Adam And The Apes

[thesometimesaint]

I prefer the term unmortal to immortal despite its Vampire usage -- in order to distinquish between a resurrected being who is therefore immortal, and a being who has not yet experienced mortality, but has a physical body.

 

I prefer to leave all religion out of my science. But if we must combine them I prefer the Spiritual creation followed by the physical Creation by more natural processes.

Edited January 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

I tend to agree, but very few members understand it that way, and the Temple experience certainly would tend to lead a person in the wrong direction with regards to the Creation if it is true that the physical Creation occurred on the 7th day.  But then, I am not the best at understanding a lot of the Temple experience.

Even the temple language isn't exempt from changes/errors. Numerous changes to the wording of the endowment have ocurred over the years.

[Rob Osborn]

_{Its best that we don't let science or the "wisdom of man" be the final or swaying judge into what we believe.}

[CV75]

I don't know about Aadm and the Apes, but heeeeere's....

 

 

Adam and the Ants!

[Helen47]

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/enns_adam_white_paper.pdf

 

"The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human 

being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few 

thousand years before Jesus—roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has 

ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person. 

 This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural 

sciences and cultural remains. 

 There are human cultural remains dating well over 100,000 years ago. One recent example is 

130,000-year-old stone tools found on Crete. (Their presence on an island presumes seafaring ability at that 

time.) Ritual/religious structures are known to have existed as far back as 40,000-70,000 years ago. 

Recently, a temple complex was found in Turkey dating to about 11,500 years ago—7,000 years before the 

Pyramids. 

 In addition to cultural artifacts, there is also the scientific data from the various natural sciences 

that support a very old earth (4.5 billion years old) and the evolutionary development of life on it—things 

most readers of this website hardly need me to point out. Most recently, the genetic evidence for common 

descent has, in the view of most everyone trained in the field, lent great support to the antiquity of 

humanity and sharing a common ancestry with primates"  (my emphasis)

[thesometimesaint]

I take a wait and see attitude. I wouldn't be at all surprised if when Heavenly Father finally reveals exactly how it all happened, it may very well turn science on its ear -- much to the shock and astonishment of our atheist friends. And I wouldn't be surprised if all the biological clues and evidence left behind ultimately fit together in a ways never before imagined. But I'm open minded to whatever the solution to our perplexity will turn out to be.

 

But I do believe the most important factor left out of the creation scenarios is that God is a God of miracles. And when I say a God of miracles I mean really, really, really big miracles. Remember the raising of Lazarus' rotting body from the dead, the day the night and the day in which there was no night, and the fact that this earth, apparently very rapidly, is going to be transformed into a celestial kingdom? Scientists would be very dubious, if not mocking about these things, but I truly believe they have happened and will happen.

18 And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles.

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. (Moroni 9)

 

I take a wait and see attitude too. However I'm not going to disconnect my brain in the mean time. Sure it is even more than likely the scientists don't have everything right, but that is a GIANT leap to they have everything wrong. So to me until if/when God tells me otherwise I'll stick with science. IF he tells me otherwise that opens up a whole lot more questions.

 

Sure God is a god of miracles. Even really big miracles. Miracles to me are just something I don't understand how it works. It is possible that our existence is nothing more than a complicated Sims game. I don't believe it, but it is a possibility. Albeit a very remote one.

 

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?

[Rob Osborn]

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/enns_adam_white_paper.pdf

 

"The biblical depiction of human origins, if taken literally, presents Adam as the very first human 

being ever created. He was not the product of an evolutionary process, but a special creation of God a few 

thousand years before Jesus—roughly speaking, about 6000 years ago. Every single human being that has 

ever lived can trace his/her genetic history to that one person. 

 This is a problem because it is at odds with everything else we know about the past from the natural 

sciences and cultural remains. 

 There are human cultural remains dating well over 100,000 years ago. One recent example is 

130,000-year-old stone tools found on Crete. (Their presence on an island presumes seafaring ability at that 

time.) Ritual/religious structures are known to have existed as far back as 40,000-70,000 years ago. 

Recently, a temple complex was found in Turkey dating to about 11,500 years ago—7,000 years before the 

Pyramids. 

 In addition to cultural artifacts, there is also the scientific data from the various natural sciences 

that support a very old earth (4.5 billion years old) and the evolutionary development of life on it—things 

most readers of this website hardly need me to point out. Most recently, the genetic evidence for common 

descent has, in the view of most everyone trained in the field, lent great support to the antiquity of 

humanity and sharing a common ancestry with primates"  (my emphasis)

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.

[Rob Osborn]

What if we turn the tables and say that the whole story of evolution can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles?

[Lachoneus]

I prefer the term unmortal to immortal despite its Vampire usage -- in order to distinquish between a resurrected being who is therefore immortal, and a being who has not yet experienced mortality, but has a physical body.

 

I prefer the word "amortal."

[BookofMormonLuvr]

False. Even if we interpret Genesis 1 literally (and I don't think we should), Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day, same day as the "beast of the earth".

 Technically, that is not true.

The Book of Moses informs us that Adam was created last spiritually, but first physically.

I think the Jah did that so Adam could see the wonders of creation as it happened.

[mfbukowski]

I take a wait and see attitude. I wouldn't be at all surprised if when Heavenly Father finally reveals exactly how it all happened, it may very well turn science on its ear -- much to the shock and astonishment of our atheist friends.

And unfortunately destroy the plan of salvation.

 

We are here to walk by faith, not scientific certainty.  The test would be over if that happened, the professor would have published all the answers to the final exam.

 

I don't understand why folks cannot understand that science has nothing to do with religion, and neither can prove, or even give evidence for, the other.

[Rob Osborn]

And unfortunately destroy the plan of salvation.

 

We are here to walk by faith, not scientific certainty.  The test would be over if that happened, the professor would have published all the answers to the final exam.

 

I don't understand why folks cannot understand that science has nothing to do with religion, and neither can prove, or even give evidence for, the other.

The science I believe in is filtered and then coupled by all my religious beliefs making the both connected and inseparable. I thus interpret the geologic column in light of the global flood in Noah's day.

[Helen47]

I thought the evidence pointed to a local flood (their world)

[Rob Osborn]

I thought the evidence pointed to a local flood (their world)

The evidence exists and stands on its own. How that evidence is interpreted is as stark as night and day.

BTW, "their world" is the world Moses saw in vision beholding the entire planet.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[teddyaware]

And unfortunately destroy the plan of salvation.

 

We are here to walk by faith, not scientific certainty.  The test would be over if that happened, the professor would have published all the answers to the final exam.

 

I don't understand why folks cannot understand that science has nothing to do with religion, and neither can prove, or even give evidence for, the other.

I agree, the only caveat being I'm sure in the end we'll find out -- for God will reveal it -- that science and religion are in perfect harmony with each other. I think the thing that  causes the scientists to miss the mark is that they don't factor in to their creation scenarios there actually is a God of great miracles in the middle of it all. This same God will miraculously transform planet earth into a celestial kingdom virtually overnight, something the scientist will tell you is an impossibility.

Edited January 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[bdouglas]

This is interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

HGT means you can share the same genes, and not share the same ancestors. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That said, I'm personally a fan of Panspermia. 

http://panspermia.org/

I think our world was built on the ruins of another world.

For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away...Moses 1:35

We have other accounts of new worlds being built on the ruins of older worlds...

AND I saw a new bheaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away... Revelation 21:1

I think Eden was somewhere between heaven and earth, that eating the fruit and being cast out of Eden is where Adam and Eve really came into our world.... then perhaps mixed with the indiginous population?

Genesis 6:2... the sons of God saw the daughters of men

the children of God vs. the children of men?

 

 

Very interesting thoughts!

[Rivers]

Trying to reconcile the science and the scriptures on this topic requires too much mental gymnastics for me. Bruce McConkie had a good point when he said the two can't be harmonized.

[strappinglad]

There seems to be a shift in thinking about humans and their past.

"A veteran paleoanthropologist says the discoveries of 2013 have replaced Darwin’s tree picture of human evolution with a “braid.”

Be afraid, Darwin: it’s a braid, not a tree. Clive Finlayson of the Gibraltar Museum says that a single skull in the Caucasus has overthrown the concept of a branching tree of human evolution. Writing in the BBC News in “Viewpoint: Human evolution, from tree to braid,” he says the implications of replacement therapy are far-reaching:

Some time ago we replaced a linear view of our evolution by one represented by a branching tree. It is now time to replace it with that of an interwoven plexus of genetic lineages that branch out and fuse once again with the passage of time.

This means, of course, that we must abandon, once and for all, views of modern human superiority over archaic (ancient) humans. The terms “archaic” and “modern” lose all meaning as do concepts of modern human replacement of all other lineages.

A typical “braid” is composed of strands that do not fuse, so the analogy is somewhat misleading. The evidence he presents actually suggests a single strand of humanity. Such a shocking announcement is not the only implication of Dmanisi skull #5 and its brethren in the cave.

It also releases us from the deep-rooted shackles that have sought to link human evolution with stone tool-making technological stages — the Stone Ages — even when we have known that these have overlapped with each other for half-a-million years in some instances.

Finlayson just stated here that prior assumptions have shackled the field – even when paleoanthropologists knew better. One might say a new ‘libertarian’ wing of the early-man field is ready to cast off those shackles and embrace freedom to think anew. “The world of our biological and cultural evolution was far too fluid for us to constrain it into a few stages linked by transitions,” he remarked.

Without doubt, Finlayson is still an evolutionist and old-ager, but he agrees that all the splitters were wrong. The latest findings of 2013 indeed show that all “species” of Homo – whether Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Neanderthals, Denisovans or modern humans – perhaps including Homo floresiensis, the ‘Hobbit’ – interbred. That famous paper in Science (10/18/13) showcased more variation within the Denisovan skulls than between the other skulls long thought to be distinct species of Homo. The “biological species concept” (classifying species by their ability to produce fertile offspring) leaves no option: all of them were members of the same species. It was “a logical conclusion … too much for some researchers to take.”

Finlayson thinks we should accept that logical conclusion and move forward. Indeed, paleoanthropology has been so wrong so often, some humility is in order.

It seems that almost every other discovery in palaeoanthropology is reported as a surprise. I wonder when the penny will drop: when we have five pieces of a 5,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, every new bit that we add is likely to change the picture.

Did we really think that having just a minuscule residue of our long and diverse past was enough for us to tell humanity’s story?

If the fossils of 1.8 or so million years ago and those of the more recent Neanderthal-modern human era were all part of a single, morphologically diverse, species with a wide geographical range, what is there to suggest that it would have been any different in the intervening periods?

Before proposing the “braid” picture of human evolution, Finlayson openly declared that paleoanthropology has been wrong – not just about the facts, but about their approach to finding facts:

The conclusion that I derive takes me back to Dmanisi: We have built a picture of our evolution based on the morphology of fossils and it was wrong.

We just cannot place so much taxonomic weight on a handful of skulls when we know how plastic — or easily changeable — skull shape is in humans. And our paradigms must also change.

It should be obvious from New Year’s Eve at Times Square that skull shape diversity is plastic. Some skulls can even look like aliens from another planet (see story #6 from Science Now). Though Finlayson is ready to accept the wrongness of his field, the meaningless of its classification of “archaic” and “modern,” and though he sees the logical conclusion and the need for paradigm change, one bit of logic escapes him: how could humans equal to us go for 1.8 million years without learning to ride a horse or plant a farm? Is he sure about the long-age paradigm?

In a related story on Live Science, Charles Q. Choi summarized “What We Learned About Human Origins in 2013.” Short answer: every lesson was an upset to a previously-held idea: (1) Denisovans bred with a mystery lineage; (2) early humans were all one species (10/18/13); (3) “The testing of the oldest known human DNA added more evidence that human evolution was complex”; (4) hands for tool use existed earlier than thought (12/18/13); and Neanderthals buried their dead (12/18/13)."

- See more at: http://crev.info/2014/01/paleoanthropologist-overthrows-darwinian-tree-of-man/#sthash.qEZGT4nO.dpuf

Edited January 9, 2014 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

The science I believe in is filtered and then coupled by all my religious beliefs making the both connected and inseparable. I thus interpret the geologic column in light of the global flood in Noah's day.

Well it's good it works for you to make up your own interpretation, but that's not science

[Rob Osborn]

Well it's good it works for you to make up your own interpretation, but that's not science

Sure, its science, just maybe not the same interpretation as you. There are real actual scientists who believe and show evidence for a recent global flood. There are also real actual scientists who believe and show evidence against Darwinian evolution. So, whats your flavor? You can say its not science all you want- whatever floats your boat but its science for me and also a very large group which include many noteworthy scientists.

[mfbukowski]

I agree, the only caveat being I'm sure in the end we'll find out -- for God will reveal it -- that science and religion are in perfect harmony with each other. I think the thing that  causes the scientists to miss the mark is that they don't factor in to their creation scenarios there actually is a God of great miracles in the middle of it all. This same God will miraculously transform planet earth into a celestial kingdom virtually overnight, something the scientist will tell you is an impossibility.

Yes they are in harmony as much as baseball is with classical music.  They have nothing to do with each other.  You assume that science is about truth, and then show that it is not, because it restricts what it will investigate. 

 

My advice would be to stop worrying about them being in harmony and realize that science cannot possibly investigate all there is because of its self imposed restrictions.  

[mfbukowski]

Sure, its science, just maybe not the same interpretation as you. There are real actual scientists who believe and show evidence for a recent global flood. There are also real actual scientists who believe and show evidence against Darwinian evolution. So, whats your flavor? You can say its not science all you want- whatever floats your boat but its science for me and also a very large group which include many noteworthy scientists.

You are missing the point.  None of that will ever prove that the Man Jesus died for our sins.

 

Science cannot prove religion ever and it is a waste of time to pretend it can. What evidence could prove the atonement?  You are chasing an illusion by believing it can.  It has nothing to do with science.

[Rob Osborn]

You are missing the point.  None of that will ever prove that the Man Jesus died for our sins.

 

Science cannot prove religion ever and it is a waste of time to pretend it can. What evidence could prove the atonement?  You are chasing an illusion by believing it can.  It has nothing to do with science.

I am not arguing in favor of science proving Jesus died for our sins, we both on the same page there. I am saying that religious themes such as the creation and flood are tied very much into science- they are woven together and time and further experiments and truth will reveal the immutable truth of an intelligent designer and the reality of a recent global flood.

[mfbukowski]

If you could prove intelligent design and a global flood tomorrow morning and all scientists suddenly miraculously agreed, you would still not show that Jesus is the Christ.  So what's the point of worrying about all the little subsidiary details of the argument when the main premise is still out there unsupported, and never can be supported?

 

Why spend all your time and effort fighting the wrong battle ?

[mfbukowski]

I am not arguing in favor of science proving Jesus died for our sins, we both on the same page there. I am saying that religious themes such as the creation and flood are tied very much into science- they are woven together and time and further experiments and truth will reveal the immutable truth of an intelligent designer and the reality of a recent global flood.

So.what even if you are right?