.

The lack of a Martian magnetic field allows deadly radiation to kill any plant life that you could bring.

Okay, so let's fix that first then. Have you figured out what it takes for a planet to have a magnetic field, yet?

Not to mention that it is really cold on Mars. High daytime temperatures even at the equator are less than 70 F. with nigh time lows of -130 F. At more extreme latitudes it is even worse, with the poles of solid CO2.

Yeah yeah yeah.. Picky picky. So what would we have to do to get at least something started. Have you figured that out, yet?

Where are you going to get all those animals? The lack of a Martian magnetic field allows deadly radiation to kill any animal life that you could bring. Not to mention that life on this planet is dependent on many trillions of microscopic and barely visible plants and animals.

Well one thing we do know is that we need to put plants and get the air right and fix the magnetic fields before we can transport some animals there. Water, then air for plants, then plants to help fix the air better. And then it would be ready for animals of some kind or another.

Right now it takes more than a million dollars per pound to put anything into space. The cost to terraform Mars would is incalculable.

What it takes is work. Money isn't necesssary. If people would work for free we wouldn't have to worry about money, would we.

To remove the knowledge base from any explorers/settlers on Mars would guarantee failure.

Nah, we'd already have it all set up so the planet would take care of itself, even on a planet where things died after a while. To make it easier though we could start all this after we're resurrected and no longer need a lot of the things we need now to survive. Spirits live forever, so its only fallen mortal bodies like ours that give up the ghost after a while.

God can do pretty much what he wants. But for some odd reason he seems to follow natural laws when setting up a planet.

Yeah, and yet for some reason some people think it takes some kind of a miracle to get something done.

[danielwoods]

Thought this article relevant.

Here's a quote from the article:

"Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal.Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10^-13). The patterns display readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to natural origin."

http://www.investiga...stigate/?p=3371

Notice these are scientists (not ID or Creationists by the way), and they are saying that the evolutionary pathway is rejected, and that the DNA displays hallmarks of artificiality.

Edited March 15, 2013 by danielwoods

[bu11fr0g]

The scientists are nonbiologists from Kazakhstan writing in a nonbiologic third tier journal about the genetic code (ie rna translation into the twenty amino acids) not dna encoding complex proteins. Their work would easily be noted as flawed by biologists who know that the code is redundant and nonrandom in an ideal way to tolerate mutation. Not nonrandom because it was designed by an alien.

The existence of nonstandard genetic codes immediately disproves their hypothesis. But as nonbiologists it is not surprising that they are not aware of these.

[danielwoods]

The scientists are nonbiologists from Kazakhstan writing in a nonbiologic third tier journal about the genetic code (ie rna translation into the twenty amino acids) not dna encoding complex proteins. Their work would easily be noted as flawed by biologists who know that the code is redundant and nonrandom in an ideal way to tolerate mutation. Not nonrandom because it was designed by an alien.

The existence of nonstandard genetic codes immediately disproves their hypothesis. But as nonbiologists it is not surprising that they are not aware of these.

The way I figure it, it will only take time.

Could you explain why the existence of nonstandard genetic codes disproves their hypothesis?

[bu11fr0g]

Their pattern is disrupted in the alternative code. The calculations have to be redone for each alternate code resulting in multiple contradicting conclusions all with a disrupted pattern.

The existence of a separate mitochondrial and nuclear genetic code in an organism forces the idea that they are created separately for some but not other organisms.

It really seems to be a silly publication. I dont know the journal or its standards. At the lower end, a lot of goofy things can make it in. But some of things actually end up being important findings as examined over time.

[thesometimesaint]

Somehow I don't think cost is a problem with God.

The way I read the account is that he already had the planet set up before he brought people into the picture.

Never said it did matter to God. But I would say that even God considers the cost. Just not in dollars and cents.

And there is no easier, least costly, way of achieving that life supporting planet than through evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Okay, sure, so there a a few complications. I'm sure God already has all of that figured out, though.

From wherever there is some, or maybe there is some way to make some by converting some of the elements already there.

What is it that makes it so that we have an atmosphere like the one we have here? Have you figured that out yet?

Okay, so we'll send over some nitrogen, too, or make some of that from the elements that are already there. Anything else?

We have lots of them here. Maybe sending all kinds at once may not work out the best but we can send some over until we get the planet ready for more.

Okay, so let's fix that first then. Have you figured out what it takes for a planet to have a magnetic field, yet?

Yeah yeah yeah.. Picky picky. So what would we have to do to get at least something started. Have you figured that out, yet?

Well one thing we do know is that we need to put plants and get the air right and fix the magnetic fields before we can transport some animals there. Water, then air for plants, then plants to help fix the air better. And then it would be ready for animals of some kind or another.

What it takes is work. Money isn't necesssary. If people would work for free we wouldn't have to worry about money, would we.

Nah, we'd already have it all set up so the planet would take care of itself, even on a planet where things died after a while. To make it easier though we could start all this after we're resurrected and no longer need a lot of the things we need now to survive. Spirits live forever, so its only fallen mortal bodies like ours that give up the ghost after a while.

Yeah, and yet for some reason some people think it takes some kind of a miracle to get something done.

Complications are what make science interesting. IE; The complications in terraforming a dead planet make for interesting discussions. It also sets the parameters of what so far can't be done and what can easily be done. Getting a man to Mars is relatively easy. Just build a big enough rocket, about twice the size of the Saturn 5 booster, and in about 10 months of constant travel you'll get there. Getting there safely, staying for any length of time, and returning safely is another matter.

The Elements, Gravity, and time are all I need to make any atmosphere I want.

Mercury doesn't have any. Venus is poisonous. Jupiter doesn't have enough, Saturn is too cold, on out to Pluto which as far as we know doesn't have any either. So earth is the only one we know anything about that has those essentials. Lifting them to Mars is so impractical as to be impossible. No to mention that we need those things right here on earth, and will for a long time to come.

We don't know how to make oxygen and nitrogen outside of an exploding star. BTW; ALL the elements inside your body came from a long ago exploded star. I kinda like the one we already have, and the others are just too far away to be of much use. The universe is a really really big place and the stars and planets are really far apart. If the earth were the size of again of sand. It is as far to Mars as our full size earth is to our next closest star.

Gravity, and time.

One or a billion there are still the same problems, just on a different scale. How to keep an organism in a very hostile environment alive long enough to reproduce.

Ya a rotating liquid core is a good way. But we don't know how to make that.. Or we could invent some type of electronic force field. But we don't know how to do that either. So the only way we know of to repel the radiation is through mass or living/building underground. That creates more interesting discussions.

Started? The plans to go to Mars and put men on it so far are rather tentative, and may well be dubious considering all the technological advances that are needed to do it.

God may not need money, but his children sure do like to get paid it to do work on this planet. So everyone is to work for free, except you. Tell me how that works out.

Science really doesn't concern itself with the Resurrection, or any religious belief for that matter.

[semlogo]

http://evolution.ber...ginoflife.shtml

Seems as if the staff at Berkeley believe the origins of life is connected with evolution, in fact part of it -

"However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

Yes, I agree. It's of interest.

[semlogo]

Indeed it hasn't been observed to occur. As you first link admits.

"How life originated and how the first cell came into being are matters of speculation, since these events cannot be reproduced in the laboratory."

And your second link explains it for even a layman to understand.

"DNA is the software of life, the molecules that pack all the genetic information of a cell."

In essence, the claim of naturalistic evolutionist is that the software of life was written by the mere physics we observe today. Yet we don't know exactly how it occured. Not withstanding that the software of life is twice as complex (being quaternary, not binary) as the software that our computers are using.

Organic compounds DO form spontaneously.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

We do not know all the details about the formation of life from organic chemicals, as these are not the sorts of things preserved in a fossil record. Let's be cautious about making arguments from that ignorance, though.

[semlogo]

I haven't any more time to waste on this discussion. I have already told you I don't really care. However I do care when you continually misrepresent me. I have posted that I do not support a young earth yet you continue to insinuate that I do. Please cease the misrepresentation. By the way are you from Lome Linda?

I haven't represented you in any way, let alone misrepresented you. You read personal insult into everything I say, where none is intended.

[Stone holm]

I think that looking at the difficulties of terraforming Mars is a fairly pointless exercise, we know very little of the science or the technologies that Heavenly Father may have used to terraform the Earth and prepare it for habitation, and I expect that we will not understand them probably for a long time after we have been exalted if we make it that far. Maybe a planet like Mars can be organized into an Earth, maybe not. As far as trying to prove Creationism vs. Evolution -- if you insist on making it one or the other, by resorting to computer analysis of DNA codes, that also seems slightly misguided as well -- all that may wind up establishing is there were more than one line of evolution, and Creationists are never going to accept the relevancy of DNA in this debate either.

All though it is becoming increasingly fashionable to discredit Brigham Young (a tendency I think somewhat unfortunate), I think he was in sync with most of the early Saints who were contemporaries of Jospeh Smith, Jr. and I think he pretty much nailed it when he said that Genesis account with respect to Adam is basically fable and indeed the early leaders of the Restoration seemed fairly unanimous that some form of terraforming type process was involved, even though they would have had no clue what the sci-fi term "terraforming" meant. The issue only becomes cloudy when you start running into some later GAs who had a tendency towards fundamentalist literalist reading of the Bible in particular Genesis.

[bcuzbcuz]

You invoke Occam's razor so consider which is the simplest answer God did it or it happened because of untold fortuitous mutations?

You have a very obnoxious habit of deriding those who don't agree with you. You lump all of them together and attribute the most outlandish of claims to all. Refute the claims instead of mock.

Refute? How does one refute baseless nonsense?

Obnoxious as my response may be, any idea of God piecing together this planet out of pre-existing planets is deserving of ridicule. I've seen it stated here that dinosaurs must have been life forms from other planets, since Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden and death hadn't yet been introduced on earth. Talk about molding reality to fit fantasy, that really takes the cake. Give me just one single piece of evidence for such outlandish BS. You won't find it in scripture or in real world evidence.

The expression of "terra-forming" has jumped into the discussion, with assumptions that defy description and yet people try to defend the position with explanations straight out of science fiction. Talk of pre-Adamites has also flourished, based not on scripture, but trying to fit puzzle pieces that just don't fit.

Genetic information provides intricate detail about the complexity of life, tantalizing clues of how life forms share common links. Awe, regardless whether it comes from a standpoint of religion or scientific study, would seem to be an appropriate response. But to derail the discussion by spouting nonsense is not awe inspiring.

If I was talking to someone about my latest trip to my grandchildren and someone else jumped in to tell about their latest alien encounter on a flying saucer spaceship, I would stop mid-sentence. Granted, I would be very surprised that they were being dead-serious, but it doesn't make their story any less ridiculous.

[thesometimesaint]

Still don't see the connection. I don't think anyone is arguing that humans are "mere" animals, and I know of no doctrine that suggests that animals are capable of committing sin. What the evolutionists are arguing is how you get to Adam and Eve, not what happens after you get there. And in order to argue that Adam and Eve were placed here from elsewhere, or specifically created here, you don't have to reject evolution for everything else just because of the doctrine that the knowledge of good and evil was acquired by Adam and Eve in some manner and that gave them the capacity to sin and fall. So where is the connection?

At what point did God place his children's spirits in their physical bodies for the first time?

[thesometimesaint]

I think that looking at the difficulties of terraforming Mars is a fairly pointless exercise, we know very little of the science or the technologies that Heavenly Father may have used to terraform the Earth and prepare it for habitation, and I expect that we will not understand them probably for a long time after we have been exalted if we make it that far. Maybe a planet like Mars can be organized into an Earth, maybe not. As far as trying to prove Creationism vs. Evolution -- if you insist on making it one or the other, by resorting to computer analysis of DNA codes, that also seems slightly misguided as well -- all that may wind up establishing is there were more than one line of evolution, and Creationists are never going to accept the relevancy of DNA in this debate either.

All though it is becoming increasingly fashionable to discredit Brigham Young (a tendency I think somewhat unfortunate), I think he was in sync with most of the early Saints who were contemporaries of Jospeh Smith, Jr. and I think he pretty much nailed it when he said that Genesis account with respect to Adam is basically fable and indeed the early leaders of the Restoration seemed fairly unanimous that some form of terraforming type process was involved, even though they would have had no clue what the sci-fi term "terraforming" meant. The issue only becomes cloudy when you start running into some later GAs who had a tendency towards fundamentalist literalist reading of the Bible in particular Genesis.

While I expect that someday that the differences between religion and science will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I don't expect that resolution any time soon.

[danielwoods]

Organic compounds DO form spontaneously.

http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/

We do not know all the details about the formation of life from organic chemicals, as these are not the sorts of things preserved in a fossil record. Let's be cautious about making arguments from that ignorance, though.

I'm all for being cautious. Claiming that the physics we observe today "created" the intelligence that we enjoy isn't being cautious in my view, rather as I've said it's a display of one's beliefs not science. It's like saying that your computer software is derived from the silicone that make up the guts of the machine.

Where is it ever demonstrated that this principle is a work? That the software (information stored on DNA) is derived from the hardware (organic compounds) itself?

Edited March 15, 2013 by danielwoods

[Ahab]

Science really doesn't concern itself with the Resurrection, or any religious belief for that matter.

Science can be used to learn about anything you can think of, whether or not what you think of is a "religious" issue, and the sooner you learn that the better. Until then you're just dabbling in science instead of using it to study everything that can be discovered.

And all of us could work without needing to use any money. Money is not necessary.

[thesometimesaint]

Science can be used to learn about anything you can think of, whether or not what you think of is a "religious" issue, and the sooner you learn that the better. Until then you're just dabbling in science instead of using it to study everything that can be discovered.

And all of us could work without needing to use any money. Money is not necessary.

That is simply not true. Religion concerns itself with the Supernatural and Science can not by definition concern itself with the Supernatural.

The individual scientist is free to believe anything they want about the Supernatural.

I learned a long time ago that over mixing science with religion degrades both.

Money is simply a tool to convey property from one person to another.

Edited March 15, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

Supra natural? You mean like magic wands and stuff? The GAs, bless their total accuracy, during the early days of the Restoration were pretty clear that the gods employed physical laws when doing their thing, it's just that we don't understand all the laws that well that things appear to be supra natural. I am not saying that you don't have to have authority and perhaps righteousness to cause some of the things to work but that is just a more refined skill or technology, not abracadabra (unless that happens to be some kind of technology keyword or something).

[Ahab]

That is simply not true. Religion concerns itself with the Supernatural and Science can not by definition concern itself with the Supernatural.

No, religion concerns itself with every aspect of how we should live our lives, and science can too.

The individual scientist is free to believe anything they want about the Supernatural.

Yes and each individual scientist can use science to learn about his religion and the "Supernatural" (whatever that is).

I learned a long time ago that over mixing science with religion degrades both.

Then you need to unlearn that by learning to mix both better than you know how to right now. I use both at the same time and it works rather well for me.

Money is simply a tool to convey property from one person to another.

People can convey property from one person to another without using any money, though. Money is not necessary.

[ERayR]

All though it is becoming increasingly fashionable to discredit Brigham Young (a tendency I think somewhat unfortunate), I think he was in sync with most of the early Saints who were contemporaries of Jospeh Smith, Jr. and I think he pretty much nailed it when he said that Genesis account with respect to Adam is basically fable and indeed the early leaders of the Restoration seemed fairly unanimous that some form of terraforming type process was involved, even though they would have had no clue what the sci-fi term "terraforming" meant. The issue only becomes cloudy when you start running into some later GAs who had a tendency towards fundamentalist literalist reading of the Bible in particular Genesis.

I agree with this. However, if you are going to accept Brigham's assessment of in this case I think you have to give serious consideration to the rest of his statements concerning the creation and how human beings arrived on the scene. The problem is as you have pointed out, it has become fashionable to dismiss what he said.