Adam And The Apes

[teddyaware]

Rob, you should totally read this article.  It's really good:

 

Teaching Geology, An Old Earth, And Organic Evolution in the Context of the Gospel

Edmund 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.

I read the brother Williams' article and enjoyed it. I also appreciate his humility, meekness and open mindedness. If we could all be like him as we discuss these sensitive issues, a spirit of goodwill would predominate.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I have no problem with you believing anything you want. You can believe little green men from Mars for all the difference it makes. However if you want to use science to support that belief then you have to play by the rules of science. You refuse to do that. Instead you have repeatedly stated that science is wrong because it doesn't use God. Therefore you can not believe the conclusions scientists make.

[Rob Osborn]

I have no problem with you believing anything you want. You can believe little green men from Mars for all the difference it makes. However if you want to use science to support that belief then you have to play by the rules of science. You refuse to do that. Instead you have repeatedly stated that science is wrong because it doesn't use God. Therefore you can not believe the conclusions scientists make.

I do use science, the way I understand it to explain everything from the creation, to the global flood. I dont believe in magic or the supernatural as the way you define it to explain nature. I find that evidence for a global flood to be astronomical in amount of scientific evidence. I use every rule of science to validate my conclusions. The only difference with me and you is how evidence or data is interpreted.

[Stone holm]

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.

 

Yeah, and Brigham Young, a Prophet of God, said that was a fable to read to children at bedtime....moving on.

[teddyaware]

Yeah, and Brigham Young, a Prophet of God, said that was a fable to read to children at bedtime....moving on.

Not so fast. Maybe you thought if you hit and ran you'd be able to get this one by me. What President Young said was that Adam was not created like an inanimate molded lump of clay brought to life (like Pinocchio). What he did say was that Adam's body was created in the same way all human bodies are made -- by a mother and a father.

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Pretty iffy answer. What I gather here is that the study of "intelligent design" can indeed be a part of science. Great!

Not until you can experimentally define "intelligent" and "design" experimentally without begging the question.

 

Here is the problem- is a random rock or cliff "designed"?  By what?  How?  What would that mean?  Is a star "designed"?

 

The problem is just by suggesting that it IS you are begging the question and defining "design" the way you want the word defined.  Same problem with "intelligent" - you see it where you want to see it.

 

"Purpose" is another word like that.  What is the "purpose" of the universe?  Whatever you see it to be- and everyone differs on what they see.  The purpose of a rock could be to make a fire, rest your head, throw at some game, or build a house.  The purpose, as intelligence, as what is a "design" or not is in the eye of the beholder.  It cannot be quantified.

[cinepro]

Yeah, and Brigham Young, a Prophet of God, said that was a fable to read to children at bedtime....moving on.

 

CFR on this.

[teddyaware]

CFR on this.

“When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet.” (Brigham Young 9 Oct 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:285-286)

Edited January 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[Calm]

From wikiquote, I suspect he means this one:

Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child. But suppose Adam was made and fashioned the same as we make adobies; if he had never drunk of the bitter cup; the Lord might have talked to him to this day, and he would have continued as he was to all eternity, never advancing one particle in the school of intelligence. This idea opens up a field of light to the intelligent mind. How can you know truth but by its opposite, or light but by its opposite? The absence of light is darkness. How can sweetness be known but by its opposite, bitter? It is by this means that we obtain all intelligence.

Journal of Discourse 2:6-7 (October 23, 1853)

[Rob Osborn]

Not until you can experimentally define "intelligent" and "design" experimentally without begging the question.

 

Here is the problem- is a random rock or cliff "designed"?  By what?  How?  What would that mean?  Is a star "designed"?

 

The problem is just by suggesting that it IS you are begging the question and defining "design" the way you want the word defined.  Same problem with "intelligent" - you see it where you want to see it.

 

"Purpose" is another word like that.  What is the "purpose" of the universe?  Whatever you see it to be- and every

one differs on what they see.  The purpose of a rock could be to make a fire, rest your head, throw at some game, or build a house.  The purpose, as intelligence, as what is a "design" or not is in the eye of the beholder.  It cannot be quantified.

There are things in nature that can be defined as Intelligent designs and studied as such. Pretty much all aspects of life can be seen as having this "design" of "intelligence" in its very makeup right down to the cellular level. It can be strongly argued that the element of design and purpose demand a far greater explanation in cellular life than evolutionary models can explain. In fact, many notable scientists have written books with scientific details on this very thing. I have one such book called "Darwins Black Box" by Michale Behe.

[mfbukowski]

There are things in nature that can be defined as Intelligent designs and studied as such. Pretty much all aspects of life can be seen as having this "design" of "intelligence" in its very makeup right down to the cellular level. It can be strongly argued that the element of design and purpose demand a far greater explanation in cellular life than evolutionary models can explain. In fact, many notable scientists have written books with scientific details on this very thing. I have one such book called "Darwins Black Box" by Michale Behe.

What you can interpret as a cause or a purpose or design is one thing, but you have not provided a definition for any of these ideas which is objectively observable.

 

Again notice that I am ultimately on your side- I am not arguing about whether or not Intelligence (God) organized worlds- but just whether or not such a notion can be termed "science".

[Rob Osborn]

What you can interpret as a cause or a purpose or design is one thing, but you have not provided a definition for any of these ideas which is objectively observable.

 

Again notice that I am ultimately on your side- I am not arguing about whether or not Intelligence (God) organized worlds- but just whether or not such a notion can be termed "science".

From the dictionary on "science"

sci·ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

We can infer some facts of knowledge concerning life-

1. All life shares a basic fundamental aspect of having intelligence, some more than others

2. All life shares the element of design and purpose in its DNA structure and cellular function and makeup

3. Life is only observed scientifically to come from a source of life preceding it

4. No life form has ever been documented or observed as coming from a non life or non intelligent process or source

5. Intelligent designers such as engineers and scientists create and modify genetic code in labs and in experiments

6. It cannot be ruled out that because humans are in the universe, can travel through space, and can control every aspect of life that this intelligence exists somehwere else in the universe and may indeed be the very causation for intelligent life here.

The issue surrounding intelligent design is not one over "religion" but in reality its whether or not the world is ready to accept that nature is not the "cause" for the origin of intelligence coming into existence here on this planet. So far, every observation in science leads us to believe that life doesn't nor can't randomly generate itself from non intelligent matter. If "science" is really set in its quest to find the "cause" for intelligence then it needs to set out "scientifically" to start looking for signs that intelligence not only here on this planet but elsewhere in the universe that it came from a source of intelligence somewhere in the universe as either an entity, force, law, etc. Operations such as SETI is one such scientific endeavor to search for intelligence in the universe and as such is part of the science covered in intelligent design theory.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob, you should totally read this article.  It's really good:

 

Teaching Geology, An Old Earth, And Organic Evolution in the Context of the Gospel

Edmund 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.

I read the article and its a good read. Faunal succession can be explained very well with flood geology and is actually one of the arguments used for proving the flood really happened. In any flood, the first animals to get trapped and buried are going to be the small bottom dwelling sea life creatures, then fish, then slow moving land animals, up until you get to fast moving and more intelligent animals who are capable of escaping the flood until later in the event and thus being higher up in the strata. Of special note is that birds float and thus would be above other animals like dinosaurs which would sink. One of the problems that is a paramount problem for faunal succession is when you find fossils that are indeed out of place or even find what is called "living fossils" meaning fossils supposedly of once living things thought to have gone extinct because they are not found in higher up layers and then actually finding living proof that the creature never went extinct in the first place, is still alive on the earth today, and hasn't changed at all from its fossil brother in the rock. Faunal succession theory supports this idea that simple creatures thus evolved over time into more complex creatures. But in reality, living fossils actually prove that there is no real change in species over time and that some species went extinct while others survived and remain unchanged today. They call this "stasis" in evolutionary theory. But "stasis" defys the very principle of its own rules thus disproving not only itself but also the theory of faunal succession when applied to establishing evolution based solely off the geologic column.

[mfbukowski]

From the dictionary on "science"

sci·ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

We can infer some facts of knowledge concerning life-

1. All life shares a basic fundamental aspect of having intelligence, some more than others

2. All life shares the element of design and purpose in its DNA structure and cellular function and makeup

3. Life is only observed scientifically to come from a source of life preceding it

4. No life form has ever been documented or observed as coming from a non life or non intelligent process or source

5. Intelligent designers such as engineers and scientists create and modify genetic code in labs and in experiments

6. It cannot be ruled out that because humans are in the universe, can travel through space, and can control every aspect of life that this intelligence exists somehwere else in the universe and may indeed be the very causation for intelligent life here.

The issue surrounding intelligent design is not one over "religion" but in reality its whether or not the world is ready to accept that nature is not the "cause" for the origin of intelligence coming into existence here on this planet. So far, every observation in science leads us to believe that life doesn't nor can't randomly generate itself from non intelligent matter. If "science" is really set in its quest to find the "cause" for intelligence then it needs to set out "scientifically" to start looking for signs that intelligence not only here on this planet but elsewhere in the universe that it came from a source of intelligence somewhere in the universe as either an entity, force, law, etc. Operations such as SETI is one such scientific endeavor to search for intelligence in the universe and as such is part of the science covered in intelligent design theory.

Well I agree about SETI.

Either they are searching for intelligence or not.  But again that should show you that science has little to do with truth.

[Rob Osborn]

Thereintelligentligent design is inspired science I believe. It has been born in large part due to technology that has further advanced our knowledge of the working cell and findings of DNA structure and function. It appears that the more we study cellular ability we are finding an extremely high level of micro biological intelligent processes that baffle scientists. In just one living person such as you or I there are billions of microbiologic machines that work incredible amounts of intelligence. The intelligent processes happening within your body daily surpass all the abilities of the worlds supercomputers combined! There are around 60-90 trillion cells in the body with each cell being a special microbiologic factory containing millions of encoded blocks of information with special functioning builders in each cell reading these millions of bits of information giving direction on building, maintaining and regenerating itself in all of its parts over, and have spacial intelligence hooked up with all the other trillions of cells to know its own unique place by knowing all the other unique places and functions of the other 90 trillion cells.

We are just at the tip of the iceberg on findng out exactly how detail and intelligent oriented life is, even on the cellular level! The more we study it the more we are finding the signature of a highly extremely advanced intelligent source for its origin. Our best biologic human engineers on this planet can't even replicate even the smallest form of life synthetically in a lab! And here we have tens of trillions to the billionth power of these microbiologic machines in all their glory and intelligence testifying of an intelligent source for their origins. Forget evolution here folks, even our smartest scientists cant even make life work like our Creator! Intelligent design is the only explanation for the enigma of intelligence in all its glory within all Life! Life isnt randomly generated. Its purposeful, highly designed and highly intelligent!

[PtolemyGlenn]

In a very simple form. Apes may have been created as companions to Adam before Eve's creation.

Is evolution at play? I don't agree with evolution and any 3rd grader will ecen ask of Darwinism is true and we can from apes why are there still apes around.

[katherine the great]

In a very simple form. Apes may have been created as companions to Adam before Eve's creation.

Is evolution at play? I don't agree with evolution and any 3rd grader will ecen ask of Darwinism is true and we can from apes why are there still apes around.

The common ancestor of humans and apes is not still around.  Most third graders I know are too smart to ask a question like that.

[halconero]

The common ancestor of humans and apes is not still around. Most third graders I know are too smart to ask a question like that.

But if the evolutions is trues, why are there still monkys?!?!

Checkmate, Darwin.

[PtolemyGlenn]

The common ancestor of humans and apes is not still around. Most third graders I know are too smart to ask a question like that.

They ask it because Darwinism is incorrect.. Just Satan deciving the masses and the gullible.

Apes and humans may have simillar DNA but thats about it.

[thesometimesaint]

From the dictionary on "science"

sci·ence noun \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

We can infer some facts of knowledge concerning life-

1. All life shares a basic fundamental aspect of having intelligence, some more than others

2. All life shares the element of design and purpose in its DNA structure and cellular function and makeup

3. Life is only observed scientifically to come from a source of life preceding it

4. No life form has ever been documented or observed as coming from a non life or non intelligent process or source

5. Intelligent designers such as engineers and scientists create and modify genetic code in labs and in experiments

6. It cannot be ruled out that because humans are in the universe, can travel through space, and can control every aspect of life that this intelligence exists somehwere else in the universe and may indeed be the very causation for intelligent life here.

The issue surrounding intelligent design is not one over "religion" but in reality its whether or not the world is ready to accept that nature is not the "cause" for the origin of intelligence coming into existence here on this planet. So far, every observation in science leads us to believe that life doesn't nor can't randomly generate itself from non intelligent matter. If "science" is really set in its quest to find the "cause" for intelligence then it needs to set out "scientifically" to start looking for signs that intelligence not only here on this planet but elsewhere in the universe that it came from a source of intelligence somewhere in the universe as either an entity, force, law, etc. Operations such as SETI is one such scientific endeavor to search for intelligence in the universe and as such is part of the science covered in intelligent design theory.

 

That is just a variation on the watchmakers fallacy.

[thesometimesaint]

But if the evolutions is trues, why are there still monkys?!?!

Checkmate, Darwin.

 

Because they separated millions of years ago.

[thesometimesaint]

They ask it because Darwinism is incorrect.. Just Satan deciving the masses and the gullible.

Apes and humans may have simillar DNA but thats about it.

 

Only between 98-99% the same.

[halconero]

Because they separated millions of years ago.

Sorry. I was being sarcastic.

[thesometimesaint]

Sorry. I was being sarcastic.

 

Sorry I misunderstood.

[Stone holm]

But if the evolutions is trues, why are there still monkys?!?!

Checkmate, Darwin.

 

Because we still have idiots.  Monkeys may have been very well adapted for their own environmental niche, however, some monkeys ventured outside that niche and only certain ones who were well adapted survived -- I am of course avoiding the obvious mistake here, because I don't know of any evolutionists who are arguing that we descended from monkeys -- they are a separate branch from the great apes.