Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Uncle Dale]

 

...which was the result of the firmament falling...

 

 

Ah! So that's where the firmament went to?

I've always wondered why it wasn't visible from the

international space station.

 

 

Then again, perhaps it is still there, and we must

await the description provided by a latter day

astronaut who can discern by the Spirit and see

with the eyes of faith.

 

UD

[ERayR]

SO glad I believe in the Adam-God doctrine. 

Much preferable...

 

No need to make all those adjustments either.

[ERayR]

Ah! So that's where the firmament went to?

I've always wondered why it wasn't visible from the

international space station.

 

 

Then again, perhaps it is still there, and we must

await the description provided by a latter day

astronaut who can discern by the Spirit and see

with the eyes of faith.

 

UD

 

Ridicule does not become you.  You are better than that.

[pogi]

SO glad I believe in the Adam-God doctrine. 

Much preferable...

 

SO glad I don't

 

No need to make all those adjustments either.

 

Oh there are adjustments, just of a different sort.

 

Just curious, if Adam was God the Father, how is Christ the "only begotten son of God" in the flesh?

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[Rob Osborn]

I try to be very open minded and open eared to both sides.  I will be as unbiased as possible, I expect the same from you.

 

Rule #2 - If a scientist is discredited, it cannot be assumed that they are being discredited based on "what side he's on", but rather on the merit of his claims and support of his evidence. 

 

Show me the evidence.

 

Rule #3 - I don't want links to pages and pages of documents to read.  I want you to spell it out for me with a link for verification, or use direct concise quotes from the links.

Lets get a for instance here- Suppose I use a paper and link to http://www.discovery.org/id/ are you going to automatically say that isnt science and discrdit it on that alone as has always happened? I mean really, whats the point of debate if we just shoot back and forth trying to make false statements on what is and what is not science based solely off of the side they are on? I will be honest with you- there is no point to debate if it always goes to the same place of defining what is science and what is not science and if God fits into it. I have no further desire to debate if we cannot agree that God can and should be included in science debates.

[ERayR]

SO glad I don't

 

 

Oh there are adjustments, just of a different sort.

 

Just curious, if Adam was God the Father, how is Christ the "only begotten son of God" in the flesh?

 

For me that is unanswered so far.  I have and idea that it is generational and is problem only in trying to reconcile our protestant view of the Godhead.  It, however, one of those things that is not foremost on my list of things to worry about.

[Uncle Dale]

Ridicule does not become you.  You are better than that.

 

Easy questions for anybody to answer.

 

(1) Was there ever a firmament?

(2) If there was one, what happened to it?

(3) Is it still in place now, where it was in Noah's day?

 

UD

[pogi]

Cal offered one scenario. If my memory serves me, it wouldn't exactly explain the data, but I'm not really at a place where I want to quibble about it.

 

In the flood model as I understand it, both the firmament in the sky and the fountains of the deep added to the water on the Earth. The fountains of the deep are likely underwater volcanic activity, which would be warm moist air. The animals that were quickly frozen, weren't frozen by water, but by heavy snow/cold wind, storm, which was the result of the firmament falling. Essentially, the firmament created a greenhouse effect, where the poles were actually warmer than they are now, and the rest of the Earth was more tropical than it is now. 

 

You asked about different sizes. No I'm not referencing evolution. Rather, the net effect of having more radiation hitting the planet with the firmament gone, is shorter life spans. For some animals this means they don't grow as large, and there is less vegetation to eat. 

 

A lot of speculation with no biblical or scientific evidence to back it up.

 

The firmament was gone and Noah and all the animals survived this?

 

I am confused as to how "warmer poles" and "more tropical" earth leads to an "ice age".  If the earth was totally covered in flood water, then the animals would have had to freeze in the flood water.  Everything would have had to be covered in water for a proper baptism of water.

[JLHPROF]

Just curious, if Adam was God the Father, how is Christ the "only begotten son of God" in the flesh?

 

Because he was the father of Christ's physical body as well as his spiritual...

[pogi]

For me that is unanswered so far.  I have and idea that it is generational and is problem only in trying to reconcile our protestant view of the Godhead.  It, however, one of those things that is not foremost on my list of things to worry about.

 

That's fine, but like I said, "adjustments" are required for either theory.  Don't discount one because it doesn't fall perfectly in line with everything else.  Nothing is that easy.

[Calm]

Because he was the father of Christ's physical body as well as his spiritual...

But wouldn't that have been the same for Abel, Cain, Seth and his other children?

[pogi]

Because he was the father of Christ's physical body as well as his spiritual...

 

Exactly!

 

If Adam was God the Father, than Cain, Abel, Seth, etc. were also both spiritually AND physically begotten of God.  Therefore Christ could not be the "only begotten son" in the flesh.

 

Edit:  Cal beat me to the punch.

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

Lets get a for instance here- Suppose I use a paper and link to http://www.discovery.org/id/ are you going to automatically say that isnt science and discrdit it on that alone as has always happened? I mean really, whats the point of debate if we just shoot back and forth trying to make false statements on what is and what is not science based solely off of the side they are on? I will be honest with you- there is no point to debate if it always goes to the same place of defining what is science and what is not science and if God fits into it. I have no further desire to debate if we cannot agree that God can and should be included in science debates.

 

I will accept any evidence, biblical or scientific regardless of their personal interpretations and beliefs - I may not agree however.   I don't know what you want me to look at in that link. 

 

Again, see rule 3 - no links without putting it in your own words or offering direct quotes.  I don't want to read through pages of crap to find what you are referring to.

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

Exactly!

 

If Adam was God the Father, than Cain, Abel, Seth, etc. were also both spiritually AND physically begotten of God.  Therefore Christ could not be the "only begotten son" in the flesh.

 

Edit:  Cal beat me to the punch.

 

But wouldn't that have been the same for Abel, Cain, Seth and his other children?

 

Ah, you are missing a piece of the puzzle.

When fathering Cain, Abel, and Seth, Adam had taken off his Godhood.  He was fallen.  They were the children of Adam, a fallen mortal being but not the children of a Celestialized God.

 

Christ is the only being procreated into flesh by a God in his resurrected exalted condition.  The only begotten by an exalted body.

Edited February 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

Ah, you are missing a piece of the puzzle.

When fathering Cain, Abel, and Seth, Adam had taken off his Godhood.  He was fallen.  They were the children of Adam, a fallen mortal being but not the children of a Celestialized God.

 

Christ is the only being procreated into flesh by a God in his resurrected exalted condition.  The only begotten by an exalted body.

 

God was fallen?  What through sin?  This seems more reasonable to you?

 

Adam (fallen god) prayed/sacrificed to and worshiped his son?  You mean there was no God of flesh and bones at the time of Adam?

 

The "adjustments" keep adding up.

Edited February 25, 2015 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

God was fallen?  What through sin?  This seems more reasonable to you?

 

Don't want to derail the thread onto Adam-God, but yes, it is very reasonable to me given both scripture and temple.

You can read the recent Adam-God thread if you want to see my reasoning and beliefs.

 

 

Adam (fallen god) prayed/sacrificed to and worshiped his son?

 

According to Adam-God Christ was not Jehovah.  Adam prayed/sacrificed to and worshipped Jehovah, not Christ.

 

But for this thread, as far as evolution goes, I find it completely incompatible with the gospel, and I find Adam-God a far better explanation.

Edited February 25, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

 

Edit:  Cal beat me to the punch.

I am actively avoiding work by hanging out on the board today.

[pogi]

I am actively avoiding work by hanging out on the board today.

You too?

[pogi]

Don't want to derail the thread onto Adam-God, but yes, it is very reasonable to me given both scripture and temple.

You can read the recent Adam-God thread if you want to see my reasoning and beliefs.

 

 

According to Adam-God Christ was not Jehovah.  Adam prayed/sacrificed to and worshipped Jehovah, not Christ.

 

But for this thread, as far as evolution goes, I find it completely incompatible with the gospel, and I find Adam-God a far better explanation.

 

I don't think it is a derail as the Adam/God theory could stand to discredit the theory of theistic evolution if found to be true.

 

I have read the other thread and better understand the theory now.  We don't have to get into it here as I don't think there would be a resolution, but if you want to offer a follow up, that is fine.   When you compare the two theories and "adjustments" that have to be made, this is BY FAR the harder pill for me to swallow:

 

Christ is not...the creator.

 

That was something you said from the other thread that is required for the Adam/God theory to be true.  I didn't think that thread was worth resurrecting, and don't know if debating it here will get us anywhere, but I have to say, those words hurt my soul in a way that is hard for me to even describe and I cannot believe it.  That is like hearing that Christ is not the savior.  The scriptural and prophetic testimony is too overwhelming for me to believe otherwise, and dare I say that I myself have a testimony of it.

 

    •    the Creator to die for all men: 2 Ne. 9:5 .

    •    Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things: Mosiah 3:8 .

    •    man to have eternal life through mercy of him who created all things: Mosiah 5:15 .

    •    I take upon me sins of world, for I have created them: Mosiah 26:23 .

    •    exercise faith in Redemption of him who created you: Alma 5:15 .

    •    thy maker, thy Redeemer: 3 Ne. 22:5 .

    •    Christ has created man after body of his spirit: Ether 3:16 .

    •    by power of his Spirit, Christ created all things, spiritual and temporal: D&C 29:30–31 .

    •    Christ spake and world was made: D&C 38:1–3 .

    •    hearken to him who laid foundations of earth and made heavens: D&C 45:1 .

    •    by the Only Begotten worlds are and were created: D&C 76:24 .

    •    Christ is light of sun and power by which it was made: D&C 88:7 .

    •    world was made by the Redeemer: D&C 93:9 .

    •    worlds without number have I created by the Son: Moses 1:33 . ( Moses 2:1 . )

    •    one like unto God says, We will go down and make an earth: Abr. 3:24 .

 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-1660-jesus-was-god-the-creator?lang=eng

 

To hear Hinckley testify of it means a lot to me.  Just look at the man...he is telling the truth!

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-012-christ-the-creator?lang=eng

 

I could probably fill 10 volumes of testimonies from the prophets to the fact that Christ is the creator.

 

Edited February 26, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

I don't think it is a derail as the Adam/God theory could stand to discredit the theory of theistic evolution if found to be true.

 

I have read the other thread and better understand the theory now.  We don't have to get into it here as I don't think there would be a resolution, but if you want to offer a follow up, that is fine.   When you compare the two theories and "adjustments" that have to be made, this is BY FAR the harder pill for me to swallow:

 

 

That was something you said from the other thread that is required for the Adam/God theory to be true.  I didn't think that thread was worth resurrecting, and don't know if debating it here will get us anywhere, but I have to say, those words hurt my soul in a way that is hard for me to even describe and I cannot believe it.  That is like hearing that Christ is not the savior.  The scriptural and prophetic testimony is too overwhelming for me to believe otherwise, and dare I say that I myself have a testimony of it.

 

    •    the Creator to die for all men: 2 Ne. 9:5 .

    •    Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things: Mosiah 3:8 .

    •    man to have eternal life through mercy of him who created all things: Mosiah 5:15 .

    •    I take upon me sins of world, for I have created them: Mosiah 26:23 .

    •    exercise faith in Redemption of him who created you: Alma 5:15 .

    •    thy maker, thy Redeemer: 3 Ne. 22:5 .

    •    Christ has created man after body of his spirit: Ether 3:16 .

    •    by power of his Spirit, Christ created all things, spiritual and temporal: D&C 29:30–31 .

    •    Christ spake and world was made: D&C 38:1–3 .

    •    hearken to him who laid foundations of earth and made heavens: D&C 45:1 .

    •    by the Only Begotten worlds are and were created: D&C 76:24 .

    •    Christ is light of sun and power by which it was made: D&C 88:7 .

    •    world was made by the Redeemer: D&C 93:9 .

    •    worlds without number have I created by the Son: Moses 1:33 . ( Moses 2:1 . )

    •    one like unto God says, We will go down and make an earth: Abr. 3:24 .

 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-1660-jesus-was-god-the-creator?lang=eng

 

To hear Hinckley testify of it means a lot to me.  Just look at the man...he is telling the truth!

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-012-christ-the-creator?lang=eng

 

I could probably fill 10 volumes of testimonies from the prophets to the fact that Christ is the creator.

 

 

I don't know if you have seen this.  I think it is good.  OOPS

 

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

Edited February 26, 2015 by ERayR

[pogi]

I don't know if you have seen this.  I think it is good.

 

Sorry, I don't see a link or anything.

 

Edit:  There it is.  Thanks, I will give it a read.

Edited February 26, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

Sorry, I don't see a link or anything.

 

I corrected it.

[pogi]

I corrected it.

 

Thanks, that is a good article and it was interesting to learn the history behind it.  I didn't find that it was an argument in favor of the teaching, but rather a history of it.  It did not resolve or even address any of my concerns about the teaching that "Christ is not the creator".  It seemed to raise further doubt about the teaching for me more than anything - The fact that if Adam was a resurrected being, he could not die, yet we all know that the consequence of eating the fruit was death.   There were several other points that raised further doubts as well.  I am glad that teaching was put to rest.

[JLHPROF]

I don't think it is a derail as the Adam/God theory could stand to discredit the theory of theistic evolution if found to be true.

 

I have read the other thread and better understand the theory now.  We don't have to get into it here as I don't think there would be a resolution, but if you want to offer a follow up, that is fine.   When you compare the two theories and "adjustments" that have to be made, this is BY FAR the harder pill for me to swallow:

 

 

That was something you said from the other thread that is required for the Adam/God theory to be true.  I didn't think that thread was worth resurrecting, and don't know if debating it here will get us anywhere, but I have to say, those words hurt my soul in a way that is hard for me to even describe and I cannot believe it.  That is like hearing that Christ is not the savior.  The scriptural and prophetic testimony is too overwhelming for me to believe otherwise, and dare I say that I myself have a testimony of it.

 

    •    the Creator to die for all men: 2 Ne. 9:5 .

    •    Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things: Mosiah 3:8 .

    •    man to have eternal life through mercy of him who created all things: Mosiah 5:15 .

    •    I take upon me sins of world, for I have created them: Mosiah 26:23 .

    •    exercise faith in Redemption of him who created you: Alma 5:15 .

    •    thy maker, thy Redeemer: 3 Ne. 22:5 .

    •    Christ has created man after body of his spirit: Ether 3:16 .

    •    by power of his Spirit, Christ created all things, spiritual and temporal: D&C 29:30–31 .

    •    Christ spake and world was made: D&C 38:1–3 .

    •    hearken to him who laid foundations of earth and made heavens: D&C 45:1 .

    •    by the Only Begotten worlds are and were created: D&C 76:24 .

    •    Christ is light of sun and power by which it was made: D&C 88:7 .

    •    world was made by the Redeemer: D&C 93:9 .

    •    worlds without number have I created by the Son: Moses 1:33 . ( Moses 2:1 . )

    •    one like unto God says, We will go down and make an earth: Abr. 3:24 .

 

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-1660-jesus-was-god-the-creator?lang=eng

 

To hear Hinckley testify of it means a lot to me.  Just look at the man...he is telling the truth!

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2011-03-012-christ-the-creator?lang=eng

 

I could probably fill 10 volumes of testimonies from the prophets to the fact that Christ is the creator.

 

 

Just three points and we will let the topic die:

 

1. I didn't say Christ wasn't the Creator on the other thread.  I said Christ wasn't JEHOVAH the Creator.  Big difference.

2. I could address each scripture listed and show how half of them aren't referring to Christ and the ones that are unarguably referring to Christ may not be referring to the kind of creation you think it does.

3. Joseph Smith taught the principle that those without physical bodies (spirits) are always subject to those with bodies.  Consider what that means for Christ in his spirit body before coming to earth.

 

But then we get into "adjustments" debates as you put it and those kind of threads answer/resolve nothing.

So since you also said

 

I am glad that teaching was put to rest.

 

we will let it go for now.  But I still fully believe and accept the Adam-God doctrine as taught by Brigham and his contemporaries regardless of the current Church position on the subject.  And I still believe it a better explanation for man than evolution.

Edited February 26, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Stargazer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Stargazer, but it seems like you believe in theistic evolution and not ID. The ID material I've encountered puts forth the idea that all forms of life came into existence with their current, irreducibly complex structure. Evolution, even guided by a diety, contradicts ID's idea of irreducible complexity.

I don't know if theistic evolution is different from ID. "Theistic" implies a Designer. Seems to me that they're the same.

As to irreducible complexity, it seems to me that IC is a form of evidence for a Designer. Would a Designer who desires to remain non-evident do things that are irreducibly complex? Does the Designer actually desire to be 100% non-evident? I don't know the answer to these questions.

Another question is whether we're dealing with labels vs registered trademarks. When the Evolutionists criticize Intelligent Design they insist upon treating it as just another form of Creationism, while the IDers try to distance themselves from it. And I understand completely.

But the chief difference between Creationism and ID is that the former are largely Young Earthers, while the latter willingly accept a 4.5 billion year old earth and evolution itself. The Darwinists' principal problem with ID is that the IDers are trying to seek evidence of a Designer in the paleontological record. This is their great sin, for which the Darwinists cannot bear them.

Myself, I don't see the problem with this.