Adam And The Apes

[Rob Osborn]

Science doesn't rely on miracles to work. I'm fine with god doing whatever he wants. But if we are going to try to explain how he did something it is best to use science.

How did life first evolve on this earth according to the theory of evolution? That is more of a "miracle" than Jesus walking on water or turning water into wine.

Edited January 9, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

A more supportable claim would there are many recognized scientist that believe in God(s).

 

Answers in Genesis, and the Discovery Institute are fraudsters. They have been debunked many times.

 

CFR that there is a very large group of noteworthy scientists that support a Global Flood mythology.

http://creation.com/creation-scientists

 

That should get you started. Also, a good quick read with geologists and other scientists about the creation, flood and the Grand Canyon-

http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Canyon-A-Different-View/dp/B00CF6EPLM

[Calm]

Including psychologists, a philosopher and linguist is just an attempt to inflate numbers IMO...they should only include scientists whose work is impacted by the theory, thus they would have had to studied it in detail and used the implications in many classes and in their actual work.

[Rob Osborn]

The overall goal here is to win the "chess game" showing that science and religion are harmonious.

 

Disproving evolution and proving the flood are only pawns in the game.  You could win or lose those pawns and it would not matter to the whole game one iota.

 

If you can prove the atonement scientifically, that would be "checkmate".

 

You are never going to get to checkmate spending your whole energy on pawns.  You have to think bigger and see the whole strategy.

Theres more at stake than meets the eye. I dialogued with 2 evolutionists for several years who both teach in the zoology department at BYU. One was a member at that time and on the board for the NCSE which is an organization whose objective it is to erase any and all language or thought of intelligent design and creation ideas from science. The other individual teaches evolutionary biology at the school and believes that God is probably the product of evolution of the which God isn't really in control of nor author of it. The implications here are paramount as we are seeing a big shift to take God out of his own creation and relegate him to actually the very product of science as a natural phenomenon all on its own in the universe. Its mockery to remove the Creator form the creation as the author of all life and all that we see in the universe. God is the author of science and law. Lets be aware that when we remove God from everything and then teach in its place that there is no right or wrong- there is no God nor devil and that we should do as we please because we are all just the product of nature, then is the time when we have forgotten our God and are ripe for destruction.

 

I have taught, and continue to teach my children and family to believe that God is real, that the flood was real, that evolution is wrong and that there really is an intelligent cause and purpose in all things that are. We are not random mutations that are the product of some random natural cause in a godless universe!

[Rob Osborn]

I have a couple general questions to all those evolutionists-

 

Do you believe in the Creator, and if so, could life have evolved without his actual actions in nature?

 

And-

 

What implications are there to science if it is true that the Creator's direct actions are what led to life being formed and directed?

[mfbukowski]

We do have evidence for the BoM.

See http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

 

We accept the BoM as Scripture independent of the evidence. Evidence is nice. However It is the Truth Claims we're after.

I see.

 

And how are such "truth claims" verified?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I have a couple general questions to all those evolutionists-

I'll Bite

 

Do you believe in the Creator, and if so, could life have evolved without his actual actions in nature?

I'd describe myself as an agnostic theist. I do not know that God exists, but I hope so. I choose faith based on a life of living and learning that gospel centered teachings have brought me much joy and happiness.

As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think that God is involved every time a new strain of bacteria is formed? Everytime ants reproduce? Or is he capable of setting processes in place that ultimately bear the desired fruit? How much hands on involvement does God have to have? Is he responsible for every earthquake? Every tsunami? Every Hurricane? Based on the record that God left for us, it is clear that life did evolve. Could God have tweaked things here and there along the way? Sure He could have. If he did, he left no sign of it.

 

And-

 

What implications are there to science if it is true that the Creator's direct actions are what led to life being formed and directed?

One, your question is poorly worded. I believe that God's direct actions led to life being formed through the process of evolution.

Perhaps you meant to ask "What implications are there to science if it is true that the Genesis account is literal and the earth is <10,000 years old"?

If that's the case, the implications are huge. It means that God cooked the books. He left clues to deliberately mislead us. It means we can't trust the scientific method for anything.

Edited January 9, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Stone holm]

I'll Bite

 

I'd describe myself as an agnostic theist. I do not know that God exists, but I hope so. I choose faith based on a life of living and learning that gospel centered teachings have brought me much joy and happiness.

As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think that God is involved every time a new strain of bacteria is formed? Everytime ants reproduced? Or is he capable of setting processes in place that ultimately bear the desired fruit? How much hands on involvement does God have to have? Is he responsible for every earthquake? Every tsunami? Every Hurricane? Based on the record that God left for us, it is clear that life did evolve. Could God have tweaked things here and there along the way? Sure He could have. If he did, he left no sign of it.

 

One, your question is poorly worded. I believe that God's direct actions led to life being formed through the process of evolution.

Perhaps you meant to ask "What implications are there to science if it is true that the Genesis account is literal and the earth is <10,000 years old"?

If that's the case, the implications are huge. It means that God cooked the books. He left clues to deliberately mislead us. It means we can't trust the scientific method for anything.

 

But isn't that the fundamentalist basic argument, you can't trust Science so let's quit using it or paying attention to it.  It reminds me of the Book of Mormon plaint about the Bible -- we've got the Scriptures what do we need Science for.  Everybody knows that Adam and Eve were galloping around on dinosaurs, and lions and saber tooth cats were running around at the same time, etc.

[teddyaware]

I'll Bite

 

I'd describe myself as an agnostic theist. I do not know that God exists, but I hope so. I choose faith based on a life of living and learning that gospel centered teachings have brought me much joy and happiness.

As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think that God is involved every time a new strain of bacteria is formed? Everytime ants reproduced? Or is he capable of setting processes in place that ultimately bear the desired fruit? How much hands on involvement does God have to have? Is he responsible for every earthquake? Every tsunami? Every Hurricane? Based on the record that God left for us, it is clear that life did evolve. Could God have tweaked things here and there along the way? Sure He could have. If he did, he left no sign of it.

 

One, your question is poorly worded. I believe that God's direct actions led to life being formed through the process of evolution.

Perhaps you meant to ask "What implications are there to science if it is true that the Genesis account is literal and the earth is <10,000 years old"?

If that's the case, the implications are huge. It means that God cooked the books. He left clues to deliberately mislead us. It means we can't trust the scientific method for anything.

The power, light and life of God are always at work in all of God's creations. From a highly intelligent human being to the smallest and simplest of single cell plants, God is there

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. (D&C 88)

Edited January 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[Rob Osborn]

I'll Bite I'd describe myself as an agnostic theist. I do not know that God exists, but I hope so. I choose faith based on a life of living and learning that gospel centered teachings have brought me much joy and happiness.As for the second part of your question, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think that God is involved every time a new strain of bacteria is formed? Everytime ants reproduce? Or is he capable of setting processes in place that ultimately bear the desired fruit? How much hands on involvement does God have to have? Is he responsible for every earthquake? Every tsunami? Every Hurricane? Based on the record that God left for us, it is clear that life did evolve. Could God have tweaked things here and there along the way? Sure He could have. If he did, he left no sign of it. One, your question is poorly worded. I believe that God's direct actions led to life being formed through the process of evolution.Perhaps you meant to ask "What implications are there to science if it is true that the Genesis account is literal and the earth is <10,000 years old"?If that's the case, the implications are huge. It means that God cooked the books. He left clues to deliberately mislead us. It means we can't trust the scientific method for anything.

PerhapsI could reword it...

If you believe in God and evolution, did life evolve without God, or did it take Gods direct actions for life to come into existance?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The power, light and life of God are always at work in all of God's creations. From a highly intelligent human being to the smallest and simplest of single cell plants, God is there

41 He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever. (D&C 88)

Not sure how this relates to my post. So you are saying God is responsible for the newest antibiotic resistant bacteria we are seeing everywhere?

[Stone holm]

PerhapsI could reword it...

If you believe in God and evolution, did life evolve without God, or did it take Gods direct actions for life to come into existance?

 

More interesting question is did God evolve?

[Rob Osborn]

More interesting question is did God evolve?

What do you mean?

My belief in regards to intelligence is thus-

Intelligence only comes from something intelligent preceding it. No intelligent process, entity, code or language arises on its own without intelligence to create it. Because life or even God are intelligence then it can only be the product of intelligence preceding it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

PerhapsI could reword it...

If you believe in God and evolution, did life evolve without God, or did it take Gods direct actions for life to come into existance?

Evolution does not address the origin of life, so the answer is largely irrelevant. There is certainly no scientific consensus on the origin of life.

Perhaps your question is more along the lines of intelligent design - i.e. was God involved in the nitty gritty details of how life evolved. The evidence is quite clear the answer to that question is no. At least in no discernible way. I really can't understand the desire of ID'ers to have God involved at that level. Which is more impressive: a programmer that writes a program which creates a wealth of other programs with no tweaking involved? Or a programmer that can't quite get things right and always have to get down in the code, always having to revise things, releasing patches and updates when things go awry?

Edited January 9, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[teddyaware]

Not sure how this relates to my post. So you are saying God is responsible for the newest antibiotic resistant bacteria we are seeing everywhere?

I'll allow you the joy of discovery as you read and ponder D&C 88:41 and figure out for yourself what heavenly principles that verse of scripture sets forth. But one thing is for sure, the holy principles revealed in that verse shouldn't just be shunted aside or ignored as we attempt to fathom the mysteries of life. Here's a clue: That verse relates in every way to your post.

Edited January 9, 2014 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'll allow you the joy of discovery as you read and ponder D&C 88:41 and figure out for yourself what heavenly principles that verse of scripture sets forth. But one thing is for sure, the holy principles revealed in that verse shouldn't just be shunted aside or ignored as we attempt to fathom the mysteries of life. Here's a clue: That verse relates in every way to your post.

You are a little too coy for me. Have a great day!

[teddyaware]

You are a little too coy for me. Have a great day!

I wasn't being coy at all. If one is trying to understand the mysteries of creation and life, the scriptures that speak of creation and life shouldn't be ignored or minimized. Rather, they should be studied and pondered at least as diligently as the writings of scientists, many of whom deny or doubt the existence of God. 

 

If the Gospel is true and the scriptures are true, one could spend an entire lifetime spinning his wheels and getting nowhere in a quest to obtain a knowledge of the things produced by man's wisdom that won't really matter in the long run. In the pursuit of truth, some members put science first and the scriptures second. My point is that one could be wasting an awful lot of time if they only attempt to search for truth by relying on the wisdom of fallen man, while ignoring the revealed truth of God as found in the scriptures. Simply put, Joseph Smith was the greatest scientist of the modern age because the truths he discovered were revealed to him by God, who the greatest and most enlightened scientist in the universe.   

[Freedom]

PerhapsI could reword it...

If you believe in God and evolution, did life evolve without God, or did it take Gods direct actions for life to come into existance?

If you believe in God, do you believe that God engineered your appearance or do you accept that your appearance is the result of the combination of your parents DNA? Do you believe the Grand Canyon, on Gods good earth, was carved out by angels or did it form naturally through erosion? Is it your belief that all things must have been directly controlled by God and that God does not allow for any natural process? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I wasn't being coy at all. If one is trying to understand the mysteries of creation and life, the scriptures that speak of creation and life shouldn't be ignored or minimized. Rather, they should be studied and pondered at least as diligently as the writings of scientists, many of whom deny or doubt the existence of God.

If the Gospel is true and the scriptures are true, one could spend an entire lifetime spinning his wheels and getting nowhere in a quest to obtain a knowledge of the things produced by man's wisdom that won't really matter in the long run. In the pursuit of truth, some members put science first and the scriptures second. My point is that one could be wasting an awful lot of time if they only attempt to search for truth by relying on the wisdom of fallen man, while ignoring the revealed truth of God as found in the scriptures. Simply put, Joseph Smith was the greatest scientist of the modern age because the truths he discovered were revealed to him by God, who the greatest and most enlightened scientist in the universe.

We will have to disagree here. The laws of nature were not revealed by pondering the scriptures. Galileo, Copernicus, Einstein, Darwin, Newton did not consult the scriptures nor a prophet before revealing their truths. Joseph Smith was not a scientist. Religion and science don't speak the same language and don't answer the same questions.

[Freedom]

I'll allow you the joy of discovery as you read and ponder D&C 88:41 and figure out for yourself what heavenly principles that verse of scripture sets forth. But one thing is for sure, the holy principles revealed in that verse shouldn't just be shunted aside or ignored as we attempt to fathom the mysteries of life. Here's a clue: That verse relates in every way to your post.

You seem to feel that God is an obsessive micromanager of such grand proportions that the plan of salvation becomes void as all free will is taken away. If we take your interpretation, than nothing is left to choice. The very placement of furniture is dictated by God, every sin we commit is determined before we commit them. Every crushed rock, every broken twig. I can apply this verse to my company, but this does not require me to advise where my staff place their erasers or park their car. 

[teddyaware]

You seem to feel that God is an obsessive micromanager of such grand proportions that the plan of salvation becomes void as all free will is taken away. If we take your interpretation, than nothing is left to choice. The very placement of furniture is dictated by God, every sin we commit is determined before we commit them. Every crushed rock, every broken twig. I can apply this verse to my company, but this does not require me to advise where my staff place their erasers or park their car.

I never said any such thing. What you're saying here is just your surmise of what you think I was trying to say. Show me a specific line in my post where I said, intimated or even hinted I believe God is an 'obsessive micromanager' of 'grand proportions.' You have done here what so often happens on boards like this one -- I call it "reading-between-the-lines-itis."

[Freedom]

I wasn't being coy at all. If one is trying to understand the mysteries of creation and life, the scriptures that speak of creation and life shouldn't be ignored or minimized. Rather, they should be studied and pondered at least as diligently as the writings of scientists, many of whom deny or doubt the existence of God. 

 

If the Gospel is true and the scriptures are true, one could spend an entire lifetime spinning his wheels and getting nowhere in a quest to obtain a knowledge of the things produced by man's wisdom that won't really matter in the long run. In the pursuit of truth, some members put science first and the scriptures second. My point is that one could be wasting an awful lot of time if they only attempt to search for truth by relying on the wisdom of fallen man, while ignoring the revealed truth of God as found in the scriptures. Simply put, Joseph Smith was the greatest scientist of the modern age because the truths he discovered were revealed to him by God, who the greatest and most enlightened scientist in the universe.   

So you are suggesting that electrical engineering, anti-biotic, linguistics and a host of other non-religious developments just don’t matter? Evolution is a scientific theory that explain organisms. It is no more of a religious scandal than the theory gravity which tells us God does not make things fall, they fall all on their own due to gravity. Are you suggesting that all scientific theories must be abandoned? 

[Freedom]

I never said any such thing. What you're saying here is just your surmise of what you think I was trying to say. Show me a specific line in my post where I said, intimated or even hinted I believe God is an 'obsessive micromanager' of 'grand proportions.' You have done here what so often happens on boards like this one -- I call it "reading-between-the-lines-itis."

 

Then explain 88:41 in relation to evolution. 

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution does not address the origin of life, so the answer is largely irrelevant. There is certainly no scientific consensus on the origin of life.Perhaps your question is more along the lines of intelligent design - i.e. was God involved in the nitty gritty details of how life evolved. The evidence is quite clear the answer to that question is no. At least in no discernible way. I really can't understand the desire of ID'ers to have God involved at that level. Which is more impressive: a programmer that writes a program which creates a wealth of other programs with no tweaking involved? Or a programmer that can't quite get things right and always have to get down in the code, always having to revise things, releasing patches and updates when things go awry?

Evolution must address how life first evolved. Evolution just doesnt pick up somewhere aling the way where we start studying it from that point. Evolutionary theory has a basic tree of life where life first began. You cannot discount the facts that even the first evolved critter must have evolved from something.

Your answer doesnt address what I asked. Evolutionists have an issue with God getting involved with how life first originated. That is why I asked the question. I am interested in if people who believe in both the Creator and evolution reconcile the two. For example, an answer might be something like-

God created the first DNA strands that would allow life to be jumpstarted.

Thats what I am looking for because I am of the belief that evolutionists really have no place for the Creator in the creation. Show me otherwise.

[teddyaware]

Then explain 88:41 in relation to evolution.

I didn't quote that scripture as something specifically relating to organic evolution, but as a way to say the scriptures reveal God is much more involved in every aspect of life and creation than some may imagine. And just because God is so involved, in various ways, doesn't mean He violates our free agency as He does so.

Edited January 10, 2014 by teddyaware