Evolution And Mormonism

[ERayR]

Even were I to believe there was some conspiracy, I can still go out and look for myself. If you live in or around Utah there are an abundance of excellent fossil sites. Living in Scandinavia, as I do, I must travel a fair distance to find readily available sites, but German shale deposits are a good starting point. It is not all that hard to gain access to good fossil sites where an amateur can whack away to their hearts content.

And when you do, you will find other avid amateurs more than happy to share experiences and good "fishing"spots. I met an old retired professor who gladly shared insights and an uncany eye to spot what I might have just wallked past. It's all there for the picking.

You are ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter what you find it is through whose lens that you interpret the find.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

My open challenge to critics is still open. Many have tried. So far all have failed. Who knows you just might the first one to do it. Good Luck.

Edited March 4, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bcuzbcuz]

You are ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter what you find it is through whose lens that you interpret the find.

And which or whose lens are you looking through? And why do you accept that lens as being trustworthy? Or why do you accept your interpretations as being believable and others not believable? Who do you have in the fields of archaeology or paleaontology as trustworthy sources? Or are all equally unreliable? Have you come to your conclusions completely on your own or through others? Do you have any alternate theory about the development of life of the planet earth that fits all the currently found pieces of bone and plant, both living and fossilized?

Or is your point merely to point out that I, as a contributer to this forum, have prejudices or lenses?

[thesometimesaint]

And which or whose lens are you looking through? And why do you accept that lens as being trustworthy? Or why do you accept your interpretations as being believable and others not believable? Who do you have in the fields of archaeology or paleaontology as trustworthy sources? Or are all equally unreliable? Have you come to your conclusions completely on your own or through others? Do you have any alternate theory about the development of life of the planet earth that fits all the currently found pieces of bone and plant, both living and fossilized?

Or is your point merely to point out that I, as a contributer to this forum, have prejudices or lenses?

We all have both, but it is unlikely that any two of us will have the exact same ones. That is what makes science work. We are constantly debunking each others prejudices and lenses.

[ERayR]

We all have both, but it is unlikely that any two of us will have the exact same ones. That is what makes science work. We are constantly debunking each others prejudices and lenses.

Yep.

[Rob Osborn]

Everyone knows that the age of the rock is dated by what type of fossil is found in or around that rock. Anomalies that defy science are found all the time such as petrified trees that go straight through supposed millions of years of rocks. How do scientists explain these anomalies? They state that when these anomalies are found it represents periods of fast sedimentation. So let me get this straight- rock layers are represented to mean vast ages of slow deposit unless such anomaly such as a petrified tree trunk go through several sedimentary layers and then it is determined that those layers were layed down very quickly. Scientists just make this stuff up as they go...

When reputable scientists found soft tissue in dinosaur bone half just looked the other way while the other half are scrambling to rewrite all of their rules about how things age and are preserved.

When they found vintage WW2 planes buried under 260 feet of ice they had scientists scrambling to redefine how they view and age ice core data.

Scientists have no clue...

[ERayR]

Everyone knows that the age of the rock is dated by what type of fossil is found in or around that rock.

The age of the rock is dated by the type of fossil found in and around it and the age of the fossil is dated by the type of rock it is found in and around.

Edited March 4, 2013 by ERayR

[Rob Osborn]

[Rob Osborn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mDo8k-mtUM

[semlogo]

Snide remarks uncalled for. I did not insult your intelligence. This is exactly the attitude I mentioned earlier. I have not posted my beliefs one way or the other except to say I think that the evolution of humans is contrary to the doctrine of the fall and atonement.

Contrary to your statement most of the information, on macro evolution, is not empirical nor verifiable. It is postulated to have happened so long ago that it could not have been observed by any living being and its presentation is through the biases of the presenter.

You're right, that was a snide remark. I apologize.

The only difference between micro and "macro" evolution, as you put it, is time. There are many scientific fields for which direct observation is impossible. Thankfully science is not limited to what can be observed in real time by the naked eye. The evidence for evolution IS empirical and verifiable. These terms are not synonymous for "observable in real time."

[Rob Osborn]

The evidence for micro-evolution or small change within species is empiricle and observable and verifiable. Evidence however for evolutionary change with changing fromn one species to another such as a whale to a cow or a monkey to a human is not empiricle, not observable and definately not verifiable. Just becuase something living is similar in shape or form to something else living does not mean it evolved from that or happened that way. A praying mantis for example looks a lot like a leaf or branch from a tree. This does not mean however that the praying mantis evolved from a leaf or branch of a tree.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

One of the biggest issues with evolution as I see it is in living fossils- animals that were supposed to evolve over millions of years into something else but instead remained unchanged throughout history and still found alive basically unchanged from the fossil record. The Coelocanth fish is one famous example.

[Rob Osborn]

Another thing I have issue with- Evolution can explain Darwins finches quite well- different size beaks that best fit circumstances in nature. It can also explain things like differing coats on various bears depending on where they live. When evolutionary theory sticks strictly with what is verifiable and observable in nature, the theory works out quite well. It has massive issues though when it trys to explain things based on someones idea of how they "want" to see or picture nature. Trying to explain how life came into existance and became complex is absolutely wrong under evolutionary theory. It absolutely has no idea of what it is doing and should have no place in science. Science actually shows us by observation the very complexity of life and how it works, how it operates and sustains itself. It has not shown it to be possible for this complexity to have risen from nothing and slowly evolved into very complex features over time. It is indeed a more philisophical debate because there is no actual evidence for it. All that exists is ideas that havent panned out time and time again.

The greatest phenomenon in all of the universe is the existance of intelligent life. Any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that intelligent life can only come from intelligent life to begin with. There is no instance in observable scientific testing that shows intelligence coming from any other source besides intelligent processes itself. Scientific testing has also shown that no reproducing life form has ever came from a non-living source or set of circumstances- it just absolutely cannot be done. But because science cant aknowledge God, it must therefore dream up some insanely obscure fairytale of an idea for how it could happen and then stick with it even when there is no supporting evidence for it!

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The greatest phenomenon in all of the universe is the existance of intelligent life. Any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that intelligent life can only come from intelligent life to begin with. There is no instance in observable scientific testing that shows intelligence coming from any other source besides intelligent processes itself.

Doesn't this just push the problem back a little bit? Where did the intelligent life that created us come from and so forth?

[Rob Osborn]

Doesn't this just push the problem back a little bit? Where did the intelligent life that created us come from and so forth?

Moot point. We dont have to figure out which came first- chicken or egg thing. All we have to determine is to understand that intelligence only can arise from an intelligent source. All we can surmise is that intelligence, just like matter, has always been in existance. To state otherwise presents the same issue, for to say- intelligence has to arise out of non-intelligent matter still presents the problem of how matter came about to begin with.

Edited March 4, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that intelligent life can only come from intelligent life to begin with.

All we have to determine is to understand that intelligence only can arise from an intelligent source.

All we can surmise is that intelligence, just like matter, has always been in existance.

I'm having trouble following. The first and second statements seem to be contradicted by the third statement (I'm probably just dense, so forgive if I misunderstood). If intelligence can only arise from an intelligent source doesn't that preclude the fact that it always existed? Maybe you meant to say "Any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that intelligent life can only come from intelligent life to begin with or that intelligent life always was in existence"?

So are you saying that somewhere out there, there is a being that has always been in existence? That this being kind of got the ball rolling so to speak with all of the lesser intelligences by organizing worlds and such? Again forgive if I am misunderstanding.

[ERayR]

I'm having trouble following. The first and second statements seem to be contradicted by the third statement (I'm probably just dense, so forgive if I misunderstood). If intelligence can only arise from an intelligent source doesn't that preclude the fact that it always existed? Maybe you meant to say "Any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that intelligent life can only come from intelligent life to begin with or that intelligent life always was in existence"?

So are you saying that somewhere out there, there is a being that has always been in existence? That this being kind of got the ball rolling so to speak with all of the lesser intelligences by organizing worlds and such? Again forgive if I am misunderstanding.

I don't see how your changes in the statement made one iota of difference.

Yep. That being is called God.

[mfbukowski]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a replicable experiment to show that one cell without human dna can evolve into a fully developed human being?

[mfbukowski]

Any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that intelligent life can only come from intelligent life to begin with.

Wow.

Now I know why I am keeping out of this one.

This totally begs the question. Of course I guess that means that I am not a reasonable or knowledgeable person, or perhaps not intelligent.

That's probably right, anyway. Take your pick. Define intelligence so that anyone who does not agree is not intelligent. An interesting strategy, but any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that it is a bunch of hooey.

[bu11fr0g]

Completely synthesized life has been created without any parental DNA.

The DNA coding of proteins and nonprotein structures forces a relationship between man and chimpanzees. The timing and mechanisms arent known though.

An independent de novo creation is ridiculous unless God chose to synthesize our human DNA based on what he observed in chimpanzees. Or maybe there is some other explanation for the similar location of junk viral insertions?

Similarly, an origin of man in the Americas within the last 10000 years seems silly.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm having trouble following. The first and second statements seem to be contradicted by the third statement (I'm probably just dense, so forgive if I misunderstood). If intelligence can only arise from an intelligent source doesn't that preclude the fact that it always existed? Maybe you meant to say "Any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that intelligent life can only come from intelligent life to begin with or that intelligent life always was in existence"?

So are you saying that somewhere out there, there is a being that has always been in existence? That this being kind of got the ball rolling so to speak with all of the lesser intelligences by organizing worlds and such? Again forgive if I am misunderstanding.

All I am suggesting is that intelligence has always existed, it did not arise on its own and is not capable of arising on its own.

[Rob Osborn]

Wow.

Now I know why I am keeping out of this one.

This totally begs the question. Of course I guess that means that I am not a reasonable or knowledgeable person, or perhaps not intelligent.

That's probably right, anyway. Take your pick. Define intelligence so that anyone who does not agree is not intelligent. An interesting strategy, but any reasonable and knowledgeable person should know that it is a bunch of hooey.

Not sure I follow, please explain.

[ERayR]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a replicable experiment to show that one cell without human dna can evolve into a fully developed human being?

It would certainly limit the discussion.

[ERayR]

Completely synthesized life has been created without any parental DNA.

The DNA coding of proteins and nonprotein structures forces a relationship between man and chimpanzees. The timing and mechanisms arent known though.

An independent de novo creation is ridiculous unless God chose to synthesize our human DNA based on what he observed in chimpanzees. Or maybe there is some other explanation for the similar location of junk viral insertions?

Similarly, an origin of man in the Americas within the last 10000 years seems silly.

It took a lot of intelligent designing and engineering. The didn't just pop some chemicals in a pot and wait for a lightning bolt.

Forces being the operative word. Seems a bit forced.

So called junk DNA, according to some researcher is probably a misnomer and it is really DNA whose purpose has not yet been discovered.

[mfbukowski]

It would certainly limit the discussion.

The point of course is that that is impossible so evolution cannot be proven experimentally. Of course you can show it within species of fruit flies etc but that is not quite the same as the chain of complexity needed

Of course I believe in evolution. I am a man of faith