Evidence For Human Evolution (Simple)

[Rob Osborn]

I disrespectfully disagree.

I respectfully respect your disrespectful disagreement.

[The Nehor]

I respectfully respect your disrespectful disagreement.

 

I respectfully disparage your disingenuously respectful respect of my sincere disrespectful disagreement.

 

Also, you're wrong.

[Rob Osborn]

I respectfully disparage your disingenuously respectful respect of my sincere disrespectful disagreement.

 

Also, you're wrong.

I love you my fellow brother. I am right though in regards to where the church officially stands on the matter- Adam is not the result of evolution from an animal.

[The Nehor]

I love you my fellow brother. I am right though in regards to where the church officially stands on the matter- Adam is not the result of evolution from an animal.

 

Except again....it doesn't actually say that. It does make it explicit that the spirit is created by God and that we are his children but nothing about how the physical body was created.

[Rob Osborn]

Except again....it doesn't actually say that. It does make it explicit that the spirit is created by God and that we are his children but nothing about how the physical body was created.

But it does. Here is the passage again-

" It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

You do realize through biology that a "man" can only come from a "man" do you not? So, according to the above statement, it sets out to reveal the divine truth that Adam was the first "man" and that there was no "man" before him that came through a line of evolution from the animals. Later it speaks and affirms the truth that man is the direct and lineal offspring of deity. Man did not come about through Darwinian evolution. This 1909 statement came out to refute Darwinian theory regarding mans origins.

[The Nehor]

But it does. Here is the passage again-

" It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

You do realize through biology that a "man" can only come from a "man" do you not? So, according to the above statement, it sets out to reveal the divine truth that Adam was the first "man" and that there was no "man" before him that came through a line of evolution from the animals. Later it speaks and affirms the truth that man is the direct and lineal offspring of deity. Man did not come about through Darwinian evolution. This 1909 statement came out to refute Darwinian theory regarding mans origins.

 

If God is a man, and He is what being the Man of Holiness, then Adam was not the first man in the absolute sense. You seem to want Adam being the first man to mean there could be no man before him but God existed and worlds without number that have carried the children of God before have passed away. How can Adam be the absolute first?

 

Unless you take Joseph F. Smith at his word there and take that to mean that he is the primal parent of our race and our world and our round of creation which he is. So basically your interpretation is in direct contradiction to the scriptures making you a heretic.

 

[Rob Osborn]

If God is a man, and He is what being the Man of Holiness, then Adam was not the first man in the absolute sense. You seem to want Adam being the first man to mean there could be no man before him but God existed and worlds without number that have carried the children of God before have passed away. How can Adam be the absolute first?

 

Unless you take Joseph F. Smith at his word there and take that to mean that he is the primal parent of our race and our world and our round of creation which he is. So basically your interpretation is in direct contradiction to the scriptures making you a heretic.

 

He is the first man of all men of our race here on this race. Of course God is a man too otherwise how could Adam be created unless he come from a a man also? Here- http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/11-adams-father-who-was-the-father-of-adam-do-we-have-a-royal-heritage/

[The Nehor]

He is the first man of all men of our race here on this race.

 

What?

[MormonFreeThinker]

It seems pretty straightforward that there was no evolution of man from the 1909 statement. If one cant get that then they are not reading the text right. The earth as far as the matter goes is who knows and who really cares how old. The only part that really matters is how long the temporal age of the earth is (how long death has been occurring). We are told that the temporal age of the earth will be 7,000 years. That means that before 7,000 years ago, there was no death whatsoever on the earth. Using this God givenn knowledge I can thus ascertain that when such and such says this animal lived so many millions of years ago I can automatically discard it. The same for human habitation- if it goues beyond the 7,000 years then it too is discarded. Its that simple.

 

"It seems pretty straightforward that there was no evolution of man"

That is your opinion, I have my opinion, and I respect your opinion. 

 

"That means that before 7,000 years ago, there was no death whatsoever on the earth"

 

The new seminary manual doesn't say anything about no death before the Fall, the seminary manual says, 

"the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation." (p. 280) 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014?lang=eng

 

"Using this God givenn knowledge I can thus ascertain that when such and such says this animal lived so many millions of years ago I can automatically discard it."

 

Was Elder Talmage wrong? Was Elder BH Roberts wrong? What about the powerful evidence that proves the Earth is old and that animal death has happened for millions of years? It you are not going to believe in human evolution, fine, but you should at least believe in animal evolution, and a that animal death has happened for millions of years. You have no official statement, the church clearly does not have an official position about that. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

What?

He is the first man of our race on this planet.

[Rob Osborn]

"It seems pretty straightforward that there was no evolution of man"

That is your opinion, I have my opinion, and I respect your opinion. 

 

"That means that before 7,000 years ago, there was no death whatsoever on the earth"

 

The new seminary manual doesn't say anything about no death before the Fall, the seminary manual says, 

"the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation." (p. 280) 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-seminary-teacher-manual-2014?lang=eng

 

"Using this God givenn knowledge I can thus ascertain that when such and such says this animal lived so many millions of years ago I can automatically discard it."

 

Was Elder Talmage wrong? Was Elder BH Roberts wrong? What about the powerful evidence that proves the Earth is old and that animal death has happened for millions of years? It you are not going to believe in human evolution, fine, but you should at least believe in animal evolution, and a that animal death has happened for millions of years. You have no official statement, the church clearly does not have an official position about that.

The temporal age of the earth is 7,000 years. Temporal has to do with its temporary or pertaining to time and death. Adam and Eve caused the fall which brought mortality into the world for all of the creation. There is no proof that animals evolved nor is there proof of life happening for millions of consecutive years. Its all conjecture.

[MormonFreeThinker]

The temporal age of the earth is 7,000 years. Temporal has to do with its temporary or pertaining to time and death. Adam and Eve caused the fall which brought mortality into the world for all of the creation. There is no proof that animals evolved nor is there proof of life happening for millions of consecutive years. Its all conjecture.

 

"Temporal has to do with its temporary or pertaining to time and death"

that is not explained in the seminary manual. 

 

"he fall which brought mortality into the world for all of the creation."

Even plants? What did they eat? So do you have an official church statement by the first presidency that says that?  or a scripture that says that animals didn't die? 

 

"There is no proof that animals evolved"

Even the most respected Young Earth Creation organization admits that Evolution happened in the family level, but they believe it happened in a short period of time, after the Flood.

 

"evidence suggests in most instances it’s the family level" 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ark/counting-kinds

 

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances." 

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/

 

many micro-Evolutions = Macro-Evolution

many small changes = a Big change 

 

"nor is there proof of life happening for millions of consecutive years"

Yes there is, all Biologists, Geologists, and Paleontologists doctors agree, except for few (extremely few) fundamentalist Christian scientists. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Helen47]

The ancestors of the Amercican indians were crossing the Bering strait 40000 years ago. hard to see how the earth is only 7000 years old. Rob, even a lot of LDS scolars would disagree with your view. You are a hangover from the Joseph Fielding Smith days.

[Tacenda]

I'm still trying to figure out what poor undead animal they had to skin to get their coats of skins!?!?

Oh, that's a good one, never even occurred to me.

[halconero]

The temporal age of the earth is 7,000 years. Temporal has to do with its temporary or pertaining to time and death. Adam and Eve caused the fall which brought mortality into the world for all of the creation. There is no proof that animals evolved nor is there proof of life happening for millions of consecutive years. Its all conjecture.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sumerians-look-on-in-confusion-as-god-creates-worl,2879/

[Rob Osborn]

"Temporal has to do with its temporary or pertaining to time and death"

that is not explained in the seminary manual. 

 

"he fall which brought mortality into the world for all of the creation."

Even plants? What did they eat? So do you have an official church statement by the first presidency that says that?  or a scripture that says that animals didn't die? 

 

"There is no proof that animals evolved"

Even the most respected Young Earth Creation organization admits that Evolution happened in the family level, but they believe it happened in a short period of time, after the Flood.

 

"evidence suggests in most instances it’s the family level" 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ark/counting-kinds

 

"It is important to understand that the word kind used in Genesis 1 seems to represent something closer to the “family” level of classification in most instances." 

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2012/11/01/how-many-kinds/

 

many micro-Evolutions = Macro-Evolution

many small changes = a Big change 

 

"nor is there proof of life happening for millions of consecutive years"

Yes there is, all Biologists, Geologists, and Paleontologists doctors agree, except for few (extremely few) fundamentalist Christian scientists.

Look up "temporal" in dictionary- of or pertaining to time. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.

Micro-evolution=variation within species

Many micro-evolution=more variation within species.

The problem is that there is no actual proof that these small changes lead to entirely new and different species over very long periods of time. Its all conjecture.

[Rob Osborn]

The ancestors of the Amercican indians were crossing the Bering strait 40000 years ago. hard to see how the earth is only 7000 years old. Rob, even a lot of LDS scolars would disagree with your view. You are a hangover from the Joseph Fielding Smith days.

No, just a good ol mormon who still believes in our doctrine.

[Rob Osborn]

Oh, that's a good one, never even occurred to me.

Kind of interesting that it wasn't until after they had eaten the fruit that the skins were made. It was said that they would fall when they ate of the tree. So perhaps the world was already in a fallen condition at that point.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Look up "temporal" in dictionary- of or pertaining to time. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.

Micro-evolution=variation within species

Many micro-evolution=more variation within species.

The problem is that there is no actual proof that these small changes lead to entirely new and different species over very long periods of time. Its all conjecture.

 

"problem is that there is no actual proof that these small changes lead to entirely new and different species"

 

What do you expect? A crocoduck? Of course you won't find a half duck and half crocodile, but you find small changes in the fossil record and DNA evidence. Can you name a single modern Biologist or Paleontologist doctor that does not believe in Evolution (except a Christian fundamentalist)? How about a Mormon? 

 

Seminary manual

"the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation." (p. 280)

Edited April 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

"problem is that there is no actual proof that these small changes lead to entirely new and different species"

 

What do you expect? A crocoduck? Of course you won't find a half duck and half crocodile, but you find small changes in the fossil record and DNA evidence. Can you name a single modern Biologist or Paleontologist doctor that does not believe in Evolution (except a Christian fundamentalist)? How about a Mormon? 

 

Seminary manual

"the 7,000 years refers to the time since the Fall of Adam and Eve. It is not referring to the actual age of the earth including the periods of creation." (p. 280)

Crocodiles that are supposed hundereds of millions years old remain virtually unchanged today- more proof that evolution is false.

It doesn't matter how old the earth is or how long the creation took, there was no death until the fall. You can argue all you want from a mainstream science position but the Lord does not take a mainstream approach

[MormonFreeThinker]

Crocodiles that are supposed hundereds of millions years old remain virtually unchanged today- more proof that evolution is false.

It doesn't matter how old the earth is or how long the creation took, there was no death until the fall. You can argue all you want from a mainstream science position but the Lord does not take a mainstream approach

 

"No Death before the Fall"

But the church does not have an official position.

We now know that mainstream science is correct about Native American DNA, the first Presidency approved the new essay. 

Edited April 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

What's so great about Westminster Abby?

 

Not much if your not Anglican. Pretty great if you are. Charles Darwin was Anglican.

The Anglican bishop of Carlisle, who on the Sunday following Darwin’s funeral in a sermon preached in the abbey, said: It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God….

[thesometimesaint]

Crocodiles that are supposed hundereds of millions years old remain virtually unchanged today- more proof that evolution is false.

It doesn't matter how old the earth is or how long the creation took, there was no death until the fall. You can argue all you want from a mainstream science position but the Lord does not take a mainstream approach

 

Crocodiles are no such thing. They are just supremely well adapted to their environment. There is a reason we don't find Crocodiles in the wilds of Alaska.

[Ahab]

How about if the statement included: "Adam did not descend from any existing life already on the planet earth."

Hmmmmm.....yeah, I think that would do it.

How about if the Church had our Father asking our Lord if Man was on this planet along with all existing life already on this planet after our Lord and Michael had created this planet, with our Lord saying No to that question, and then had our Lord and Michael come down to this planet to put Man on this planet with Michael having his name changed to Adam.

Hmmmmm..... would that do it for you?

It is worth nothing and you don't get to define the official position of the Church no matter how many times you dogmatically repeat it like a broken record.

Yeah, repeating a false assertion never does do anything to make it a true assertion, does it.

[Rob Osborn]

Crocodiles are no such thing. They are just supremely well adapted to their environment. There is a reason we don't find Crocodiles in the wilds of Alaska.

Mere conjecture. It would be very nice to be an evolutionist and just make things up on the fly.