Evolution And Mormonism

[danielwoods]

Chemical processes probably CAN create life, but again, this is outside the purview of the study of evolution

That and much more has been observed to occur. It's not an assumption.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../books/NBK9841/

http://www.livescien...reated-lab.html

The existences of modern viruses, which are somewhere in between true life and non-life, should make it obvious that life can arise naturally from chemical processes. The boundary between life and non-life is fuzzy, not sharp.

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.

Edited March 13, 2013 by danielwoods

[Rob Osborn]

Its posted that life origination was in ancient oceans(Where). Abiogenesis is the study of how life first originated. Evolution is the study of how it evolved once begun.

Hum....so you disagree with the evolutionary biologists and scientists at Berkeley...nice

[Rob Osborn]

No, there can be special niches. Why aren't there any animals that are close to them in flying?

That being said, the nonhuman apes and monkeys do a lot better than most other mammals. This is entirely consistent with evolution.

A monkey cant even engineer a bridge let alone knit a sweater. Humans have done everything to engineering biologic machines to placing rovers on mars to study the planet. You tell me- just how much intelligence separates us from monkeys?

[thesometimesaint]

That's never going to be true no matter how many times you say that. I hope you will find the truth someday.

I simply tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

[thesometimesaint]

Hum....so you disagree with the evolutionary biologists and scientists at Berkeley...nice

I looked at your link it doesn't say what you say it says.

[Rob Osborn]

I looked at your link it doesn't say what you say it says.

I quoted its wording exactly!

[Stone holm]

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.

It's been a long, long time since I took Honors College biology, but it seems to me even back then in ancient days they had figured out how to cause the macro-molecules which are the building blocks of life to be formed and did so in the laboratory once they had figured out that the atmosphere of the earth was originally different than it is now and had flipped. But that was about 40 years ago, my guess is they are much farther along than those initial laboratory experiments where they fired bolts of electricity into a chemical soup. This thread disturbs me that the impact of some States incorporating Creationism and Intelligent Design into their curriculums maybe creating a generation of Americans completely out of touch with science.

[ERayR]

Young earth only works if you assume (without evidence) that constants are not constants.

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?

[Rob Osborn]

It's been a long, long time since I took Honors College biology, but it seems to me even back then in ancient days they had figured out how to cause the macro-molecules which are the building blocks of life to be formed and did so in the laboratory once they had figured out that the atmosphere of the earth was originally different than it is now and had flipped. But that was about 40 years ago, my guess is they are much farther along than those initial laboratory experiments where they fired bolts of electricity into a chemical soup. This thread disturbs me that the impact of some States incorporating Creationism and Intelligent Design into their curriculums maybe creating a generation of Americans completely out of touch with science.

They aren't really any farther along in creating life. It is true that they have managed to make a few of the ingredients needed to create life but that is a far cry from creating actual intelligent information which would be the first real test. Intelligent design actually fits the picture better than darwinian models.

[bu11fr0g]

Yes, man is capable of doinf a lot now, but the hunter-gatherers in the Amazon and Indonesia are human. The microlissencehalic can do less than most mammals and is stilll human.

Areas where most individuals suffer mental retardation arent excluded. Severe alzheimers patients arent either. Flat-earthers and 168-hour creationists and people sbducted by aliens too.

As a whole man are smarter but not in particular.

[cdowis]

del

Edited March 14, 2013 by cdowis

[Nathair/|\]

A monkey cant even engineer a bridge let alone knit a sweater. Humans have done everything to engineering biologic machines to placing rovers on mars to study the planet. You tell me- just how much intelligence separates us from monkeys?

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much — the wheel, New York, wars and so on — whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man — for precisely the same reasons.---Adams, Douglas: The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.

[ERayR]

I simply tell the truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution

The scriptures tell why man was created, but they do not tell how, though the Lord has promised that he will tell that when he comes again (D&C 101:32-33). In 1931, when there was intense discussion on the issue of organic evolution, the First Presidency of the Church, then consisting of Presidents Heber J. Grant, Anthony W. Ivins, and Charles W. Nibley, addressed all of the General Authorities of the Church on the matter, and concluded, Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church….

One of the fundamental doctrines is the fall and atonement. Adam and Eve fell, Jesus Christ atoned. To negate the fall negates the atonement. I just have not seen any persuasive arguments that reconciles evolution with a fall.

[bu11fr0g]

I think that the Fall and Atonement are both great Mysteries that we are unable to learn how they work.

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

[ERayR]

I think that the Fall and Atonement are both great Mysteries that we are unable to learn how they work.

4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Platitudes do not help at all. I don't think they are great mysteries. I don't think they are mysteries at all.

Edited March 14, 2013 by ERayR

[Freedom]

I quoted its wording exactly!

There is a difference between what you quoted and what you said it means. Piano players feel that the quality of wood in an instrument is important. This does not mean that the disciplines of woodworking and music are related.

[Stone holm]

One of the fundamental doctrines is the fall and atonement. Adam and Eve fell, Jesus Christ atoned. To negate the fall negates the atonement. I just have not seen any persuasive arguments that reconciles evolution with a fall.

Not sure I see any connection one way or another between the fall, the atonement, and evolution. How does evolution negate either the fall or the atonement?

[thesometimesaint]

One of the fundamental doctrines is the fall and atonement. Adam and Eve fell, Jesus Christ atoned. To negate the fall negates the atonement. I just have not seen any persuasive arguments that reconciles evolution with a fall.

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

[bcuzbcuz]

I find it interesting, no, I find it amusing, that certain posters here get very upset with the idea of evolution but can posit the idea that the earth is a clump of collected material somehow assembled from other "pre-existing" worlds to 'create' the world we inhabit. The laws of physics can be chucked out the window, even the clocks can be turned ahead, so we, as humans, can move into an already furnished, ready to go, "fast food" kind of world.

I would think, that somehow, the idea of Occam's Razor would start people's BS detectors ringing loudly.

I can spend days, turning my garage upside down, looking for a lost wrench. When I suddenly find it, lying in plain view, I do not assume that my wrench must have been "loaned" by aliens.

Or maybe I should start considering this possibility. I don't need to go looking for my lost tools. All I have to do is wait for the aliens to return them.

I wish they would leave a note, though. You know, like, "We the undersigned have taken your tools and we will return them as soon as you ask us nicely." Signed, "The Aliens".

[Ahab]

They aren't really any farther along in creating life. It is true that they have managed to make a few of the ingredients needed to create life but that is a far cry from creating actual intelligent information which would be the first real test. Intelligent design actually fits the picture better than darwinian models.

Our Lord has already told us that life, aka intelligence, can not be created or made. It is merely perpetuated as each kind of being reproduces their own kind of being while having some place to live. That's what the creation of this Earth was all about. Making it so various forms of life could live here. I wonder when so-called "scientists" are going to figure that out.

[ERayR]

Not sure I see any connection one way or another between the fall, the atonement, and evolution. How does evolution negate either the fall or the atonement?

A fall denotes a decline from a higher place or plane. Evolution preaches an ascent from lesser to a higher state. The atonement is based on Christ atoning for the fall. No fall negates the atonement.

[ERayR]

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

The fall, from a higher plane, was a result of the introduction of sin.

[Ahab]

A fall denotes a decline from a higher place or plane. Evolution preaches an ascent from lesser to a higher state. The atonement is based on Christ atoning for the fall. No fall negates the atonement.

To go a bit further, the purpose of the atonement is to restore us (we who have fallen) to the same condition Adam and Eve were in before the fall, which is the same condition Jesus was restored to after his resurrection. Look at us now and compare us to his condition now and then you'll have a least a glimpse of how much we've fallen.

[ERayR]

I find it interesting, no, I find it amusing, that certain posters here get very upset with the idea of evolution but can posit the idea that the earth is a clump of collected material somehow assembled from other "pre-existing" worlds to 'create' the world we inhabit. The laws of physics can be chucked out the window, even the clocks can be turned ahead, so we, as humans, can move into an already furnished, ready to go, "fast food" kind of world.

I would think, that somehow, the idea of Occam's Razor would start people's BS detectors ringing loudly.

I can spend days, turning my garage upside down, looking for a lost wrench. When I suddenly find it, lying in plain view, I do not assume that my wrench must have been "loaned" by aliens.

Or maybe I should start considering this possibility. I don't need to go looking for my lost tools. All I have to do is wait for the aliens to return them.

I wish they would leave a note, though. You know, like, "We the undersigned have taken your tools and we will return them as soon as you ask us nicely." Signed, "The Aliens".

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.

Edited March 14, 2013 by ERayR

[thesometimesaint]

The fall, from a higher plane, was a result of the introduction of sin.

Evolution doesn't address sin at all. But as a religious idea the going from a sinless state to a sinful state can definitely be described as a fall.