Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 OK, here is the million dollar question then-Was it possible for life to originate or "evolve" as you believe on this earth without the direction and guidance of God's literal actions? Possibly. Until we can create our own planet and place some proteins in some water and observe it for a few million years, we just don't know. Evolution does not require intervention but it could be that he intervened. Science will answer this for us eventually. My apple tree does not need God to have other trees grow. it drops some apples and lets physics take care of the rest.
Stone holm Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 There is no such thing as the 'traditional LDS of special creation'. The church has no position on evolution, the age of the earth, or how the universe came to be. All the church teaches is that God created the earth and the live therein. It does not say how. Evolution is the how that science is uncovering by observing the evidence God has left behind.Unless they have changed the GHI since I was Bishop this is not correct. In that GHI the Church took no position on evolution except in the case of Adam and Eve who were said not to have evolved. Has it changed?
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 This is a different topic all together. Through religion we return to God. Through science we understand the physical world. The reality of God and the physical world depends on our perspective. We can no more fully understand the physical world than can we fully understand the spiritual world from our limited mortal state; nevertheless, the only method God has given us to understand the physical world is through observation. We do not reject science on the basis that we see through a glass darkly; rather, we pursue science all the more passionately until we achieve the proper perspective. No amount of prayer will answer these questions. God wants his children to be people of action and not to rely on revelation to solve all their problems, Agree.
mfbukowski Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Calm, or I ......... ahhhhhh. Yes, that's much better now... 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Possibly. Until we can create our own planet and place some proteins in some water and observe it for a few million years, we just don't know. Evolution does not require intervention but it could be that he intervened. Science will answer this for us eventually. My apple tree does not need God to have other trees grow. it drops some apples and lets physics take care of the rest.Pretty iffy answer. What I gather here is that the study of "intelligent design" can indeed be a part of science. Great!
halconero Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Unless they have changed the GHI since I was Bishop this is not correct. In that GHI the Church took no position on evolution except in the case of Adam and Eve who were said not to have evolved. Has it changed? I doesn't mention anything.
Stone holm Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I doesn't mention anything.It used to except Adam and Eve from evolution back in the 90's
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Pretty iffy answer. What I gather here is that the study of "intelligent design" can indeed be a part of science. Great!the scriptures do not demand it and science does not require it. We don't know, therefore we rely on observation rather than the tooth fairy. If we give up and say 'God did it' there is no drive to find out the truth. Through godless science we will get closer to god then through the heretical doctrine of intelligent design. If you go to a forest and there is no evidence that someone planted all those trees then it is best to go on the assumption that the forest grew naturally without intelligent intervention. If we assume from the beginning that someone planted them then we will never find out how they really got there.
cinepro Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Unless they have changed the GHI since I was Bishop this is not correct. In that GHI the Church took no position on evolution except in the case of Adam and Eve who were said not to have evolved. Has it changed? According to the Ensign, the Church does have both "doctrine" and "official teachings" on the theory of evolution. In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng(emphasis added) Ever wondered about the Church’s official teachings on the creation of mankind and evolution? Find assistance for your study of Genesis 1–3 [Gen. 1–3] on p. 26. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/making-the-most-of-this-issue?lang=eng(emphasis added)
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 the scriptures do not demand it and science does not require it. We don't know, therefore we rely on observation rather than the tooth fairy. If we give up and say 'God did it' there is no drive to find out the truth. Through godless science we will get closer to god then through the heretical doctrine of intelligent design. If you go to a forest and there is no evidence that someone planted all those trees then it is best to go on the assumption that the forest grew naturally without intelligent intervention. If we assume from the beginning that someone planted them then we will never find out how they really got there.God= Tooth Fairy? Its no wonder we debate this endlessly.Lets look at something real- take DNA for example, we know of no case or see no observation of DNA in some lesser form. From sole observation it has never been anything than full blown self replicating code for making life. The question inevitably arises as to how such a highly complex code came into existence here on this planet. From what we know in observation in the lab no known law in nature exists that could build this complexity from non-intelligent matter. Scientific studies repeat over and over again that intelligent information only comes from intelligent information or an intelligent cause preceding it. For some reason unknown though, science cannot accept this fact and keep insisting hat life must have, somehow (perhaps it was the tooth fairy) jump started itself into existence from non intelligent matter. Science refuses to believe the idea or notion that some intelligent process, whatever it may be, could have been the ultimate cause for life coming into existence here on this planet. Because of this stubborn approach, science will never find God and may indeed move itself further from him.
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 God= Tooth Fairy? Its no wonder we debate this endlessly. Because of this stubborn approach, science will never find God and may indeed move itself further from him.No, your version of God is the tooth ferry. My version of God is a scientist. People of your philosophy used to say the same thing about illness, but thankfully scientists dug deeper and discovered that it is not simply a matter of saying God did it and stopping the investigation but rather discovered viruses and bacteria. People of your philosophy used to believe the earth was flat and would put people to death who thought otherwise, but thankfully godless science has enlightened us to prove that your philosophy is quite incorrect. Science is not looking for God any more than electricians are looking for God. leave the god searching to the preacher and leave science to uncover the mysteries of the material world. Ironicaly, you are in this endless debate thanks to the godless science that provided you a computer and access to the internet.
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 No, your version of God is the tooth ferry. My version of God is a scientist. People of your philosophy used to say the same thing about illness, but thankfully scientists dug deeper and discovered that it is not simply a matter of saying God did it and stopping the investigation but rather discovered viruses and bacteria. People of your philosophy used to believe the earth was flat and would put people to death who thought otherwise, but thankfully godless science has enlightened us to prove that your philosophy is quite incorrect. Science is not looking for God any more than electricians are looking for God. leave the god searching to the preacher and leave science to uncover the mysteries of the material world. Ironicaly, you are in this endless debate thanks to the godless science that provided you a computer and access to the internet.Yeah, a computer and access to the internet that was inspired by who else but God himself.You refuse to acknowledge the Creator in the creation. How can your God be a scientist?
cdowis Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Actually it was science that took down the Piltdown man.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html And you have precisely made my point ==>> it was indeed science, but it was "scientists" who obstructed that process for 40 years. It was basically an institutionalized fraud and cover-up. Edited January 14, 2014 by cdowis
cdowis Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Heres something novel- The day that any peer reviewed group of scientists acknowledge "at any level" the need for God in the universe to explain even the slighest of reasoning whether it be purpose, design, or signs of a Creative intelligence will be the same day that donkeys start flying! Does Hawkins meet your criterion? See what he says to Dawkins in the first couple of minutes as he talks with Dawkins.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMJFfaKZXRs Basically Hawkins gives us the choice between God or the multiuniverse. Saddle up that donkey! Edited January 14, 2014 by cdowis
Freedom Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Yeah, a computer and access to the internet that was inspired by who else but God himself.You refuse to acknowledge the Creator in the creation. How can your God be a scientist?Logical fallacy. I have never refused to acknowledge him. God created the universe using scientific laws. Science is showing us how it was done. We keep repeating this over and over again to you but you refuse to listen. You have a need for life to have formed through an explainable miracle but God does not work through magic. Being inspired is different than being created. God did not make your computer, a godless scientist did. You refusal to consider science will keep us in the dark ages. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 These small erosion events absolutely do not explain the structure of the geologic column. Besides that you have this problem of under uniformatarian theory, the layers recycling themselves over and over again through constant uplift and then erosion- then uplift and erosion again- over and over thus making the geologic layers not really representing the true time frames of what they may carry. For instance- lets say a bone gets buried deep within some strata and then over time this gets upthrust and eroded upon until it erodes this layer the bone was in. So, this old recycled layer with the bone then gets redistributed over layers younger than itself. That doesn't make any sense. This is a paramount problem for geology because it can't explain nor find places in the world where these layers are being recycled laying old sediment over new sediment I don't know of a single place on this planet that at one time or another hasn't had erosion and deposits. You keep using that word. It doesn't means what you think it means. For geologic layers SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html 1
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I don't know of a single place on this planet that at one time or another hasn't had erosion and deposits. You keep using that word. It doesn't means what you think it means. For geologic layers SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.htmlHuh? I know what the geologic column is. http://i.word.com/idictionary/geologic%20column
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Huh? I know what the geologic column is. http://i.word.com/idictionary/geologic%20column OK. That still doesn't address what the geologic column tells the scientists.
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 OK. That still doesn't address what the geologic column tells the scientists.Not quite sure I am getting you. I use the term "geologic column" to mean the set of strata in a seriesof rocks upwards.
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 Not quite sure I am getting you. I use the term "geologic column" to mean the set of strata in a seriesof rocks upwards. It isn't strictly upwards. Just mostly so.
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 It isn't strictly upwards. Just mostly so.You know what I mean.
thesometimesaint Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 You know what I mean. I do know what you mean. More importantly I know how you use the term to disparage science and the scientists whom use it correctly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_area
Rob Osborn Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 I do know what you mean. More importantly I know how you use the term to disparage science and the scientists whom use it correctly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Grand_Canyon_areaWell, thats debateable. I don't believe in their opinions regarding how the layers formed, how the uplift happened nor how it generally eroded. But then again, hey, I interpret science different than others, nothing wrong with that.
teddyaware Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) God is not a trickster, but He is most certainly a tester of our faith. There is no getting away from the fact that when the scriptural creation accounts speak of the first six days of creation (starting with the simplest life forms being created on the third day and then progressing on to the more complex life forms and man being created on the sixth day) -- the verses are speaking of a spiritual creation, not the uniformitarian and organic evolutionary models of creation presented in the textbooks of modern science. Read and see for yourself: 4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth (this is speaking of the six days of creation as set forth in Moses 3), 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; 6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a amist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses 3) While I really do have an open mind on this subject, the fact is that the scriptural accounts of the creation cannot be made to harmonize and square with the uniformitarian and organic evolutionary creation accounts of modern science, except by the most strained stretching and contorting of the plain meaning of words. I think one of the things that causes so much heat and enmity on this topic is that the advocates of organic evolution steadfastly refuse to believe the fossil and geological evidences of the creation might possibly be evidence of a creation scenario that has not as yet even entered into the imagination of man, and this because there is a refusal to believe God might have used at least some miraculous means (beyond organic evolution) in the creation process. The same kind of stubbornness and inflexibility might be said of the creationists. Ultimately I don't know what happened and don't pretend to know what the fossil and geological evidences actually point to. So I'll leave it to the 1909 First Presidency to speak the watchwords that characterize my approach to this subject... "Man, by searching, cannot find out God. Never, unaided, will he discover the truth about the beginning of human life. The Lord must reveal Himself or remain unrevealed; and the same is true of the facts relating to the origin of Adam’s race—God alone can reveal them. Some of these facts, however, are already known, and what has been made known it is our duty to receive and retain." (1909 First Presidency statement on the "Origin of Man." Reprinted in the February of 2002 Ensign) In conclusion, I must say that my following the counsel of the prophets on this issue (to not jump to conclusions on the whole creation thing) sure does produce a profound peace of mind. By following this counsel, I avoid the stresses of having to "prove" I'm right on one side of this argument of the other. And this because I obey the counseled given by the Lord's anointed to patiently await the day when the Lord will reveal His secrets to the faithful. Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware 1
cinepro Posted January 14, 2014 Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Well, thats debateable. I don't believe in their opinions regarding how the layers formed, how the uplift happened nor how it generally eroded. But then again, hey, I interpret science different than others, nothing wrong with that. Rob, you should totally read this article. It's really good: Teaching Geology, An Old Earth, And Organic Evolution in the Context of the GospelEdmund J. Williams - Department of Geology, BYU Idaho He refers to the Principal of Fauna Succession, which is a fascinating "principle" (or even "law"), because it is so easily falsified. If it weren't correct, then out-of-order fossils would be found all over. Edited January 14, 2014 by cinepro
Recommended Posts