Evolution And Mormonism

[bu11fr0g]

This may be just a matter of semantics, but don't you really mean that science is not yet equipped to determine who or what is a child of God? Surely what makes for a human falls within the realm of science. I suppose it might not fall to the realm of science to determine when someone ceases to be a child of God, but I am leery of trusting such a decision to any earthly person.

"Child of God" is one way to look at the question. But whatever the definition it has everything to do with who can we kill, who can we mistreat in a variety of ways, who are we proscribed from loving? Abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, organ donation, cannibalism, incarceration, institutionalization, ostracism, incest, marriage, bestiality, miscegenation, military impressment... All of these depend on what is human. Science can make some comments -- but is more often abused in support of a particular philosophy. The scientific justifications of racism is an example. That mythical beasts are not the fathers of children with birth defects is another. That certain people are witches and should be burned is a less certain one.

People have tried to weigh the soul by looking at weight changes precisely at death.

But science cannot answer this question.

[bcuzbcuz]

Science doesn't work on that type of faith. Prognostications work on trends from past events. The further the trends are apart the further apart the probability of an event occurs. Usually expressed in as a +/- or percentage. IE; A forecast of 10% chance of rain. You'd probably leave your umbrella a home. A forecast of rain at 90% chance you'd probably take your umbrella with you.

No scientist that I know of claims they are Supermen. They just use the tools they are given to accurately explain the physical universe, and make logical predictions about it. IE; We coming up on the Spring equinox, a logical prediction, based on past experience, says that in 6 months time we will have the Autumn equinox.

You don't know scientists very well if you think they don't want to rock the boat.

See [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydLNrTzMIgc&feature=player_embedded

If you really want to rock the boat about the science of evolution. It is a very easy process, and I've described that process a few times.

An excellent video. Thanks for posting it.

[bcuzbcuz]

If you mean the transatlantic migration as occurring during the ice age and the theory around that, then careers would of course be in jeopardy since the idea hasn't a smidgeon of proof.

[cdowis]

What are the petty niggling questions?

There can be noanswer to the first humans question until the definition of what defines a human is answered.

Bill Clinton tried that one already.

[cdowis]

If you mean the transatlantic migration as occurring during the ice age and the theory around that, then careers would of course be in jeopardy since the idea hasn't a smidgeon of proof.

I was specifically speaking of the "land bridge only" creed, opposing the possibility of transoceanic migration.

[thesometimesaint]

It is certainly possible for a small group to have sailed from the old world to the new. Proving it is a different question.

[Stone holm]

I was specifically speaking of the "land bridge only" creed, opposing the possibility of transoceanic migration.

Interesting question that we probably should avoid. Right now we are running into some DNA problems associated with the origin of the Native Americans, which the Church has recently taken into account as we have backed away from any construction that the Lamanites are the ancestors of all, or even possibly most, Native Americans. The probable answer is going to be that the Americas had pre-Columbian colonists from a variety of sources, and right now we should just let the Scientists argue it out without getting real pushy -- because if we get real pushy the Scientific community is just going to harden against us given the fact that there is little in the way of Scientific data to support us at this point. Eventually, Science will figure it out, but for now the path of prudence is just to keep mellow on the issue.

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting question that we probably should avoid. Right now we are running into some DNA problems associated with the origin of the Native Americans, which the Church has recently taken into account as we have backed away from any construction that the Lamanites are the ancestors of all, or even possibly most, Native Americans. The probable answer is going to be that the Americas had pre-Columbian colonists from a variety of sources, and right now we should just let the Scientists argue it out without getting real pushy -- because if we get real pushy the Scientific community is just going to harden against us given the fact that there is little in the way of Scientific data to support us at this point. Eventually, Science will figure it out, but for now the path of prudence is just to keep mellow on the issue.

I've been a member for almost 42 years now, and I've never believed the BoM represented most. let alone all, of native Americans.

Edited March 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bu11fr0g]

bu11fr0g, on 17 March 2013 - 10:42 PM, said: What are the petty niggling questions?

There can be no answer to the first humans question until the definition of what defines a human is answered.

Bill Clinton tried that one already.

I would say closer to Ammon and Lamoni than Bill Clinton. There is no Clintonesque dodge -- other than on cdowis's end -- just an attempt to get a definition of terms.

[Rob Osborn]

I am a bit afraid to respond to questions on this in excruciating detail for all kinds of reasons, but maybe I can touch on some things I am aware of.

One of my favorite theories is one put forth by BH Roberts as I understand it. It is like this:

The earth was created and went through eons of changes and evolutionary development. At some point in all of this, God placed on the earth a "Tree of Life" which had a protective influence over some part of the earth that was the "Garden of Eden". In this place, death had no place or power because of the influence of the Tree. And at some point, God placed man inside this Garden. (I am not sure if BH Roberts describes where man exactly came from). Man may have lived there for ages and ages, untouched by death or evolution. But then the Tree of Life was taken away and man was left to contend with the lone and dreary world full of thorns - and already in progress.

I like this theory a lot but I am not sure I buy into it exactly. However, I note two important things from the history of man and the earth that have some bearing:

1. It is abundantly obvious that for tens of thousands of years there have been anatomically correct human beings on the earth.
   
2. It is also abundantly obvious that after these many many thousands of years, something happened less than ten thousand years ago that changed Men so that they became more cultured -- with writing, cities, agriculture, law, etc.
   

I believe that:

• There was a "First man" and a "First woman".
  
• That God made covenants with them -- covenants that led to the "Fall" and the rise of man.
  
• That these first parents are important to us and are our ancestors.
  
• That even if they lived in caves (and I do not think so) they were not 'cavemen'.
  
• And that we know them today as Adam and Eve.
  

None of this in any way denies evolution. It also does not deny that we are a special species created in the image and likeness of God -- in multiple ways.

I recall years ago that there was an Ape who had been taught to communicate with sign language. The Ape had some fairly sophisticated thoughts -- or so I would say. One day the people who were working with the Ape asked her if she was an animal or a person. The Ape (interestingly enough) became thoughtful for a moment before replying with some degree of pride: "Mighty Fine Animal - Gorilla".

Apes can learn language, but are unable to teach it -- or other such skills -- very well.

The caveman that scientists want us to believe in is all part of their fictional story for how "they" want life to appear or think it is supposed to appear. In reality, the skulls and evidence they have found is either human or ape skulls and not the inbetween like they want to believe. National Geographic goes to great lengths to make shows and articles with fancy drawings and everything in detail down to how first humand evolved and first started talking and what they ate. But in reality, there is no real evidence to show their fictional tale- its all made up. Monkeys have always been monkeys and humans have always been humans. Adam and Eve were formed from Gods DNA just the same as we ourselves are formed from our parents DNA. Our DNA can be traced directly to God Himself- we are his literal offspring.

[thesometimesaint]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a creation occurred 7,000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

Edited March 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

The whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It's entirely possible that a creation occurred 7,000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what's the point?

You need to make that your sig line, hehe I have seen it a jillion times.

The evidence is all there, you just have to actually have a little faith and open your eyes to the literal mountains of evidence.

[bu11fr0g]

Then you are stuck explaining dna identities between chimps and humans if human DNA is exclusively from God. This includes viral sequences, duplications, insertions, deletions and base changes, and chromosomal rearrangements. All of these processes are also happening now among different newborns.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html

[cdowis]

bu11fr0g, on 17 March 2013 - 10:42 PM, said: What are the petty niggling questions?

There can be no answer to the first humans question until the definition of what defines a human is answered.

I would say closer to Ammon and Lamoni than Bill Clinton. There is no Clintonesque dodge -- other than on cdowis's end -- just an attempt to get a definition of terms.

Are you a human being? If so, follow your personal family tree and tell us where an evolutionist would claim that it ended, or stopped.

If you are unsure whether you are a human being (homo sapiens), this discussion is at an end.

[Stone holm]

I believe this particular thread has descended into juvenile arguments. Really folks -- we are supposed to dismiss all of the data built up over decades regarding evolution? I don't think so. Does DNA coding definitively give us answers about Adam and Eve and the difference between them and the higher primates? Nope don't think so.

[bcuzbcuz]

The evidence is all there, you just have to actually have a little faith and open your eyes to the literal mountains of evidence.

Ok. I'll bite. My eyes are open. I have faith you can produce the evidence you're talking about. But humor me, show me just a little of the mountain of evidence you believe is there right before my eyes.

[bcuzbcuz]

I've been a member for almost 42 years now, and I've never believed the BoM represented most. let alone all, of native Americans.

I've been a non-member as long as I was a member. And I'm 67 now. In all the time I was active, that is up to and including 1978, I never once heard or read anything put out by the church that the native peoples of North, Central or South America, were anything other than the descendants of the Lamanites. I'd appreciate if you could provide any evidence that the church said that the Lamanites were only a small pocket, in some hidden away existence, of the native populations.

Granted, the internet didn't exist back then. But I don't think I was that ignorant of church policy.

[Stone holm]

I've been a non-member as long as I was a member. And I'm 67 now. In all the time I was active, that is up to and including 1978, I never once heard or read anything put out by the church that the native peoples of North, Central or South America, were anything other than the descendants of the Lamanites. I'd appreciate if you could provide any evidence that the church said that the Lamanites were only a small pocket, in some hidden away existence, of the native populations.

Granted, the internet didn't exist back then. But I don't think I was that ignorant of church policy.

They recently changed the preamble to the Book of Mormon -- I think it was last year, but maybe longer than that ago -- I don't have a copy of the new Book of Mormon with the change, but it clarified that we were not making the claim that all Native Americans were descendants of the Lamanites. Does somebody have a copy of the Preamble change that they could quote please.

[Rob Osborn]

Ok. I'll bite. My eyes are open. I have faith you can produce the evidence you're talking about. But humor me, show me just a little of the mountain of evidence you believe is there right before my eyes.

ok, pretty big mountain- try the Andes mountain chain. It was under the flood of Noah then upthrust. All the supposed millions of years old geologic layers are actually merely thousands of years old. Thus- the fossil record is also thousands, not millions of years old. If all life here is only thousands of years old then there can be no evolution on this planet.

[Stone holm]

ok, pretty big mountain- try the Andes mountain chain. It was under the flood of Noah then upthrust. All the supposed millions of years old geologic layers are actually merely thousands of years old. Thus- the fossil record is also thousands, not millions of years old. If all life here is only thousands of years old then there can be no evolution on this planet.

You want to cite the TV documentary that came from?

[bu11fr0g]

Are you a human being? If so, follow your personal family tree and tell us where an evolutionist would claim that it ended, or stopped.

If you are unsure whether you are a human being (homo sapiens), this discussion is at an end.

The problem is not whether or not I am sure about myself, but your inability to identify defining characteristics.

Let's say that "humaness" has to do with relatedness (i.e. following a family tree). The narrowest time that all humans were related Biblically could be defined as Noah's family after the flood. Only there is quite a bit of evidence that there was no human bottleneck of the magnitude implied by the flood in the Bible, nor within the number of generations implied by the Bible. An Adam-Eve bottleneck within 2000 years of Noah can not be identified.

All humans seemed to be part of a small group about 100,000 years ago. So I will pick the people that belonged to this small group as the original human settlers.

Similar question & logic: when was the first Poodle born? Poodles can only be born of other poodles, so poodles must have been created directly by God. More realistically, the first poodle was born when the dog that had all the characteristics of a poodle was born. And none of this poodles relatives were poodles. And it would be a while before poodles mating with poodles would only have poodles for puppies.

Selection (natural or otherwise) allows the gradual development of a consistent appearence.

But as there seems no interest in understanding and only an interest in a fixed & idiosyncratic interpretation of a spiritual text, I am going to try to avoid wasting too much more of my time here. I will add that I personally do not want to be part of an organization that so thoroughly avoids trying to understand. I am glad that the Church is not one of those organizations even if some of its members have these characteristics.

[semlogo]

You need to make that your sig line, hehe I have seen it a jillion times.

The evidence is all there, you just have to actually have a little faith and open your eyes to the literal mountains of evidence.

Unfortunately these "mountains of evidence" evaporate into mist when subjected to the least bit of scrutiny.

[semlogo]

I haven't postulated a devine intervention. The point of the article was that it was improbable that it occurred using purely natural means. It could be sourced from an alien or devine, don't think it really matters to science one way or the other. What we can detect is that it was most likely not from natural sources.

Cautious mean to me that we admit to ourselves how much we don't know. And when the software (information) is demonstrably *not* derived from the organics then it would seem to me that it must be sourced elsewhere.

I agree that extreme caution is warranted when making any sorts of claims.

As I have already demonstrated however, we already know that at least a portion of our "software" came from natural, non-living entities (viruses). There is no evidence, in fact, that anything that exists on earth did not come from natural sources.

[semlogo]

You are predicting the future by events in the past. That is called faith -- that "eventually" science/evolution will answer all questions. That is not science ==>> You are merely stating a creed, a statement of faith.

My faith is that science and religion are compatible, and that Divinity uses natural laws. The unanswered questions will be resolved by an understanding and combination of both -- that we are beginning to understand natural laws even as God understands them. That we will be able to change water into wine.

It's a statement of probability, not faith. There is an long chain of of natural explanations for phenomena formerly thought to be supernatural. There is not a single example of an event successfully explained by supernatural causes.

Faith and science are indeed compatible, but they are difference spheres. Science is not, however, compatible with the pseudo science of intelligent design, which cannot even muster a testable hypothesis, let alone a theory.

[bcuzbcuz]

ok, pretty big mountain- try the Andes mountain chain. It was under the flood of Noah then upthrust. All the supposed millions of years old geologic layers are actually merely thousands of years old. Thus- the fossil record is also thousands, not millions of years old. If all life here is only thousands of years old then there can be no evolution on this planet.

Whoa! There! Go back and take that from the beginning, real slow. The Andes are proof that the world is merely thousands of years old?? I've driven pretty far up the Chilean Andes, and all the way to the top of a volcano that is listed more than 10,000 years old. I must admit I didn't see any such evidence. I don't suppose you have any evidence that a simple unbeliever like me could take a look at? Fill in just a couple of details for me.

Edited March 18, 2013 by bcuzbcuz