Elder John A. Widtsoe On The Flood (Full Context)

[Calm]

God is not a concern of evolution, and neither is chance.

That was meant to be change, not chance.

I know God does not have to be part of the conversation about evolution, but he can be claimed as the cause of it, the one who set up the parameters that result in what is the "fittest" and thus ultimately directed it. Iow, evolution can be a concern of God.

But what I was referring to was an old earth theory where when he deems it appropriate, God steps in to create a new species (whether by tweaking an existing one or 'from scratch'), thus change is God directed with a hands on approach where evolution, if God is the creator of the process, is a hands off approach.

Iow, not believing in evolution does not require a young earth belief.

[thesometimesaint]

That was meant to be change, not chance.

I know God does not have to be part of the conversation about evolution, but he can be claimed as the cause of it, the one who set up the parameters that result in what is the "fittest" and thus ultimately directed it. Iow, evolution can be a concern of God.

But what I was referring to was an old earth theory where when he deems it appropriate, God steps in to create a new species (whether by tweaking an existing one or 'from scratch'), thus change is God directed with a hands on approach where evolution, if God is the creator of the process, is a hands off approach.

Iow, not believing in evolution does not require a young earth belief.

 

Sorry I misunderstood you when you posted chane. I assumed it was chance, and not change. Funny how one little letter makes all the difference.

 

It isn't that God is or isn't part of evolution. As a scientist I can't posit him into science. As a LDS Christian I'm perfectly happy with him directing it. I feel as though I have a pretty good understanding of why God did it. Now I want to know exactly how he did it.

 

For whatever reason God seems to exclusively work with what is here over vast(to us) stretches of time. Philosophically what is a few billion years to eternal beings? 

 

I don't "believe" in evolution. I merely accept it as the best explanation we have so far as to how life changed once it got here.

[ERayR]

Sorry to say this but you're wasting your time. For those that believe in a "young earth", evidence does not fit into the equation.

 

 

What about those who do not believe in a young earth?

[danielwoods]

How do you observe a slow Macro-Evolution in animals or plants?  What observable evidence would convince you that a slow macro-evolution happen? Please make a prediction about animals or plants. 

 

and what if Big Changes will no longer happen? The Creation is completed, so what would convince you that Big Changes happened in the past? 

 

 

I think there are more former Young Earth Creationists than Former Theistic Evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists.  

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov02.html

 

Can you name a former Evolutionists that changed his mind after becoming a Biologist? That will be very interesting to know. Can you name a former Old Earth Creationist that changed his mind after becoming a Geologist? 

 

 

 

Bacteria does Evolve, that is why Medical researchers are very concerned, but you have to remember that Bacteria is a Kingdom, not species or a "kind".  It took bacteria about two Billion years to evolve to the first primitive animals.  

 

What observable evidence would there be of something that never occurred, and doesn't occur? 

 

The failing test of the predictions of evolution are the limits we observe in how far the genetics can be pushed before the organism dies as a result. If macro-evolution were true, there wouldn't be any limits. 

 

The predictions of creationists are that there are limits. This is what we would expect. That the creation reflects purpose given it by the creator. DNA is clear evidence of an intelligent engineer behind the origin of life. 

 

Almost all of the creationists I have read claim to be former evolutionists. 

[thesometimesaint]

What observable evidence would there be of something that never occurred, and doesn't occur? 

 

The failing test of the predictions of evolution are the limits we observe in how far the genetics can be pushed before the organism dies as a result. If macro-evolution were true, there wouldn't be any limits. 

 

The predictions of creationists are that there are limits. This is what we would expect. That the creation reflects purpose given it by the creator. DNA is clear evidence of an intelligent engineer behind the origin of life. 

 

Almost all of the creationists I have read claim to be former evolutionists. 

 

Classic Argument from Ignorance.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

Incorrect. Evolution successfully predicted many plants and animals. Of course there are limits. Most changes in DNA do not result in death of the organism

SEE Evolution Explained

 

No one has ever doubted the ability of scientists to make predictions. Creationism starts with a conclusion and then posits a cause. In this case a creator. That is a classic Watchmakers Analogy it has been demonstrated non-falsifiable. The exact opposite of science.

 

Magical Thinking is not unknown in scientists. Though we do try to limit its effect by repeated testing.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

[MormonFreeThinker]

What observable evidence would there be of something that never occurred, and doesn't occur? 

 

 

But my question is, what would convince you that Macro-Evolution happened in the past? 

If the Creation of Genesis is completed, we as believers don't have to expect big changes in the future, but it I am talking about the past. 

Edited August 3, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

But my question is, what would convince you that Macro-Evolution happened in the past? 

If the Creation of Genesis is completed, we as believers don't have to expect big changes in the future, but it I am talking about the past. 

 

Humans are still evolving.

SEE

[danielwoods]

But my question is, what would convince you that Macro-Evolution happened in the past? 

If the Creation of Genesis is completed, we as believers don't have to expect big changes in the future, but it I am talking about the past.

The mix of genesis with evolution is confusing. Genesis stated it was done in six days. Evolution, if true, would still be happening.

What past evidence would convince me? I suppose I was convinced at one time, and the strength of the evidence convinced me otherwise. We humans have a remarkable ability to imagine thing that are not actually there. Like thinking that a bunch of fossils are physically related by a system that hasn't ever been able to create any thing close.

So, evidence from the past has to be analyzed critically based on what we know today.

[thesometimesaint]

The mix of genesis with evolution is confusing. Genesis stated it was done in six days. Evolution, if true, would still be happening.

What past evidence would convince me? I suppose I was convinced at one time, and the strength of the evidence convinced me otherwise. We humans have a remarkable ability to imagine thing that are not actually there. Like thinking that a bunch of fossils are physically related by a system that hasn't ever been able to create any thing close.

So, evidence from the past has to be analyzed critically based on what we know today.

 

Genesis was never intended to be a science book. Evolution is still happening, even in humans.

http://www.livescience.com/19993-humans-evolving-natural-selection.html

 

The fossils are evidence of evolution. What are you talking about. We observe evolution in nature, and in the lab.

We have created RNA in the lab.

http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

 

We have created XNA(DNA) in the lab.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-19/artificial-dna-can-replicate-in-lab-researchers-find.html

 

That is exactly what we do.

 

List of scientific organizations that reject ID.

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

 

List of scientific organizations that accept evolution

http://ncse.com/media/voices/science

Edited August 3, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Zakuska]

That is incorrect. http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

I'm not quite sure what exactly you are claiming is not correct, but if it floats your boat to argue with satellite data, then all the more power to you.

Latest Data Shows That Arctic Sea Ice Volume Has Increased

05.02.2014 20:45 Age: 179 days

Satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice is getting thicker as Antartic sea Ice extent continues to expand to near record levels, according to a report issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, in Boulder Colorado, 5 February 2014.

Satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice was 50 per cent thicker in Autumn 2013 than it was in Autumn 2012, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Data from the European Space Agency's (ESA's) CryoSat satellite which is equipped to measure the thickness of sea ice using radars shows that Arctic sea ice volumes grew by 50 per cent last year. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent.

In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.” NSIDC data also shows that the decline in Arctic sea ice extent in January slowed to below the long-term rate of decline.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html Edited August 4, 2014 by Zakuska

[ERayR]

Humans are still evolving.

 

 

 

And they are still humans.

Edited August 4, 2014 by ERayR

[bcuzbcuz]

I'm not quite sure what exactly you are claiming is not correct, but if it floats your boat to argue with satellite data, then all the more power to you.http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html

A careful reading of the actual article from the NSIDC reports that 2013 had record increases over 2012, but the average over extended periods (10-20 years) still shows an average decline. Instead of just showing data, how about you giving your interpretation of what you think the data shows?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Humans are still evolving.

 

I don't expect a population of humans to Evolve to something totally different, I say that from a theological point of view, not a scientific argument. 

Edited August 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

I'm not quite sure what exactly you are claiming is not correct, but if it floats your boat to argue with satellite data, then all the more power to you.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html

 

To told tss "your non-accredited and outdated source"

and now you link to reportingclimatescience, they admit "Most of this research is consistent with the mainstream consensus on climate change; but some is not" 

 

They admit there is a consensus, but this thread is not about climate science, so please stop.  

Edited August 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

Almost all of the creationists I have read claim to be former evolutionists. 

 

How many of them are biologists?  Please prove it, it will be very interesting to learn about Biologists that are former Evolutionists. 

 

 

The mix of genesis with evolution is confusing. Genesis stated it was done in six days. Evolution, if true, would still be happening.

 

Evolution is happening, but we don't have to expect big changes if he creation in Genesis is completed. 

Most of your arguments are for atheists, not Theistic Evolutionists. 

 

So what would convinced you that macro-evolution happened in the past? 

[Zakuska]

A careful reading of the actual article from the NSIDC reports that 2013 had record increases over 2012, but the average over extended periods (10-20 years) still shows an average decline. Instead of just showing data, how about you giving your interpretation of what you think the data shows?

  

That what global warming alarmist models and wishful thinking predict is supposed to happen (eg. no polar ice caps by 2013 LOL) doesn't follow what actually does/did happen (record ice levels in 2013 ROFL).

To told tss "your non-accredited and outdated source"

and now you link to reportingclimatescience, they admit "Most of this research is consistent with the mainstream consensus on climate change; but some is not" 

 

They admit there is a consensus, but this thread is not about climate science, so please stop.

Nor is the topic about evolution, but it's your thread so whatever. I'm out.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't expect a population of humans to Evolve to something totally different, I say that from a theological point of view, not a scientific argument. 

 

If, and that's a mighty big if, that happened they would no longer be humans. The human genome is pretty stable. With minor differences we haven't change much in almost 250,000 years. Theologically would it bother me if other creatures were also in the Celestial Kingdom? Not really, as long as I'm there.

[thesometimesaint]

  

That what global warming alarmist models and wishful thinking predict is supposed to happen (eg. no polar ice caps by 2013 LOL) doesn't follow what actually does/did happen (record ice levels in 2013 ROFL).

Nor is the topic about evolution, but it's your thread so whatever. I'm out.

 

I'm not an alarmist. All that I have ever said is that it is a problem to be solved. The sooner the better.

 

Both poles are losing ice

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

[danielwoods]

How many of them are biologists? Please prove it, it will be very interesting to learn about Biologists that are former Evolutionists.

Evolution is happening, but we don't have to expect big changes if he creation in Genesis is completed.

Most of your arguments are for atheists, not Theistic Evolutionists.

So what would convinced you that macro-evolution happened in the past?

Since I only have my phone now, off the top of my head Behe is a micro-biologist and michael Denton is a biochemist. I will have to search later.

For evolutionists there is no difference between macro and micro changes, which is why the term get ridiculed. So the idea that evolution is still happening to day, means Marco changes should be observable, at least in part when observing hundreds of thousands generation of bacteria.

As to your question, I think I answered it the best I can.

By the way I am traveling thru eastern Utah, and observing the evidence for the flood first hand. It is awesome.

Edited August 4, 2014 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

Since I only have my phone now, off the top of my head Behe is a micro-biologist and michael Denton is a biochemist. I will have to search later.

For evolutionists there is no difference between macro and micro changes, which is why the term get ridiculed. So the idea that evolution is still happening to day, means Marco changes should be observable, at least in part when observing hundreds of thousands generation of bacteria.

As to your question, I think I answered it the best I can.

By the way I am traveling thru eastern Utah, and observing the evidence for the flood first hand. It is awesome.

 

Michael Behe has been debunked.

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

 

Michael Denton has been debunked

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis

 

Macro-evolution is the same thing as Micro-evolution over time.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

 

No one is disputing that there have been numerous floods, even in eastern Utah. A Global Flood some 4000 years ago as presented in the Bible is a physical impossibility.

[Rodeo]

Resurrection is a physical impossibility and yet we believe it.

[thesometimesaint]

Resurrection is a physical impossibility and yet we believe it.

 

Appealing to belief isn't a good way to establish science.

"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle".

Galileo the Theist

[Zakuska]

I'm not an alarmist. All that I have ever said is that it is a problem to be solved. The sooner the better.

Both poles are losing ice

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your mantra TSS, repetition doesn't make it true. My last link was directly referencing the satelite data for 2013-2014. Which shows Arctic sea ice is 50% thiker this year than last ,and antartica had the lowest recorded temperature record in 2013 as well as record levels of ice extent. So there's no need to link your pseudo science website to try and prove your point. Do you disagree with the satellite data? Edited August 4, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

You do know the difference between sea ice and land ice don't you?

SEE http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

SEE http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/antarctica_is_losing_ice_sheet.asp

 

Greenland land ice.

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

 

Arctic sea ice.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-sea-ice-will-be-among-10-lowest-17836

 

Antarctic land ice.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

Antarctic sea ice.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm

 

Antarctic is warming.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-slows-antarcticas-coldest-currents/

 

2013-2014 appears to be an anomalous year. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

  

That what global warming alarmist 

 

There is no room here for your labels and your conservative or libertarian agenda. 

I don't have a political agenda, I am an independent that voted for Romney just because he is Mormon,  I mostly don't care about politics. 

 

I am objective, I follow the scientific evidence, and the overwhelming scientific consensus, and for the moment the evidence points to Global Warming. Now please stop, we already debated this topic before and the thread got locked.

Edited August 4, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker