A Theory Of Lds Evolution (Add Yours Here)

[thesometimesaint]

Just so you know, there is no physical evidence that plant life started out as anything less than a seed.

So, if the evidence clearly points to a seed, well then, who or what planted the seed?

So, claiming it somehow evolved from some supernatural process unknown to science is an argument from ignorance.

 

Please take a basic biology class before you make such ridiculous claims.

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

[Rob Osborn]

Please take a basic biology class before you make such ridiculous claims.

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

Please CFR with "evidence" for seed evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Please CFR with "evidence" for seed evolution.

 

http://www.seedbiology.de/evolution.asp

https://www.boundless.com/biology/seed-plants/evolution-of-seed-plants/introduction/

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl30.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406407

http://earthsky.org/earth/how-did-the-first-plant-seeds-evolve

http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bio_courses/bl14apl/seed.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03249.x/pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=books+by+kenneth+miller+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

[Rob Osborn]

http://www.seedbiology.de/evolution.asp

https://www.boundless.com/biology/seed-plants/evolution-of-seed-plants/introduction/

http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/campbl30.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20406407

http://earthsky.org/earth/how-did-the-first-plant-seeds-evolve

http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bio_courses/bl14apl/seed.htm

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03249.x/pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=books+by+kenneth+miller+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Thanks for the references. Didnt see any hard evidence though for seed evilution.

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for the references. Didnt see any hard evidence though for seed evilution.

 

Then you're not looking. Interesting misspelling of evolution. I'm sure the pun was unintended.

[emarkp]

Yes we are supposed to forgive seventy times seven. The Lord has surely forgiven me at very least 490 times. Am I greater than the Lord?

 

But the Lord doesn't say "at least" 490 times.  Who are you to add to what the Lord says?  Heretic!

[Rob Osborn]

Then you're not looking. Interesting misspelling of evolution. I'm sure the pun was unintended.

The "i" and the "o" are right next to each other, accidentally must have bumped the "i".

I saw the mistake but chose not to edit it...my bad, heheh

Whats there to look at? A theory of how seeds may have evolved from nothing? Didnt see any evidence.

[jkwilliams]

The "i" and the "o" are right next to each other, accidentally must have bumped the "i".

I saw the mistake but chose not to edit it...my bad, heheh

Whats there to look at? A theory of how seeds may have evolved from nothing? Didnt see any evidence.

 

The mistake here is in assuming that evolutionary biology explains or attempts to explain the origins of life itself. It does not. The theory isn't interested in whether there is a God or first cause or anything like it or whether "seeds evolved from nothing" (I don't even know what that might mean). Evolution explains remarkably well how speciation occurs, but for some reason people assume evolution denies the existence or possibility of God. I have no idea why. Millions of people in and out of the LDS church have managed to maintain their faith in God while accepting that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the origins of species.

 

Scientists are making some fascinating discoveries about how abiogenesis may occur in nature, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

[teddyaware]

But the Lord doesn't say "at least" 490 times.  Who are you to add to what the Lord says?  Heretic!

Oh, I get you... If we sin again after the 490th time the Lord has forgiven us, we automatically become sons of perdition.

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

This is a great insight! But now you've got me worried because you can bet I'm over that 490 limit and it's already too late for me! How about you? Do you think you're already over the 490 limit as well? I would guess there's a pretty good chance I might be seeing you on that downward elevator...

Edited February 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Just so you know, there is no physical evidence that plant life started out as anything less than a seed.

So, if the evidence clearly points to a seed, well then, who or what planted the seed?

So, claiming it somehow evolved from some supernatural process unknown to science is an argument from ignorance.

 

You don't know what the heck you're talking about. The list of single celled plants that reproduce by simple cell division is long. That is why I gave you those links.

 

Classic Watchmakers Argument.

 

Cell division isn't supernatural unless your totally ignorant of the process.

Edited February 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

The "i" and the "o" are right next to each other, accidentally must have bumped the "i".

I saw the mistake but chose not to edit it...my bad, heheh

Whats there to look at? A theory of how seeds may have evolved from nothing? Didnt see any evidence.

 

Then the pun was intended. Very interesting.

 

Seed evolution is well understood science, and it has nothing to do with coming from nothing.

[Rob Osborn]

Then the pun was intended. Very interesting.

 

Seed evolution is well understood science, and it has nothing to do with coming from nothing.

Oh yeah, just as understood as man evolving from ape-like creatures, I forgot, my bad.

[Rob Osborn]

The mistake here is in assuming that evolutionary biology explains or attempts to explain the origins of life itself. It does not. The theory isn't interested in whether there is a God or first cause or anything like it or whether "seeds evolved from nothing" (I don't even know what that might mean). Evolution explains remarkably well how speciation occurs, but for some reason people assume evolution denies the existence or possibility of God. I have no idea why. Millions of people in and out of the LDS church have managed to maintain their faith in God while accepting that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the origins of species.

 

Scientists are making some fascinating discoveries about how abiogenesis may occur in nature, but that has nothing to do with evolution.

It has everything to do with evolution. don't believe me? Just check out any intruductory to biology and you will find that they all discuss the origins of life and present theories of chemical evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

It has everything to do with evolution. don't believe me? Just check out any intruductory to biology and you will find that they all discuss the origins of life and present theories of chemical evolution.

 

Like this one?

 

The Bible claims that a prophet of God suddenly stopped the earth from rotating, and then started it again. Here are the results of such an action.

[teddyaware]

Like this one?

 

The Bible claims that a prophet of God suddenly stopped the earth from rotating, and then started it again. Here are the results of such an action.

I've said what I'm about to say several times before and now I say it again: If a Latter-day Saint leaves the miraculous power of God out of his thought processes, the scriptures will never make sense, and only constant doubt and incredulity will reign. Nearly all the scientists you are wont to reference will confidently tell you the oft-attested scriptural doctrine of millions of glorified, immortal human beings being created from dust in the twinkling of an eye (resurrection) is just as "absurd" as believing the earth once stopped rotating. It requires living faith in an omniscient and all-powerful God to believe the testimony of the scriptures concerning the seemingly impossible occurrences presented therein.

 

Be it know that in quoting the following no-nonsense verse of scripture, I include myself as a needful recipient of its dire warning:

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. (2 Nephi 9)

[jkwilliams]

I've said what I'm about to say several times before and now I say it again: If a Latter-day Saint leaves the miraculous power of God out of his thought processes, the scriptures will never make sense, and only constant doubt and incredulity will reign. Nearly all the scientists you are wont to reference will confidently tell you the oft-attested scriptural doctrine of millions of glorified, immortal human beings being created from dust in the twinkling of an eye (resurrection) is just as "absurd" as believing the earth once stopped rotating. It requires living faith in an omniscient and all-powerful God to believe the testimony of the scriptures concerning the seemingly impossible occurrences presented therein.

 

Be it know that in quoting the following no-nonsense verse of scripture, I include myself as a needful recipient of its dire warning:

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. (2 Nephi 9)

Why would someone read the scriptures and deny the miraculous power of God? That doesn't make any sense. I would say, rather, that it's a fool's errand to take the scriptures and try to find scientific evidence for the miraculous. The creation account is pretty clear, but the scientific evidence doesn't support a literal reading of the process. The scriptures speak of a global flood, and again, there's no evidence for it. Most people aren't troubled by this, preferring to accept that we humans don't understand everything. But the rigid literalists either put their head in the sand and deny the science, or put their head in the sand and deny God. It's pretty much the same thing. I doubt God wants us to think in such stark black-and-white terms.

[thesometimesaint]

I've said what I'm about to say several times before and now I say it again: If a Latter-day Saint leaves the miraculous power of God out of his thought processes, the scriptures will never make sense, and only constant doubt and incredulity will reign. Nearly all the scientists you are wont to reference will confidently tell you the oft-attested scriptural doctrine of millions of glorified, immortal human beings being created from dust in the twinkling of an eye (resurrection) is just as "absurd" as believing the earth once stopped rotating. It requires living faith in an omniscient and all-powerful God to believe the testimony of the scriptures concerning the seemingly impossible occurrences presented therein.

 

Be it know that in quoting the following no-nonsense verse of scripture, I include myself as a needful recipient of its dire warning:

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them. (2 Nephi 9)

 

I have no problem with God or with science and apparently neither does any LDS scientist. Henry Eyring, father of Apostle Henry Eyring, certainly had no problem with God or with science. He was a faithful LDS member all of his life. Galileo was Roman Catholic, Newton was an Anglican, Darwin was an Anglican, Kenneth Miller is Roman Catholic, they certainly believe(d) in God. Some 40% of all US scientists today believe in a personal God.

 

I've certainly have never claimed to be wise. However I do believe God wants us to learn everything we can about how he did/does things. Science is just one of the many ways to learn that. Science to me is just the accumulated knowledge we have so far as to how he actually did/does it. So there is plenty more to learn. We have barely scratched the very slimmest surface of what God knows, and what he wants us to know so we can become like him.

Edited February 26, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[teddyaware]

Deleted 


 

Edited February 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Why would someone read the scriptures and deny the miraculous power of God? That doesn't make any sense. I would say, rather, that it's a fool's errand to take the scriptures and try to find scientific evidence for the miraculous. The creation account is pretty clear, but the scientific evidence doesn't support a literal reading of the process. The scriptures speak of a global flood, and again, there's no evidence for it. Most people aren't troubled by this, preferring to accept that we humans don't understand everything. But the rigid literalists either put their head in the sand and deny the science, or put their head in the sand and deny God. It's pretty much the same thing. I doubt God wants us to think in such stark black-and-white terms.

Or how about those who reject the scriptural testimonies of the incomparable miraculous power of God (like the oft attested to global flood) have taken an step or two or three into the realm of unbelief?

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

21 Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth. (Mormon 9)

 

Edited February 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Or how about those who reject the scriptural testimonies of the incomparable miraculous power of God (like the oft attested to global flood) have taken an step or two or three into the realm of unbelief?

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

21 Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth. (Mormon 9)

 

The Lord had strong words for Oliver Cowdery when he thought only to ask and not work it out in his own mind.

 

D&C 9:7-8.

 

 7. Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

 8. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must ^astudy it out in your ^bmind; then you must ^cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your ^dbosom shall ^eburn within you; therefore, you shall ^ffeel that it is right.

[The Nehor]

Or how about those who reject the scriptural testimonies of the incomparable miraculous power of God (like the oft attested to global flood) have taken an step or two or three into the realm of unbelief?

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

21 Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth. (Mormon 9)

A prayer from a man of hyper-literal faith who needs to overspectacularize miracles:

Man: Oh Lord, we have run out of water and require water to live. Please miraculously fill this bucket for me.

God: On it, I knew you would need this before the world was. There are clouds forming now.

Man: I have just poured dirt into this bucket. Please turn it into water,

God: Ummmmmm.....why? The rain is on the way. You will not be able to hold as much water with that dirt in there. It will also be muddy.

Man: I will leave it here in full faith that you will fill it.

God: Seriously, dump the dirt out.

(Man leaves bucket in porch underneath an awning)

God: Why......why would you........fine, I will get some wind on that to blow it into your bucket I guess.

(The rain falls and the wind blows it into the bucket. The man comes out later to his bucket of mud and surmises that God made chocolate water and drinks it down and his stomach hurts later.

-----------------------------------------------

Regular person of faith:

Man: Lord, we need water to live. Can you send it by rain or by miracle or tell me where to dig for it.

God: Certainly. It will rain soon. Tell your friends.

Man: Thank you.

(Man goes out to buy buckets and tells his friends. He places bucket outside for his own family and for any neighbors that might need it and wins a bounteous harvest of water with his faith strengthened)

[teddyaware]

I have no problem with God or with science and apparently neither does any LDS scientist. Henry Eyring, father of Apostle Henry Eyring, certainly had no problem with God or with science. He was a faithful LDS member all of his life. Galileo was Roman Catholic, Newton was an Anglican, Darwin was an Anglican, Kenneth Miller is Roman Catholic, they certainly believe(d) in God. Some 40% of all US scientists today believe in a personal God.

 

I've certainly have never claimed to be wise. However I do believe God wants us to learn everything we can about how he did/does things. Science is just one of the many ways to learn that. Science to me is just the accumulated knowledge we have so far as to how he actually did/does it. So there is plenty more to learn. We have barely scratched the very slimmest surface of what God knows, and what he wants us to know so we can become like him.

The thing I'm trying to figure out is why you seem to be so focused on lowly earthly science, something than can neither save nor exalt any man, when the scriptures repeatedly attest to an even higher and more eternally beneficial science to focus upon -- the laws of science governing the Celestial Kingdom. Hopefully I'm only suffering from a misimpression that you seem to present yourself here as someone who relies upon and trusts the laws governing this earthly telestial kingdom more than you do the laws of science of the Celestial Kingdom? And if your personal life you do put as much focus on the laws of the Celestial Kingdom as you do on the laws governing this telestial kingdom, it would be a genuine pleasure to see you change up your approach so that we can have the pleasure of learning Spiritual truths and Celestial wisdom at your hand.

There is not a single prophet recorded in the scriptures who uses your earthbound approach to the discovery of truth, and I think at least one of the reasons why this is so is because the earthbound approach is utterly powerless to redeem souls and minister salvation. Compared to the principles of eternal salvation of the Celestial Kingdom, the science of the telestial kingdom appears like unto the light of a distant star in comparison to the brightness of the glorious noonday sun on the first day of summer. It would indeed be wonderful to have someone with so much wisdom, such as you, speak and teach in the language and spirit of the scriptures.

Edited February 26, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

A prayer from a man of hyper-literal faith who needs to overspectacularize miracles:

Man: Oh Lord, we have run out of water and require water to live. Please miraculously fill this bucket for me.

God: On it, I knew you would need this before the world was. There are clouds forming now.

Man: I have just poured dirt into this bucket. Please turn it into water,

God: Ummmmmm.....why? The rain is on the way. You will not be able to hold as much water with that dirt in there. It will also be muddy.

Man: I will leave it here in full faith that you will fill it.

God: Seriously, dump the dirt out.

(Man leaves bucket in porch underneath an awning)

God: Why......why would you........fine, I will get some wind on that to blow it into your bucket I guess.

(The rain falls and the wind blows it into the bucket. The man comes out later to his bucket of mud and surmises that God made chocolate water and drinks it down and his stomach hurts later.

-----------------------------------------------

Regular person of faith:

Man: Lord, we need water to live. Can you send it by rain or by miracle or tell me where to dig for it.

God: Certainly. It will rain soon. Tell your friends.

Man: Thank you.

(Man goes out to buy buckets and tells his friends. He places bucket outside for his own family and for any neighbors that might need it and wins a bounteous harvest of water with his faith strengthened)

In light of the scriptures, this is utterly silly. How could one possibly "overly spectaclarize" the instantaneous transformation of mounds of dust into millions of fully glorified and immortal inheritors of the celestial kingdom, or the transformation of this earth into a giant urim and thummim of supernal celestial light?

Was the usually understated Joseph Smith overly spectaclarizing when he said the following?

16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being—just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

 

[teddyaware]

The Lord had strong words for Oliver Cowdery when he thought only to ask and not work it out in his own mind.

 

D&C 9:7-8.

 

 7. Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

 8. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must ^astudy it out in your ^bmind; then you must ^cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your ^dbosom shall ^eburn within you; therefore, you shall ^ffeel that it is right.

In case you don't realize it, this counsel was given to someone who was attempting to miraculously translate the plates of the Book of Mormon by the power of the Spirit, something strictly earthbound scientists would say is a load of superstitious nonsense.

[thesometimesaint]

The thing I'm trying to figure out is why you seem to be so focused on lowly earthly science, something than can neither save nor exalt any man, when the scriptures repeatedly attest to an even higher and more eternally beneficial science to focus upon -- the laws of science governing the Celestial Kingdom. Hopefully I'm only suffering from a misimpression that you seem to present yourself here as someone who relies upon and trusts the laws governing this earthly telestial kingdom more than you do the laws of science of the Celestial Kingdom? And if your personal life you do put as much focus on the laws of the Celestial Kingdom as you do on the laws governing this telestial kingdom, it would be a genuine pleasure to see you change up your approach so that we can have the pleasure of learning Spiritual truths and Celestial wisdom at your hand.

There is not a single prophet recorded in the scriptures who uses your earthbound approach to the discovery of truth, and I think at least one of the reasons why this is so is because the earthbound approach is utterly powerless to redeem souls and minister salvation. Compared to the principles of eternal salvation of the Celestial Kingdom, the science of the telestial kingdom appears like unto the light of a distant star in comparison to the brightness of the glorious noonday sun on the first day of summer. It would indeed be wonderful to have someone with so much wisdom, such as you, speak and teach in the language and spirit of the scriptures.

 

Here you are using one of the most scientifically sophisticated instruments ever developed by man, and you have to ask that question. I don't go to science to save my spirit. That will be there regardless of if I have a physical body or not. But if I want a drink of water science is a pretty good place to start. Just as if I want with communicate to you a good way to do it is through this man made device called a computer using a man made system called the internet.

 

Where have I ever declaimed the spiritual? I just have no way to put it into science.

 

Why are you dissing science? Would you prefer to live in the European Dark Ages?