thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 The scriptures tell us that all of us are made from the dust of the earth. Now for the logic- In LDS theology, God must have a wife in order for the "seed" of the body to go on eternally. We also believe that sexual relations and procreation extends beyond death and resurrected beings have this blessing if properly married for all eternity. The scriptures inform us that the lineage of man traces back to God himself, Adam being the literal son of God. God made Adam in his own image using the very seed from his body to create him. As such, we all are of divine heritage, all having the very seed of deity within each one of us. We also thus become His heirs in eternity. Besides that, the promise that the seeds continue is literally defined as the seeds of the physical body. We are created in the very image of God. This means that just as we have reproductive organs so does God. Just as we can procreate and make man in our image, so too can God do the same. Why would God thus use a process to create man in his own image with the seed of God within him in any other way than what we know to be scientifically true? I must have missed that part when my parents taught me about the birds and bee's. When I accidentally cut myself while shaving why is it that I don't bleed dust?
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Do you think that's the case with all forms of life? Do all paramecia, for example, arise from some original paramecium that came from another planet?I have to give you props for taking a position that seems more at home in the Journal of Discourses than in the correlated manuals of today.Let me put it this way- I do not believe anything that can be defined as "life" came from any source preceding it that also is life. Scientific study has so far shown without any doubts that life only comes from life preceding it. I believe in a God that uses laws to work within. It would be absolutely stange and against all known laws if life came from some random source lacking an intelligence. Of interest here is the fact that what we define as "intelligence" has always and only been documented as coming from an intelligent source that precedes it. There has NEVER been even ONE CASE where we have witnessed something possessing intelligence, be it a code, language, design, etc, that has arisen from non-intelligent processes. This is absolutely paramount in understanding our purpose here in realizing that life here on this planet is entirely the cause of it being designed for that very purpose by something or someone intelligent. ... Bottom line- life proves there must be a God.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean the rest of us are equally ignorant. IE; Sure God could have done any number of things. ID is predicated on the idea that the Christian God did something. It is impossible to prove God didn't. That is a classic argument from ignorance. Modern biology is predicated on Common Descent. We have clues as how life was first formed(Abiogenesis) but not enough to conclude that is exactly how it happened. BTW Evolution doesn't either but there is far more evidence for it than Abiogenesis has at this time. Obviously. You are just interested in maintaining your own ignorance. EVERY example so far proposed by the Creationists as a marker for so called intelligent design has been debunked. You keep linking to Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis. He claims that God says so in Answers in Genesis. That is a religion parading as science.Ignorant? Look in the mirror would you! I am only sataing what we can test and observe- life only comes from life. That I can test, document, etc. There is no ignorance in that fact! Your ignorance absolutely is the fact that you are trying to provide evidence for something that has no evidence. the best thing you have is an over abundance of ignorance in chasing a theory that has been proven wrong at every turn!
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Let me put it this way- I do not believe anything that can be defined as "life" came from any source preceding it that also is life. Scientific study has so far shown without any doubts that life only comes from life preceding it. I believe in a God that uses laws to work within. It would be absolutely stange and against all known laws if life came from some random source lacking an intelligence. Of interest here is the fact that what we define as "intelligence" has always and only been documented as coming from an intelligent source that precedes it. There has NEVER been even ONE CASE where we have witnessed something possessing intelligence, be it a code, language, design, etc, that has arisen from non-intelligent processes. This is absolutely paramount in understanding our purpose here in realizing that life here on this planet is entirely the cause of it being designed for that very purpose by something or someone intelligent. ... Bottom line- life proves there must be a God. Reducio Absurdum
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I must have missed that part when my parents taught me about the birds and bee's. When I accidentally cut myself while shaving why is it that I don't bleed dust?What happens to your dried blood? It turn back to dust. What happens to your dead flesh? It turns back to dust. What happens to your skeleton rotting in the ground? It turns back into dust.
Rob Osborn Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Reducio AbsurdumThis just shows your ignorance to the facts.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Ignorant? Look in the mirror would you! I am only sataing what we can test and observe- life only comes from life. That I can test, document, etc. There is no ignorance in that fact! Your ignorance absolutely is the fact that you are trying to provide evidence for something that has no evidence. the best thing you have is an over abundance of ignorance in chasing a theory that has been proven wrong at every turn! I look in a mirror several times a day. That just says that life is persistent. Here is just some of the evidence for Abiogenesis.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evidence+for+abiogenesis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=_cyMU53sM9jtoAS7i4HQAw&ved=0CCAQgQMwAA The evidence is that simple molecules called polymers do a number of things that life does. Not enough to be considered life but on the road to get there.
longview Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 The scriptures tell us that all of us are made from the dust of the earth. Now for the logic- In LDS theology, God must have a wife in order for the "seed" of the body to go on eternally. We also believe that sexual relations and procreation extends beyond death and resurrected beings have this blessing if properly married for all eternity. The scriptures inform us that the lineage of man traces back to God himself, Adam being the literal son of God. God made Adam in his own image using the very seed from his body to create him. As such, we all are of divine heritage, all having the very seed of deity within each one of us. We also thus become His heirs in eternity. Besides that, the promise that the seeds continue is literally defined as the seeds of the physical body. We are created in the very image of God. This means that just as we have reproductive organs so does God. Just as we can procreate and make man in our image, so too can God do the same. Why would God thus use a process to create man in his own image with the seed of God within him in any other way than what we know to be scientifically true?Sounds like you are treading close to the Adam/God theory. Some things Brigham Young said, I have to put on the shelf. Question: Do you believe Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God in the FLESH? If yes, then how can you believe that Adam was begotten from God? If no, then you see the contradiction.
thesometimesaint Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 What happens to your dried blood? It turn back to dust. What happens to your dead flesh? It turns back to dust. What happens to your skeleton rotting in the ground? It turns back into dust. It looses its water. It is dried blood not dust of the ground. My dead body will eventually decompose to dried flesh powder not dust of the ground. My skeleton will eventually decompose to bone powder not dust of the ground. On the off chance that my bones become fossilized then they are no longer bones but rock that corresponds to what my bones looked like.
longview Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 A geophysicist is not an expert in Biology, Biology - "The study of living organisms" and not an expert in Paleontology, Paleontology - "The branch of science concerned with fossil animals and plants."Don't be so hasty. Surely there are scientists that are knowledgeable in multiple disciplines. You should not rule out any that are PhDs in more than one field. Geophysicist provide cross reference between geological processes with fossil layers. A whole array of inter-disciplinary correlations. Which I am sure you would agree with. I am sure there are some Mormon scientists that don't believe in Evolution, but probably no Mormon PhD Biologists or Paleontologist denies Evolution.I can name many Mormon PhD Biologists, Genetics, and Paleontologists that believe in Evolution. For example Dr. Ugo A. Perego (PhD in Genetics)Dr. Perego wrote “Mitochondrial DNA: a female perspective in recent human origin and evolution” (in Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities, 2010); Dr. T. Heath Ogden (PhD in Biology)He wrote, "all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification"http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden Dr. Wade E. Miller (PhD In Paleontology) contributed to a paper in a Evolutionary Biology Journalhttp://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/life-sciences/evolutionary-biology/dinosaur-tracks-and-tracesDr. Ogden: I state that “I accept evolution based on the body of evidence that supports it.” This is reasonable to me. He seems to be saying that there might be other evidence that could give a whole new perspective on the creative process. He is right in not to rule out possible alternatives.
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Don't be so hasty. Surely there are scientists that are knowledgeable in multiple disciplines. You should not rule out any that are PhDs in more than one field. Geophysicist provide cross reference between geological processes with fossil layers. A whole array of inter-disciplinary correlations. Which I am sure you would agree with. Dr. Ogden: I state that “I accept evolution based on the body of evidence that supports it.” This is reasonable to me. He seems to be saying that there might be other evidence that could give a whole new perspective on the creative process. He is right in not to rule out possible alternatives. Dr. Odgen said, "I am an evolutionary biologist" http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden So can you name just one Mormon Biologist, Paleontologist, or Geneticist that has a Phd and doesn't believe in Evolution? Jawless Fish to Jawed Vertebrate - Shuyu Source: One of the most respected peer-reviewed journals. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7360/full/nature10276.html "He is right in not to rule out possible alternatives." There may be other possible alternatives, but "all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification. The evidences that support this idea are astounding...Evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life that has inhabited this planet. No other idea does a better job at putting together all observations and evidences of life’s differences and patterns than evolution" - Dr. T. Heath Ogden Are there other alternatives to the theory of the solar system? Edited June 2, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
longview Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Undoubtedly there are a very few that do not accept evolution as the best answer for how life changed over time on our planet. Whether God was involved or not is a different question unanswerable from science. Individual scientist are free to believe or not believe as is their choice. Micro and Macro Evolution are exactly the same thing. Without going really deep into the science.We can easily accept the occurrence of Natural Selection (micro evolution) in the present world. However, those light and dark moths have the genes for BOTH traits. Therefore they can gradually shift back and forth depending on conditions. This not the same thing as inter species transition (macro evolution). I am still waiting for someone to provide a good non-ambiguous reference documenting the rise of a new specie in fossil layers.Jawless to jawed. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7360/full/nature10276.htmlIt says: "Most living vertebrates are jawed vertebrates (gnathostomes), and the living jawless vertebrates (cyclostomes), hagfishes and lampreys, provide scarce information about the profound reorganization of the vertebrate skull during the evolutionary origin of jaws." DNA The Church and American Indians.https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=engIt says: "The conclusions of genetics, like those of any science, are tentative, and much work remains to be done to fully understand the origins of the native populations of the Americas." Whether life came from some primordial soup, from space, or God doesn't effect the evidence for evolution.There is support and confidence in observable Natural Selection (micro evolution). But very little for macro (giving rise to new species). The facts of the amazing properties and capabilities of cell function place an enormous burden on many fields of evolution. My contention all along throughout this thread (and a few others) is that there is a huge amount of unknowns, that theories are very dependent on extrapolations, speculations, projections, guessworks, etc, etc, etc. I am more inclined to believe that God will later reveal truth that is totally outside earth's many puny frames of reference. I am 'speculating' that Dark Matter/Dark Energy may be God's more 'permenant' environment, that the 'coarse' matter that we are familiar with may actually have a limited existence. D&C 88:37Doctrine and Covenants 36 All kingdoms have a law given; 37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. 38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
longview Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) Are there other alternatives to the theory of the solar system? Yes, there are some materials in Mormon literature that indicate that God has the power to move a planet from place to place. This may have happened multiple times. When the Fall took place, it may have been moved from a "Terrestrial Environment" to a "Telestial Environment". Another when the earth enters the "Millennium". Consider the scriptures predicting the heavens "rolling up" or "the stars falling". Edited June 2, 2014 by longview
MormonFreeThinker Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) It says: "Most living vertebrates are jawed vertebrates (gnathostomes), and the living jawless vertebrates (cyclostomes), hagfishes and lampreys, provide scarce information about the profound reorganization of the vertebrate skull during the evolutionary origin of jaws." We can continue the debate after you name just one Mormon Biologist, Paleontologist, or Geneticist that has a PhD and doesn't believe in Evolution. There are none, just few Evangelicals, but extremely few. I can name many Mormon scientists (in relevant fields) that do believe in Evolution, but what about you? Edited June 2, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Rob Osborn Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I look in a mirror several times a day. That just says that life is persistent. Here is just some of the evidence for Abiogenesis. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=evidence+for+abiogenesis&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=_cyMU53sM9jtoAS7i4HQAw&ved=0CCAQgQMwAA The evidence is that simple molecules called polymers do a number of things that life does. Not enough to be considered life but on the road to get there. hum...not really seeing much there in those links besides a few chemical reactions. Specifically- no intelligent processes are happening- its just cause and effect of chemicals. No specified information, nothing intelligent, etc.
Rob Osborn Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 Sounds like you are treading close to the Adam/God theory. Some things Brigham Young said, I have to put on the shelf. Question: Do you believe Jesus was the ONLY begotten Son of God in the FLESH? If yes, then how can you believe that Adam was begotten from God? If no, then you see the contradiction. Jesus was the only begotten of God into "mortality". Thats how I read the verse.
Rob Osborn Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 It looses its water. It is dried blood not dust of the ground. My dead body will eventually decompose to dried flesh powder not dust of the ground. My skeleton will eventually decompose to bone powder not dust of the ground. On the off chance that my bones become fossilized then they are no longer bones but rock that corresponds to what my bones looked like. Why then do the scriptures say that we are made of dust and that to dust we shall return?
jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 Jesus was the only begotten of God into "mortality". Thats how I read the verse. So, Adam was born as a result of sexual union between God and one of his immortal wives? Is that what you're saying?
jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 Why then do the scriptures say that we are made of dust and that to dust we shall return? Probably because the writer understood the concept of metaphor.
Tacenda Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 So, Adam was born as a result of sexual union between God and one of his immortal wives? Is that what you're saying?He's just sticking to the story.
jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 He's just sticking to the story. But where is he getting that story? It's not in the scriptures or any other place where Adam's story is taught.
thesometimesaint Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 hum...not really seeing much there in those links besides a few chemical reactions. Specifically- no intelligent processes are happening- its just cause and effect of chemicals. No specified information, nothing intelligent, etc. That's the point there is nothing "intelligent" about it. It is just chemistry. It gains information, it eats, it grows, it evolves. It results from entirely simple chemical processes. Whether God(Intelligent Designer) was involved or not is a question for religion not chemistry.
Tacenda Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 But where is he getting that story? It's not in the scriptures or any other place where Adam's story is taught.The LDS story, IMO.
jkwilliams Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 People do not square up things with evolution for the precise reason that Darwinian evolution must explain all of lifes existence void of an intelligent cause or design in nature. Heres the deal- if the flood in Noah's time is real and was a global event then the geologic column is a testimony of that event. This would make the entire leg of evolution to stand upon fall to the ground and break in a million pices never to be put together again. There is way more at stake here than meets the eye. This basically comes down to either beliveing the word of god or the understanding of man. Whose side are we gonna stand on? If evolution is true, then the flood is completely false and never happened and Noah and the flood account is a grand deception. But if it just so happens that God's word is correct and there was a global flood as is taught in our doctrine, then the evidence for evolution disappears entirely! What you are telling me is that a fundamentalist reading of the scriptures can't be squared with evolution. I would agree with that assessment. A fundamentalist reading insists that life as we know it showed up on this earth some 6000 years ago, and a flood covered the entire earth sometime later, and that all human life descended from 8 survivors of that flood. That doesn't square with the physical evidence, so if we are to adhere to such a literalist reading, we must reject the physical evidence or at least try to find some way to creatively interpret the physical evidence to fit our literalist interpretation of the scriptures. What I wonder is why we are required to read the scriptures in such a hyper-literal way. Who says that the scriptures must be either 100% literal or a "grand deception"? I've never believed that, and most Mormons I know don't believe that, either.
Rob Osborn Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 What you are telling me is that a fundamentalist reading of the scriptures can't be squared with evolution. I would agree with that assessment. A fundamentalist reading insists that life as we know it showed up on this earth some 6000 years ago, and a flood covered the entire earth sometime later, and that all human life descended from 8 survivors of that flood. That doesn't square with the physical evidence, so if we are to adhere to such a literalist reading, we must reject the physical evidence or at least try to find some way to creatively interpret the physical evidence to fit our literalist interpretation of the scriptures. What I wonder is why we are required to read the scriptures in such a hyper-literal way. Who says that the scriptures must be either 100% literal or a "grand deception"? I've never believed that, and most Mormons I know don't believe that, either. Have you ever once considered that your view of the physical evidence could be faulty? There is no creative interpretation to deal with. The flood happened and we see the physical evidence of it all over the world plain as the day is light.
Recommended Posts