Death Knell Of Creationism Or A Flawed Watchmaker?: L-Gulonolactone Oxidase

[bu11fr0g]

Joseph Fielding Smith ( from OT study volume)

Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

[bu11fr0g]

From study manual:

The Flood and subsequent cataclysms drastically changed the topography and geography of the earth. The descendants of Noah evidently named some rivers, and perhaps other landmarks, after places they had known before the Flood. This theory would explain why rivers in Mesopotamia now bear the names of rivers originally on the American continent. It is also possible that some present river systems are remnants of the antediluvian river systems on the one great continent that existed then.

[bu11fr0g]

BKP:

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

[mathonihah]

Joseph Fielding Smith ( from OT study volume)

Then what is meant by the ‘first flesh’? It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh. There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Seek Ye Earnestly, pp. 280–81.)

Why don't you properly answer my previous posts:

On what basis? What makes you think you know so much? God has revealed that this earth was created out of preexistent materials. How do you know that fossil records showing life dating to millions of years ago were not part of an earlier creation? Can you prove that they aren't? Or how do you know that this earth has not gone through more than one creation cycle (of biblical kind)? Can you prove that it hasn't?

Not believing in a miraculous creation story is one thing, being able to justify it by rational means is something else. You would be better off just saying that you do not believe in the story, rather than trying to justify it by dubious scientific theories.

[mathonihah]

From study manual:

The Flood and subsequent cataclysms drastically changed the topography and geography of the earth. The descendants of Noah evidently named some rivers, and perhaps other landmarks, after places they had known before the Flood. This theory would explain why rivers in Mesopotamia now bear the names of rivers originally on the American continent. It is also possible that some present river systems are remnants of the antediluvian river systems on the one great continent that existed then.

Okay, that proves what? What conclusion do you draw from that?

[bu11fr0g]

BRM( again general conference):

True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death.

It is a Gigantic problem for apostles to put forward preposterous personal theories in general conference and denigrate any who doubt them.

[mathonihah]

BKP:

No lesson is more manifest in nature than that all living things do as the Lord commanded in the Creation. They reproduce “after their own kind.” (See Moses 2:12, 24.) They follow the pattern of their parentage. Everyone knows that; every four-year-old knows that! A bird will not become an animal nor a fish. A mammal will not beget reptiles, nor “do men gather … figs of thistles.” (Matt. 7:16.)

In the countless billions of opportunities in the reproduction of living things, one kind does not beget another. If a species ever does cross, the offspring cannot reproduce. The pattern for all life is the pattern of the parentage.

That is exactly right. What argument do you have against it?

[bu11fr0g]

@mathonihah

DNA sequences of living animals and DNA extracted from animals that are now extict are sufficient to exclude at least these fossils as coming from somewhere else.

[bu11fr0g]

@mathonihah

This evidence is sufficient to exclude the earths fossils as being independent of present life and sufficient to exclude complete death of higher organisms such as implicit in the theories of multiple creations.

[mathonihah]

BRM( again general conference):

True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death.

It is a Gigantic problem for apostles to put forward preposterous personal theories in general conference and denigrate any who doubt them.

It may be preposterous to you, whose mind has already been made up; it is not to me. And his preaching may be a “Gigantic problem” for you; but it is not for him or me.

[mathonihah]

@mathonihah

DNA sequences of living animals and DNA extracted from animals that are now extict are sufficient to exclude at least these fossils as coming from somewhere else.

Why? If God is the Creator of all life in the universe, why should it be strange that the should have created all of them using the same organic building blocks?

Edited April 3, 2013 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

@mathonihah

This evidence is sufficient to exclude the earths fossils as being independent of present life and sufficient to exclude complete death of higher organisms such as implicit in the theories of multiple creations.

Ditto. I don't see the problem.

[bu11fr0g]

@mahonihah

The same building blocks argument falls to the original post. It would not be merely the same buildung blocks but the same inactivated genes with the same mutations and the same viral inserts.

The only answers i can see are

1) deliberate deception

2) evolution

3) wrote templating: just like the way we can synthesize dna in the lab base by base copying an existing sequence including all of the flaws of the sequence

[bu11fr0g]

Rote templating then begs the question of where the original templates came from. If evolution was on another planet and it was copied here. And it also questions the extinct species

So I dont think that even this works unless you want to apply it to singular creations: i. e. Adam was created from a template of existing hominid dna.

[bu11fr0g]

No death in the world until less than10,000 years ago is simply silly. This does not mean that people cannotbelieve it just like you can find people that believe a lot of preposterous ideas.

[Rob Osborn]

Yeah, preposterous ideas like the Creator, resurrection and eternal life too. Dont forget about them

[Rob Osborn]

I find it interesting that all things testify of a Creator. For me it is so very easy to see and yet we have an entire religion of science that turns a blind eye to that reality. They say there is no evidence for a Creator. I say they must be blind.

[mathonihah]

@mahonihah

The same building blocks argument falls to the original post. It would not be merely the same buildung blocks but the same inactivated genes with the same mutations and the same viral inserts.

Wrong. You are changing the goal posts. I was responding to your assertion that "DNA sequences of living animals and DNA extracted from animals that are now extict are sufficient to exclude at least these fossils as coming from somewhere else." How does it do that? That is a general statement regarding general DNA sequences, not a statement about particular species. And in any case, If God in his wisdom wants to create some beings to make their own Vitamin C, and others to be able to fly, and others not to be able to do any of those things, but instead have the intelligence to build space ships, that is his prerogative.

[ERayR]

@erayr

What religious scenario is not as ridiculuous as evolution to you and why is the religious scenario more plausible?

It is one that first of all must not negate the atonement by eliminating the fall. It is one that does not eliminate God. It is one that takes into account the evidences that ours is not the first technologically advanced era in this earths existence.

I do not know that I would call it a religious scenario but one that recognizes that the complexity exhibited on this earth alone is highly improbable to have happened by chance, no matter how much time you add to the mix. One that recognizes there are limits to the conclusions that can be drawn when extending the data beyond observable limits. One that allows for the possibility that life may not have had a beginning but has always been.

[thesometimesaint]

1. The Biblical references to death refer to spiritual death. Romans 6:23, for example, says God, through Christ, already gave us eternal life. Obviously, physical death still occurs, so Christ did not save mankind from it. If the death from which Christ was supposed to save us was physical death, then Christ was a failure.
   
2. A world without death would be far from Edenic. Either there would be no possibility of new birth, in which case none of us could be alive today, or the world would become so overpopulated with living things that most people would be buried alive under others. Death is a necessary part of life.
   

There is no evidence for a technologically advanced era other than the one that humans have now.

How would we know if life was any different than what we find now?

I repeat my challenge. Just find a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt.

[Questing Beast]

There are endless scenarios to come up with explaining what is "going on". This thread has not even scratched the surface of the possibilities.

My new paradigm allows all of the above. Which "one" specifically applies to this planet is yet to be determined. Science is getting really good at examining and harmonizing the physical evidence into cogent theories of plausibility. Religion remains fixed in place, because to change it one iota would be admitting that earlier ignorance masqueraded as "revelation". So BRM, et al. "true believers" (by their own, dogmatic definition) cannot possibly dispense with the OT paradigm of this planet's temporal existence.

Try this one on for size: This planet is physically real enough, and is going through a billions of years long existence, with the likelihood that billions of more years are yet to come. But as Jesus said, "The world and heavens shall pass away, but my words will not pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth", words to that effect. Very cosmic assertion, that one! I believe it utterly, it speaks to a vision of ongoing existence that transcends anything science will ever likely be able to dispense as fact. And Jesus' words are strictly metaphysical and purely religious. "Vision" is metaphysical on this scale. Only "God" can reveal it, and it won't be coming to anyone but the individual. Billions can share text/verbiage that appears to agree in the main, but each individual will have his/her unique "vision" of the reality of immortal existence. "There shall be a new heaven and a new earth." The implication is that time does not matter, all "God's" words will be fulfilled. And if we are immortal we will see it all come to pass, and be part of it, both the old and the new.

I think that we are "there" (here) because we choose to go through this process of mortality for a reason, a very essential reason. I've said it before: "Joy is the destiny of mankind". And only be experiencing its opposite fully can we fully appreciate Joy. Perfection is our created state, and that does not include anything imperfect, unsatisfying, miserable or "dark". But mortal worlds contain all of those things in profusion, yet only for a tiny season, like a dream in the night....

[mathonihah]

No death in the world until less than10,000 years ago is simply silly. This does not mean that people cannotbelieve it just like you can find people that believe a lot of preposterous ideas.

It is neither silly nor preposterous. It is just that you do not have the propensity to believe. It is perfectly possible, assuming the scenarios I previously stated, i.e. that fossil records dating back to millions of years could have come about either from earlier creations whose disintegrated materials were used for the creation of this earth; or that this earth has gone through multiple creation periods, and they date from earlier creations. We know for example that the planet Mars has a condition that is very similar to ours. If God decided in a million years from now to make use of it for an inhabited planet, and it has been previously been inhabited once before, then traces of the earlier creation will still remain in it. As I said, your problem is one of belief, not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence cannot prove that a miraculous creation cannot be possible. I don't suppose you believe in the miracles of Moses and Jesus either. That is a faith issue, not a science issue.

[thesometimesaint]

It is neither silly nor preposterous. It is just that you do not have the propensity to believe. It is perfectly possible, assuming the scenarios I previously stated, i.e. that fossil records dating back to millions of years could have come about either from earlier creations whose disintegrated materials were used for the creation of this earth; or that this earth has gone through multiple creation periods, and they date from earlier creations. We know for example that the planet Mars has a condition that is very similar to ours. If God decided in a million years from now to make use of it for an inhabited planet, and it has been previously been inhabited once before, then traces of the earlier creation will still remain in it. As I said, your problem is one of belief, not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence cannot prove that a miraculous creation cannot be possible. I don't suppose you believe in the miracles of Moses and Jesus either. That is a faith issue, not a science issue.

There is no evidence for such.

Mars is too cold, dry, and radiated for life as we know it to survive.

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 creation occurred 7000 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?

[Rivers]

There is no evidence for such.

Mars is too cold, dry, and radiated for life as we know it to survive.

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 creation occurred 7000 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?

To test our faith?

[thesometimesaint]

To test our faith?

Whose? I firmly believe in God as revealed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I also accept the Theory of Evolution as presently understood by scientists working in the field. IE; That Evolution is the means by which God used to Create the physical bodies for us his children.