Evolution And Mormonism

[Rob Osborn]

Humm. So the ancient Greek Gods are the ones we should worship? Or is it the Hindu Gods or is the Shinto Emperor God the one? So many "Scriptures"(pieces of paper and active imaginations) and Gods to choose from. I've got a better idea. Lets leave the Supernatural to the mystics, and science to us with more Natural abilities.

Whether life was planted here by God, space aliens, or developed with neither, it wouldn't effect the evidence for evolution.

Where is the hard evidence for evolution though? All you have are disputed bones that closely resemble other bones. Where is the real evidence- the proof? You would have to trace, biologically, how each new groups of cells changed or mutated into bigger, better groups that led to new species. How exactly would you provide that needed proof for evolution on that scale to be correct? We can daydream all the day long about how dinosaurs jumped out of trees and eventually grew wings and feathers on those wings but in order to be true you actually have to scientifically show, on a biological level, that not only is it possible, but that is really how it happened. Evolution is no different than the greek gods in reality.

[Rob Osborn]

I agree. Just as meteorology rules out the theory of intelligent lightning. But that doesn't rule out the existence of a God.

Intelligent design does not have a workable model for making predictions about life. It has contributed nothing to human knowledge about biology.

Evolution does not deal with the origins of life. Surely you've been told that before.

All branches of science are entirely devoid of any mention of God. That is because science is science, not religion. You can never include any god or type of divine intelligence to explain chemistry or planet formation or weather patterns. Science deals with what can be observed (directly or indirectly) in the natural world.

If you wish to learn theology, a church is more appropriate than a laboratory.

The evidence for intelligent design in nature is everywhere. DNA is just one of a myriad of things that show proof of intelligent design. Evolution does in fact deal with the origins of life. Every biology book I own discusses the origins of life and how it "evolved" from non-life into life. This is one area of evolution that evolutionists know is a part of their theory but are scared by it and so try to confuse others as if they were stupid. My science isnt devoid of God. In fact, I include God in all facets of my learning. God is the greatest scientist of all.

[Rob Osborn]

You misunderstand the nature of evidence. Scientists cannot produce a solar system in the lab either. That doesn't mean they don't have evidence describing how they are formed.

I have no misunderstanding of "evidence". Scientists can indeed replicate certain principles and laws found in the solar system. Those are instances of true evidence and correct scientific theory. How the solar system was formed is more philisophical theory just as evolution is at this point. The hard evidence for both lack scientific credibility by their own definitions.

[bcuzbcuz]

Where is the hard evidence for evolution though? All you have are disputed bones

(Please read this with the dialect and inflection typical of the Monty Python Flying Circus.)

"Disputed BoNeS?? DiSPUted BoneS???? (Spluttering and spitting each word in a high pitched squeal) DISPutED BOnes?????

DO you have any idea just how many bones we're talking about? The femur of a T-rex is readily identifiable as a femur, but just ten times larger and heavier than any human femur. Rib cages look like rib cages, hip bones look like hip bones, but very often enormously over-sized to anything currently alive. Footprints look like footprints, snail trails look like snail trails, just buried hundreds of meters below in the ground. There are literally millions of bones from dinosaurs, hundreds of feathered creatures recorded in stone. I've seen many of them myself. You can find them easily on the internet. Scientists have disagreed on shape and size of creature but continually modify as new finds become available, but no one (except non-scientists like Ken Ham and his ilk) have any question about whether the dinosaurs existed. No reputable scientist thinks the dinosaurs existed just 6000 years ago.

Disputed bones? Disputed by who?

[T-Shirt]

(Please read this with the dialect and inflection typical of the Monty Python Flying Circus.)

"Disputed BoNeS?? DiSPUted BoneS???? (Spluttering and spitting each word in a high pitched squeal) DISPutED BOnes?????

DO you have any idea just how many bones we're talking about? The femur of a T-rex is readily identifiable as a femur, but just ten times larger and heavier than any human femur. Rib cages look like rib cages, hip bones look like hip bones, but very often enormously over-sized to anything currently alive. Footprints look like footprints, snail trails look like snail trails, just buried hundreds of meters below in the ground. There are literally millions of bones from dinosaurs, hundreds of feathered creatures recorded in stone. I've seen many of them myself. You can find them easily on the internet. Scientists have disagreed on shape and size of creature but continually modify as new finds become available, but no one (except non-scientists like Ken Ham and his ilk) have any question about whether the dinosaurs existed. No reputable scientist thinks the dinosaurs existed just 6000 years ago.

Disputed bones? Disputed by who?

Did you watch the 60 Minutes piece Rob posted earlier in this thread? I am curious to know, what is the current scientific theory regarding the soft tissue discovered in dinosaur bones? Is it regarded as evidence that dinosaurs didn't live as long ago as previously thought, or is it regarded as evidence that soft tissue can survive longer than previously thought, or something else?

[Ahab]

Disputed bones? Disputed by who?

How about disputed how? Like how some people see bones as evidence that certain creatures existed but not as evidence that evolution happened. To me all those bones show is that there were once creatures who had those bones. How and why do you jump from that to the idea that evolution happened?

Edited March 11, 2013 by Ahab

[ERayR]

And which information do you think is missing, specifically?

I am talking of the information in ancient texts that point to lost knowledge and technologies that point to higher civilizations in the past. Ruins that point to higher civilizations. Things that civilizations evolving from caves would not have. Things ignored by evolutionary scientist. Things that when attention is drawn to them they are dismissed as myths and imagination. It is like one big puzzle and all the pieces have to fit, not just the bones.

[ERayR]

Time itself is relative to the observer. But it doesn't take much, if any, faith to recognize the logical sequence of events.

The problem is the logic is not evident unless it is forced.

[ERayR]

Either you haven't done your homework or your understanding of time is somewhat skewed. Read some basic texts on evolution where you can get a proper understanding of how asexual and sexual production actually occurs, the why and the how. You seem to think that sexual reproduction organs just suddenly appeared one day, when just the day before, the creatures were happily asexually reproducing. The why behind sexual reproduction should be enlightening. It all has to do with deepening the gene pool.

You accuse someone else of not doing their homework. From my vantage point it appears ther are a lot of things about which you are woefully ignorant.

[ERayR]

(Please read this with the dialect and inflection typical of the Monty Python Flying Circus.)

"Disputed BoNeS?? DiSPUted BoneS???? (Spluttering and spitting each word in a high pitched squeal) DISPutED BOnes?????

DO you have any idea just how many bones we're talking about? The femur of a T-rex is readily identifiable as a femur, but just ten times larger and heavier than any human femur. Rib cages look like rib cages, hip bones look like hip bones, but very often enormously over-sized to anything currently alive. Footprints look like footprints, snail trails look like snail trails, just buried hundreds of meters below in the ground. There are literally millions of bones from dinosaurs, hundreds of feathered creatures recorded in stone. I've seen many of them myself. You can find them easily on the internet. Scientists have disagreed on shape and size of creature but continually modify as new finds become available, but no one (except non-scientists like Ken Ham and his ilk) have any question about whether the dinosaurs existed. No reputable scientist thinks the dinosaurs existed just 6000 years ago.

Disputed bones? Disputed by who?

You ask the wrong question. It should have been what is disputed about them? So as not to make to confusing for you it is how do those bones prove evolution.

[Rob Osborn]

(Please read this with the dialect and inflection typical of the Monty Python Flying Circus.)

"Disputed BoNeS?? DiSPUted BoneS???? (Spluttering and spitting each word in a high pitched squeal) DISPutED BOnes?????

DO you have any idea just how many bones we're talking about? The femur of a T-rex is readily identifiable as a femur, but just ten times larger and heavier than any human femur. Rib cages look like rib cages, hip bones look like hip bones, but very often enormously over-sized to anything currently alive. Footprints look like footprints, snail trails look like snail trails, just buried hundreds of meters below in the ground. There are literally millions of bones from dinosaurs, hundreds of feathered creatures recorded in stone. I've seen many of them myself. You can find them easily on the internet. Scientists have disagreed on shape and size of creature but continually modify as new finds become available, but no one (except non-scientists like Ken Ham and his ilk) have any question about whether the dinosaurs existed. No reputable scientist thinks the dinosaurs existed just 6000 years ago.

Disputed bones? Disputed by who?

The bones being disputed are specifically those transitional ones- the supposed missing links, especially those leading up to modern human.

Interesting thing about dinosaurs- pretty much every ancient culture either mentioned them in writing or displayed them in all forms of artwork. When you combine that with the fact that soft tissue is still found in dinosaur bones, you have extremely compelling evidence that dinosaurs died in the past thousand years. Its a good thing that crocodiles werent killed off too or we would be saying they have been extinct for millions of years too

[Rob Osborn]

Did you watch the 60 Minutes piece Rob posted earlier in this thread? I am curious to know, what is the current scientific theory regarding the soft tissue discovered in dinosaur bones? Is it regarded as evidence that dinosaurs didn't live as long ago as previously thought, or is it regarded as evidence that soft tissue can survive longer than previously thought, or something else?

For a few years the soft tissue was heavily disputed until extremely critical testing actually proved that the soft tissue really is just that- soft biologic tissue. Because of these test results, scientists are baffled, but instead of assign much earlier dates for the soft tissue they instead are trying to rethink how soft tissue can possibly be preserved for millions of years. Comically, they refuse to carbon date it which would in fact prove their true age( because after all, the soft tissue is carbon) because they refuse to believe they could only be thousands of years old. Ironically, dinosaur bones have indeed been carbon dated by scientists showing them to be thousands of years old and not millions. Of course though, no "reputable" scientist will accept those results because it doesn't fit with the idea or theory that they are supposed to be millions of years old.

[bu11fr0g]

Where is this idea that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old coming from? Which scientists are baffled? Who is refusing to carbon date?

The scientist that identified the soft tissue wrote the following article noting the millions of years of age of the dinosaur.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280.short

[Rob Osborn]

Where is this idea that dinosaurs are only thousands of years old coming from? Which scientists are baffled? Who is refusing to carbon date?

The scientist that identified the soft tissue wrote the following article noting the millions of years of age of the dinosaur.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/316/5822/280.short

Did you even read what I posted? Soft tissue cant possibly last millions of years. Scientists write the rules on this stuff and then change the rules when things dont add up. Why are dinosaurs depicted in ancient artwork?

[mfbukowski]

Why are dinosaurs depicted in ancient artwork?

Now this, I would like to see. CFR por favor.

[Calm]

perhaps this?:

http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

and a response: http://paleo.cc/ce/dino-art.htm

Edited March 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

perhaps this?:

http://www.genesispa...cient/dinosaur/

Yes I have seen that site before.

Who knew there were dinosaurs in the 15th century?

Oh- there weren't? Then why were they drawing them? Could it be that maybe they had other reasons/sources for these artworks?

I hope this is not what he was talking about. If you know anything about art history and iconography every single one of these has another explanation.

This is about as reasonable as those drawings of ancient astronauts!

[Rob Osborn]

Yes I have seen that site before.

Who knew there were dinosaurs in the 15th century?

Oh- there weren't? Then why were they drawing them? Could it be that maybe they had other reasons/sources for these artworks?

I hope this is not what he was talking about. If you know anything about art history and iconography every single one of these has another explanation.

This is about as reasonable as those drawings of ancient astronauts!

Just cant see the forest because all the trees in the way...

[mfbukowski]

And the greatest miracle of all is that only moderns, according to this view, could discover dinosaur skeletons.

In future ages, by this logic, it will be believed that dinosaurs lived in central park in the 20th century because that's where their bones were found, along with multiple pictures and depictions of dinosaurs.

Obviously, if anyone was drawing them- who ever drew them had to be contemporaneous with them. It's only logical.

[changed]

Perhaps we are overlooking the obvious... I'm still learning Hebrew, so pehaps others on here can confirm this? but the word that is translated "create" does not originate from an ex-Nihlo type of concept -

Isa 45:7 I form ³³³⁵ the light ²¹⁶, and create ¹²⁵⁴ darkness ²⁸²²: I make ⁶²¹³ peace ⁷⁹⁶⁵, and create ¹²⁵⁴ evil ⁷⁴⁵¹: I the LORD ³⁰⁶⁸ do ⁶²¹³ all these [things].

1254 - בָּרָא - create - bara' means to "shape, form, fashion"... transform - not make something from nothing. a better translation would be:

I transform the darkness into light, I transform - רַע - unkindness - into - שָׁלוֹם - friendship/peace, I the Lord do all these things. ( because God does not create darkness - 1 John 1:5 God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.)

Here is another site discussing what the original word for create actually means - that it means transform (evolve)

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_creator.html

Child Root (Branches of the Tree)

Pronunciation: "Qa-NeH"

Meaning: To build a nest.

Comments: This child root is a nest builder, one who builds a nest such as a bird. Also God as in Bereshiyt (Genesis) 14.19; "God most high creator (qaneh) of sky and earth". The English word "create" is an abstract word and a foriegn concept to the Hebrews. While we see God as one who makes something from nothing (create), the Hebrews saw God like a bird who goes about acquiring and gathering materials to build a nest (qen), the sky and earth. The Hebrews saw man as the children (eggs) that God built the nest for.

The above goes along quite nicely with:

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 93:29)

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

We were not ex-Nihlo created, we were transformed (evolved).

and what does it say about the animals? Does it say they were ex-Nihlo created from the ground? no, it tells us they were transformed, evolved - at least that is what the Hebrew seems to be saying to me.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=1&v=21&t=KJV#conc/21

Again we see the word: ברא bara'

Gen 1:21 And God transformed/organized/evolved the great whales, and every living creature that moveth...

It is not an ex-Nihlo kind of a deal, it's a transformation/evolution kind of a statement, at least that is what seems like a more accurate translation to me.

[bu11fr0g]

"Scientists write the rules on this stuff and then change the rules when things don't add up."

That is exactly what science is. When observations are made that are inconsistent with existing theories, the theories are disproven. New theories are then developed to explain all of the observations. In practice, theories backed by very large numbers of observations are felt to be solid -- a contradicting small number of observations usually represents an error in observation, but not always.

With the soft tissue issue, you will note the large number of criticisms that were published. The criticisms were published, explored and answered. Yes, minute quantities of soft tissue apparently can survive in very small quantities under very special circumstances. This is very rare and not inconsistent with millions of years as explained by the discovering scientist.

Yes, I did read what was written.

Again, taking all of the observations made disproves a broad creation or destruction within 10,000 years. Belief in a <10k year creation must be based on an interpretation of text rather than meticulous observations in the world. The criticisms of a heliocentric model of the universe are perhaps the best examples of the dangers in locking into a specific interpretation of text.

I can firmly state that observations disprove a <10k year old creation just as well as they disprove a geocentric model of the universe.

Edited March 12, 2013 by bu11fr0g

[bu11fr0g]

Disprove a <10k year old creation not greater. I apologize for my numerous typos.

[bcuzbcuz]

I apologize. I keep forgetting that the US ranks very low in science education amongst the wealthier nations of the world. The US ranks 23rd amongst science abilities for grade 9 students and 27th amongst graduate degrees in math and sciences. Utah is one of the lowest ranked states for money per capita spent on education.

When someone here mentions the soft tissue found, recovered from a dinosaur and links it as proof that dinaosaurs existed just thousands of years ago, I can only surmise the science proficiency or lack of same ranks at the very bottom of the scale. It means that the person has neither read nor comprehended the original article from Science Magazine or the follow-up from Smithsonian.

[Rob Osborn]

I apologize. I keep forgetting that the US ranks very low in science education amongst the wealthier nations of the world. The US ranks 23rd amongst science abilities for grade 9 students and 27th amongst graduate degrees in math and sciences. Utah is one of the lowest ranked states for money per capita spent on education.

When someone here mentions the soft tissue found, recovered from a dinosaur and links it as proof that dinaosaurs existed just thousands of years ago, I can only surmise the science proficiency or lack of same ranks at the very bottom of the scale. It means that the person has neither read nor comprehended the original article from Science Magazine or the follow-up from Smithsonian.

Perhaps you could explain how it is possible that soft tissue can even survive in any condition in the earth for 50+ million years. You certainly cant escape the fact that the soft tissue contains carbon, so why don't they carbon date it?

[ERayR]

Yes I have seen that site before.

Who knew there were dinosaurs in the 15th century?

Oh- there weren't? Then why were they drawing them? Could it be that maybe they had other reasons/sources for these artworks?

I hope this is not what he was talking about. If you know anything about art history and iconography every single one of these has another explanation.

This is about as reasonable as those drawings of ancient astronauts!

Of course there are alternative explanations. There are alternative explanations for everything. What matters is how compelling each explanation is to each of us. Listen up and choose.

Edited March 12, 2013 by ERayR