Adam And The Apes

[BCSpace]

if our DNA correlates a high percentage of similarity how does this challenge the Adam and Eve story? Apes were created on a different day.

 

 

I would say there is no challenge because according to the doctrine on Adam being the first flesh, it is made clear that plants and animals were here before Adam.

 

 

(2-16) Genesis 2:7. Adam Was the “First Flesh” upon the Earth

Moses 3:7 adds a significant phrase to Genesis 2:7: “And man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.” President Joseph Fielding Smith explained what was meant by the term flesh.

 

“So, Adam was the first man upon the earth, according to the Lord’s statement, and the first flesh also. That needs a little explanation.

 

“Adam did not come to this earth until it was prepared for him. The animals were here. Plants were here. The Lord did not bring him here to a desolate world, and then bring other creatures. It was all prepared for him, just according to the order that is written in our scriptures, and when it was all ready for Adam he was placed upon the earth.

 

“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.)

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/genesis-1-2-the-creation?lang=eng

 

 

And so, since we know that evolution(before and after the garden state) can fit within the context of LDS doctrine and scripture, homo sapiens and apes could indeed have a common ancestor and our DNA can be very close.

[nebula]

Well...thats mans feeble interpretation absent of any Creator. Thats the problem we face today in discussion because we have what we call "scientific methods" that are supposedly true or considered as fact but yet lack the actual proof and validity because we werent around in the past thousands or millions of years ago to actually observe what realky was happening from the beginning through to the end. Nowdays everyone runs around saying dinosaurs are millions of years old despite the fact there is no scienifically verifiable test to prove this idea. Of interest is that every dinosaur bone that has been carbon dated has shown it to be in the thousands, not millions, of years old. Then, some scientists started noticing actual soft tissue in bones of dinosaurs which shows without any reasonable doubt that they are either far younger than previosly thought.

But, you know how these kinds of things get thrown out rom the view of science because of that holy ground they have created for themselves.

Well...thats mans feeble interpretation absent of any Creator. Thats the problem we face today in discussion because we have what we call "scientific methods" that are supposedly true or considered as fact but yet lack the actual proof and validity because we werent around in the past thousands or millions of years ago to actually observe what realky was happening from the beginning through to the end. Nowdays everyone runs around saying dinosaurs are millions of years old despite the fact there is no scienifically verifiable test to prove this idea. Of interest is that every dinosaur bone that has been carbon dated has shown it to be in the thousands, not millions, of years old. Then, some scientists started noticing actual soft tissue in bones of dinosaurs which shows without any reasonable doubt that they are either far younger than previosly thought.

But, you know how these kinds of things get thrown out rom the view of science because of that holy ground they have created for themselves.

Well...thats mans feeble interpretation absent of any Creator. Thats the problem we face today in discussion because we have what we call "scientific methods" that are supposedly true or considered as fact but yet lack the actual proof and validity because we werent around in the past thousands or millions of years ago to actually observe what realky was happening from the beginning through to the end. Nowdays everyone runs around saying dinosaurs are millions of years old despite the fact there is no scienifically verifiable test to prove this idea. Of interest is that every dinosaur bone that has been carbon dated has shown it to be in the thousands, not millions, of years old. Then, some scientists started noticing actual soft tissue in bones of dinosaurs which shows without any reasonable doubt that they are either far younger than previosly thought.

But, you know how these kinds of things get thrown out rom the view of science because of that holy ground they have created for themselves.

The aim of all scientific study is to better understand the workings of the universe. No self-respecting scientist would claim to know everything. Once we think we understand physical laws, we discover some situation where what we thought we knew just doesn't hold up-- so we press on. That's the joy of discovery: each step forward on the path to total knowledge proves that the path is much longer than we'd ever imagined. When you get into the more abstract branches of science--quantum physics, for instance-- you're past the point of describing things you can observe and meaure. In this realm, everything is theoretical.

To discount an entire field of study, particularly one which has opened our eyes to the wonders of the universe, seems limiting. I don't view science and religion as opposites. I don't feel obligated to choose one or the other. Science is just a tool we use to make sense of a vast and complex universe. The more I discover about our world, the more I appreciate just how miraculous it is to exist at all.

[nebula]

Pardon my lamentable quoting skills!

[Rob Osborn]

The aim of all scientific study is to better understand the workings of the universe. No self-respecting scientist would claim to know everything. Once we think we understand physical laws, we discover some situation where what we thought we knew just doesn't hold up-- so we press on. That's the joy of discovery: each step forward on the path to total knowledge proves that the path is much longer than we'd ever imagined. When you get into the more abstract branches of science--quantum physics, for instance-- you're past the point of describing things you can observe and meaure. In this realm, everything is theoretical.

To discount an entire field of study, particularly one which has opened our eyes to the wonders of the universe, seems limiting. I don't view science and religion as opposites. I don't feel obligated to choose one or the other. Science is just a tool we use to make sense of a vast and complex universe. The more I discover about our world, the more I appreciate just how miraculous it is to exist at all.

I only discount that branch of science which lies about evidence and makes false claims. I embrace all branches of science that proves or verifies evidence!

[nebula]

I only discount that branch of science which lies about evidence and makes false claims. I embrace all branches of science that proves or verifies evidence!

Complex scientific theory isn't strictly verifiable. Our model of the universe is a "best fit" model-- that is, it's a concept of the universe that makes the most sense given our current understanding of how things work. This model isn't fixed in stone, but rather it is constantly being adapted and expanded. Even forces which previously seemed to behave always in a predictable manner, such as light or time, have been found to behave differently in extreme conditions, such as near a black hole. It seems a stretch to call this a lie. We're merely doing the best we can with the information we have.

[Rob Osborn]

Complex scientific theory isn't strictly verifiable. Our model of the universe is a "best fit" model-- that is, it's a concept of the universe that makes the most sense given our current understanding of how things work. This model isn't fixed in stone, but rather it is constantly being adapted and expanded. Even forces which previously seemed to behave always in a predictable manner, such as light or time, have been found to behave differently in extreme conditions, such as near a black hole. It seems a stretch to call this a lie. We're merely doing the best we can with the information we have.

Let me focus my statement a little more-

I do not agree with the science of evolutionary theory from common descent.

[mfbukowski]

Complex scientific theory isn't strictly verifiable. Our model of the universe is a "best fit" model-- that is, it's a concept of the universe that makes the most sense given our current understanding of how things work. This model isn't fixed in stone, but rather it is constantly being adapted and expanded. Even forces which previously seemed to behave always in a predictable manner, such as light or time, have been found to behave differently in extreme conditions, such as near a black hole. It seems a stretch to call this a lie. We're merely doing the best we can with the information we have.

Wait a minute here- don't I know you from the Catholic Answers Forum- ?  I remember some great discussions on this with you-

[nebula]

Let me focus my statement a little more-I do not agree with the science of evolutionary theory from common descent.

Let me focus my statement a little more-I do not agree with the science of evolutionary theory from common descent.

That does clarify your position, thanks! Evolutionary theory is itself also a "best fit" model, albeit one that's supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines. It is exceptionally difficult to find an unbiased resource on this topic, which is frustrating, but this page has a great deal of information regardless: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

[nebula]

Wait a minute here- don't I know you from the Catholic Answers Forum- ?  I remember some great discussions on this with you-

I'm not a member there, sorry-- but I'll take the compliment anyway!

[thesometimesaint]

That does clarify your position, thanks! Evolutionary theory is itself also a "best fit" model, albeit one that's supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines. It is exceptionally difficult to find an unbiased resource on this topic, which is frustrating, but this page has a great deal of information regardless: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

 

Rob simply rejects everything you say.

[teddyaware]

I would say there is no challenge because according to the doctrine on Adam being the first flesh, it is made clear that plants and animals were here before Adam.

 

And so, since we know that evolution(before and after the garden state) can fit within the context of LDS doctrine and scripture, homo sapiens and apes could indeed have a common ancestor and our DNA can be very close.

 

According to many Church authorities, the plant and animal creation described in the 5th and 6th days of creation was a spiritual creation with no death present. The is no way to square this with evolutionary theory.

 

But you must understand I come at this subject as one with an open mind; I don't pretend to know or understand how the Lord created this earth or it's plant and animal life. I'm simply a messenger here who's saying that there's precious little, if anything, in the four creation accounts to harmonize with the theory of organic evolution as presently understood.

 

It's critically important to realize that according to the four creation accounts there was no death until the fall. Since organic evolutionary theory revolves exclusively around the understanding of constant cycles of life and death, it cannot be made to harmonize with the scriptural teaching that there was no death until the fall of Adam.

 

Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the workings of your theory, but that's just the way it is. I'm awaiting the further light and knowledge the Lord has promised to shed on this subject during the Millennium, as promised in D&C 101. Till then I will reserve judgment.

Edited January 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

That does clarify your position, thanks! Evolutionary theory is itself also a "best fit" model, albeit one that's supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence from a wide range of scientific disciplines. It is exceptionally difficult to find an unbiased resource on this topic, which is frustrating, but this page has a great deal of information regardless: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

A "best fit" model? I can hardly agree. The evidence we have shows that besides similarities between species, there is no evidence to show that these similarities are because we all share a common ancestor.

[Freedom]

A "best fit" model? I can hardly agree. The evidence we have shows that besides similarities between species, there is no evidence to show that these similarities are because we all share a common ancestor.

So long as you ignore the fossil record that is. The foundation of your argument is that, since we have no proof it must be from Gods divine magic. Anything that cannot be explained, in your opinion, will never be explained by science because God used his magic. 

[nebula]

A "best fit" model? I can hardly agree. The evidence we have shows that besides similarities between species, there is no evidence to show that these similarities are because we all share a common ancestor.

Could you elaborate? It was my understanding that the evidence supports the idea of common ancestry. This article in Scientific American reports that the probability of a universal common ancestor is quite high: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/ Are you concerned that current evidence doesn't SUPPORT the idea, or that it doesn't unequivocally PROVE it? If the latter, what level of probability would convince you that common ancestry is viable, if any?

[thesometimesaint]

So long as you ignore the fossil record that is. The foundation of your argument is that, since we have no proof it must be from Gods divine magic. Anything that cannot be explained, in your opinion, will never be explained by science because God used his magic. 

 

It is worse than that.

[nebula]

So long as you ignore the fossil record that is. The foundation of your argument is that, since we have no proof it must be from Gods divine magic. Anything that cannot be explained, in your opinion, will never be explained by science because God used his magic.

So long as you ignore the fossil record that is. The foundation of your argument is that, since we have no proof it must be from Gods divine magic. Anything that cannot be explained, in your opinion, will never be explained by science because God used his magic.

I am a bit confused by this, too. Besides UCA, there are several other scientific models to consider. It's not a matter of deciding between universal common ancestry and "magic."

[Nofear]

Ornery random, only tangentially relevant, fly-by post:

[Freedom]

I am a bit confused by this, too. Besides UCA, there are several other scientific models to consider. It's not a matter of deciding between universal common ancestry and "magic."

For creationists, it is a matter of choosing those two. God has given us the evidence, we need to use our brains to figure out what the evidence means. Evolution is a fact, it is observed over and over gain. The fossil record is indisputable. Let's continue to examine the evidence through the scientific method that God provided to discover how it all came about. This is how we will become like God, through education and examining the evidence. 

[thesometimesaint]

I am a bit confused by this, too. Besides UCA, there are several other scientific models to consider. It's not a matter of deciding between universal common ancestry and "magic."

 

IMNTBHO God is simply using evolution to create our world. I also think God is a lot smarter than any of us think he is.

[Freedom]

Ornery random, only tangentially relevant, fly-by post:

Ok, I rarely post on my facebook page, mostly I just respond to others posts. This one must be posted, however. 

[nebula]

I believe in many different levels of reality. Our Biblical creation myth doesn't need to be literally, historically accurate in order to be true. It is a story used to illustrate deeper, abstract truths. At the time when these stories were first told and recorded, it would have been bizarre to talk about DNA and natural selection. It was beyond our comprehension. Stories are the most powerful and enduring way to convey a message even now.

Edited January 24, 2014 by nebula

[thesometimesaint]

I believe in many different levels of reality. Our Biblical creation myth doesn't need to be literally, historically accurate in order to be true. It is a story used to illustrate deeper, abstract truths. At the time when these stories were first told and recorded, it would have been bizarre to talk about DNA and natural selection. It was beyond our comprehension. Stories are the most powerful and enduring way to convey a message even now.

 

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

 

According to many Church authorities, the plant and animal creation described in the 5th and 6th days of creation was a spiritual creation with no death present. The is no way to square this with evolutionary theory.

 

But you must understand I come at this subject as one with an open mind; I don't pretend to know or understand how the Lord created this earth or it's plant and animal life. I'm simply a messenger here who's saying that there's precious little, if anything, in the four creation accounts to harmonize with the theory of organic evolution as presently understood.

 

It's critically important to realize that according to the four creation accounts there was no death until the fall. Since organic evolutionary theory revolves exclusively around the understanding of constant cycles of life and death, it cannot be made to harmonize with the scriptural teaching that there was no death until the fall of Adam.

 

Sorry to throw a monkey wrench into the workings of your theory, but that's just the way it is. I'm awaiting the further light and knowledge the Lord has promised to shed on this subject during the Millennium, as promised in D&C 101. Till then I will reserve judgment.

There was no "death" before the fall because people weren't around to give that concept meaning.

 

Dinosaurs didn't "murder" each other either- they just survived, like we do, by eating other living things.  Do we "murder" carrots when we put them in a salad?

 

Do we "kill" them?

 

Sin and death are tied together because of changes in our cognition- caused by whatever means you want to postulate- evolution or creation- it doesn't matter.

 

There could be neither sin nor death until there were beings capable of understanding what each of these concepts are.

 

So of course the scriptures are right- there is no sin or death before the fall from innocence.  The problem is people take that literally.  If you understand spiritual writings spiritually, and scientific writings scientifically, it all falls into place perfectly, with no conflicts because the two disciplines are speaking of different things

[mfbukowski]

I believe in many different levels of reality. Our Biblical creation myth doesn't need to be literally, historically accurate in order to be true. It is a story used to illustrate deeper, abstract truths. At the time when these stories were first told and recorded, it would have been bizarre to talk about DNA and natural selection. It was beyond our comprehension. Stories are the most powerful and enduring way to convey a message even now.

Oh yes, I remember now.

 

We talked about this in the pre-existence. 

[mfbukowski]

Ornery random, only tangentially relevant, fly-by post:

The only problem is there is NO "What really happened"."What really happened" is totally unknowable because all we can know is limited by our human understanding.

 

There are only human constructs- stories- that make sense of what we believe.  That's as true in science as it is religion.