Book Of Mormon Problems?

[readstoomuch]

For what it is worth, I have an advanced science degree and all of my training assumed evolution. Duane Jeffrey's taught my advanced evolution class, Dr Farmer my genetics class, Paul Cox my botany class, Dr Bradshaw molecular biology. All were Lds and taught evolution. I had thirty classes in biology, zoology, genetics and anatomy at BYu and every single class used evolution as the basis of our study. I am one of thousands of LDS scientists who believe in evolution and teach it.

[Rob Osborn]

I am not going to name 100 biologists, paleontologists, or geneticists. 

I already named 3, you name one, your turn. ) 

 

Please name just one Mormon that has a PhD in Biology, Paleontology, or Genetics, that doesn't believe in darwinian evolution.

It shouldn't be that hard. 

 

Number 4: Dr. Steven L. Peck (Professor of Biology) 

 

Oh, Steven Peck eh? Yeah, he is definately an evolutionist. The guy is also a class A jerk. I have had several dialogues with him over the years and he is so close minded its sick- either agree with him or he will make sure you have no voice anywhere of his influence. Guess what his views are on where Christ fits into his creation? Hes not even sure but maybe perhaps God is the result of evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

 

"All it leaves me thinking is that you guys must be atheists".

 

Retract your statement that you are not calling me a liar.

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, Steven Peck eh? Yeah, he is definately an evolutionist. The guy is also a class A jerk. I have had several dialogues with him over the years and he is so close minded its sick- either agree with him or he will make sure you have no voice anywhere of his influence. Guess what his views are on where Christ fits into his creation? Hes not even sure but maybe perhaps God is the result of evolution.

 

The irony is so rich here. I can barely contain myself.

Edited May 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Rob:

 

"All it leaves me thinking is that you guys must be atheists".

 

Retract your statement that you are not calling me a liar.

Areyou going to keep posting videos by atheists that mock Christianity?

[thesometimesaint]

"[The radical economist Herbert] Spencer became a strong advocate of Darwinism, and the phrase survival of the fittest was included in the 6th edition of The Origin of Species published in 1872. Darwinism thus became associated with Spencer's economics and social philosophy.

Darwin was part of an upper middle-class elite. His cousin, Francis Galton (1822 — 1911) considered the implications of natural selection for human breeding, and developed what he later termed eugenics. This was taken up by others as a pseudoscience and the concepts were introduced that persons of noble blood, and those of Caucasian race should be selected by society to breed over those of lower classes and other races. In terms of class struggle, this could be seen as a form of oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie."

Quote from:

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

"Survival of the Fittest." This is what Charles Darwin included in his 1872 6th Edition of "Origin of Species coined by Herbert Spencer.

And Darwin, being part of the upper middle-class elitists, his cousin developed "natural selection for human breeding" and that the Caucasian race should be selected to breed the lower classes.

This is what the Theory of Organic Evolution has lead to. Is this what Mormons should believe?

Korihor taught the same 'Survival of the Fittest' because Korihor allowed himself to be deceived by the Devil:

Alma 30

" 17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime."

Any member of the Church who supports the Theory of Evolution doesn't know the Theory and what it has been used for as a basis to destroy human life, nor does that member know The Book of Mormon.

"Book of Mormon Problems." What a joke.

 

Darwin was appalled at Social Darwinism

[thesometimesaint]

Areyou going to keep posting videos by atheists that mock Christianity?

 

I keep posting video's by Christians, other Theists, Agnostics, and Atheists alike which explain how Evolution works regardless of their personal beliefs. That is the basis of science. Where the results are not determined by what is believed. IE; 2+2=5

[Rob Osborn]

I keep posting video's by Christians, other Theists, Agnostics, and Atheists alike which explain how Evolution works regardless of their personal beliefs. That is the basis of science. Where the results are not determined by what is believed. IE; 2+2=5

We dont get anywhere because you use atheists arguments. Who claims 2+2=5? This is typical of atheist arguments.

[thesometimesaint]

We dont get anywhere because you use atheists arguments. Who claims 2+2=5? This is typical of atheist arguments.

 

No; that is a Christian claim.

SEE

[MormonFreeThinker]

We dont get anywhere because you use atheists arguments. Who claims 2+2=5? This is typical of atheist arguments.

 

One last time Rod, Darwinian Evolution is not an atheist argument. 

The Theory of Evolution, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Relativity, are not Atheist arguments. 

 

Elder Talmage believed in death before the fall, old earth, and that "the Neanderthal, the Cro-Magnon, the Peking or the Piltdown man" were other species. 

Edited May 27, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Anijen]

One last time Rod, Darwinian Evolution is not an atheist argument. 

The Theory of Evolution, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory of Relativity, are not Atheist arguments. 

 

Elder Talmage believed in death before the fall, old earth, and that "the Neanderthal, the Cro-Magnon, the Peking or the Piltdown man" were other species. 

just an FYI Peking man is legit, but the Piltdown man was a fake. Elder Talmage believed in them. He died before finding out it was a fake. However your point is still 100% valid that Darwinian Evolution is not a theory held by only atheist.

 

To Rob: One can believe in evolution and not be an atheist, I believe you owe TSS an apology or it least retract your statement.

[thesometimesaint]

just an FYI Peking man is legit, but the Piltdown man was a fake. Elder Talmage believed in them. He died before finding out it was a fake. However your point is still 100% valid that Darwinian Evolution is not a theory held by only atheist.

 

To Rob: One can believe in evolution and not be an atheist, I believe you owe TSS an apology or it least retract your statement.

 

Agreed.

 

I'll accept either.

[USU78]

Darwin was appalled at Social Darwinism

 

Is that a "for sure," or a "depends on who you ask" kind of thing?

 

http://www.faithandevolution.org/debates/was-darwin-a-social-darwinist.php

[Rob Osborn]

just an FYI Peking man is legit, but the Piltdown man was a fake. Elder Talmage believed in them. He died before finding out it was a fake. However your point is still 100% valid that Darwinian Evolution is not a theory held by only atheist.

 

To Rob: One can believe in evolution and not be an atheist, I believe you owe TSS an apology or it least retract your statement.

I totally agree that evolution by itself is not an atheist argument. But, when an "atheist" such as Hadfield makes a video to easily and mockingly dismiss the biblical flood and then you have people link directly to his work then you have different issues at work. You link to an atheist and claim him as your beliefs then I am automatically going to assume they too must be atheist. Heres the deal- dont link to an atheist to support your claim because in essence you are saying "I am with atheist Hadfield on this one".

[Rob Osborn]

Agreed.

 

I'll accept either.

 

 

Okay- we find some middle ground. I acknowledge that you are not an atheist but that you do use athesists arguments to prove your point.

[Anijen]

I totally agree that evolution by itself is not an atheist argument. But, when an "atheist" such as Hadfield makes a video to easily and mockingly dismiss the biblical flood and then you have people link directly to his work then you have different issues at work. You link to an atheist and claim him as your beliefs then I am automatically going to assume they too must be atheist. Heres the deal- dont link to an atheist to support your claim because in essence you are saying "I am with atheist Hadfield on this one".

Your argument is unsound. His link was of an atheist, but that is not why he gave the link it was one link of many that supported evolution.

 

If I gave a link to a Catholic site that supported pro-life, it would not mean I am Catholic.

If I gave a link that supported an Irish soccer team, it would not mean I was Irish.

[Rob Osborn]

Your argument is unsound. His link was of an atheist, but that is not why he gave the link it was one link of many that supported evolution.

 

If I gave a link to a Catholic site that supported pro-life, it would not mean I am Catholic.

If I gave a link that supported an Irish soccer team, it would not mean I was Irish.

And yet whenever I give a link its always dismissed because its "creationist". I guess if thats how it is I dont mind being grouped as a "creationist". But, the street must go both ways if this is the case. Therefore, my links get me associated with being a creationist, no problem, their links thus get them associated with atheists. Fair isnt it?

We could stop all the nonsense if they stop associating my science as creationism and I will stop associating theirs with atheism.

[Anijen]

And yet whenever I give a link its always dismissed because its "creationist". I guess if thats how it is I dont mind being grouped as a "creationist". But, the street must go both ways if this is the case. Therefore, my links get me associated with being a creationist, no problem, their links thus get them associated with atheists. Fair isnt it?

We could stop all the nonsense if they stop associating my science as creationism and I will stop associating theirs with atheism.

Again, the argument lacks a little understanding. TSS posted credible scientific theory, that has not been disproved. Creationism is pseudoscience. Creationist or Creationism is an attempt to take out all evolution, make the literal reading of Genesis narrative into some hokey science. We  can observe natural occurrences such as Darwin's finches changing because they changed locations, or why white crocodiles died out and green ones thrived (green ones were better camouflaged while white ones you could see, therefore the white ones died out from starvation). Adaption (change happens). If you don't like the term evolution use another, but it is an observable theory that has not been proven wrong.

 

Going to a group of creationist (your argument) is like going to children who think the tooth fairy is real because their proof is the money that is left under their pillow the next day. I am not the first person to say to you; the proof of no evolution, or a world wide flood, or a  young earth as written in Genesis is similar to the money under the pillow as proof for the Tooth Fairy.

 

 

 

 

 

 I give a link its always dismissed

 

Because your links are not science. They are a literal reading of the Genesis narrative clothed in academic babel.

[Rob Osborn]

Again, the argument lacks a little understanding. TSS posted credible scientific theory, that has not been disproved. Creationism is pseudoscience. Creationist or Creationism is an attempt to take out all evolution, make the literal reading of Genesis narrative into some hokey science. We  can observe natural occurrences such as Darwin's finches changing because they changed locations, or why white crocodiles died out and green ones thrived (green ones were better camouflaged while white ones you could see, therefore the white ones died out from starvation). Adaption (change happens). If you don't like the term evolution use another, but it is an observable theory that has not been proven wrong.

 

Going to a group of creationist (your argument) is like going to children who think the tooth fairy is real because their proof is the money that is left under their pillow the next day. I am not the first person to say to you; the proof of no evolution, or a world wide flood, or a  young earth as written in Genesis is similar to the money under the pillow as proof for the Tooth Fairy.

 

 

 

 

 

Because your links are not science. They are a literal reading of the Genesis narrative clothed in academic babel.

So you think my science is babel. You prove my point, I am just as justified to say your side is an atheist argument.

[Anijen]

Want to clarify I am very active member with a strong testimony. I am not an atheist. Although I subscribe to theories of an old earth, aspects of evolution I am deeply impressed with the scriptures and how they are a great inspiration and I believe almost everything in them. I also believe that some stories are symbolic and are metaphors are analogies etc. For example I believe Adam was the first man, yet at the same time I believe that the Neanderthal existed as well. call me crazy (perhaps I am). In my own way I can balance the two seemingly contrary ideas.

 

When I have my "come to Jesus" moment (as my Baptist friends say I surely will) and I am wrong, well, then I'm wrong, carry on, move forward and I will continue to learn. I find it funny that there is so much bother over this. If I am wrong oh well, I am sure my salvation will not bet revoked, I have great faith that the Saviors atonement will cover my silly follies. 

[Anijen]

So you think my science is babel. You prove my point, I am just as justified to say your side is an atheist argument.

Okay Rob, lets do a test, lets look at your links with some intellectual analyzing process, evaluate the information, and apply some critical thinking. Please list 2 or 3 links and lets go over them and have a dialogue without any contention. I hope we both can go away from this experiment understanding one another's position. 

[ERayR]

Want to clarify I am very active member with a strong testimony. I am not an atheist. Although I subscribe to theories of an old earth, aspects of evolution I am deeply impressed with the scriptures and how they are a great inspiration and I believe almost everything in them. I also believe that some stories are symbolic and are metaphors are analogies etc. For example I believe Adam was the first man, yet at the same time I believe that the Neanderthal existed as well. call me crazy (perhaps I am). In my own way I can balance the two seemingly contrary ideas.

 

When I have my "come to Jesus" moment (as my Baptist friends say I surely will) and I am wrong, well, then I'm wrong, carry on, move forward and I will continue to learn. I find it funny that there is so much bother over this. If I am wrong oh well, I am sure my salvation will not bet revoked, I have great faith that the Saviors atonement will cover my silly follies. 

 

If we are clarifying let me join in.  When I post I am almost always regarded as a young earth creationist despite my many protestations.  It appears that evolutionist see no other choice, just that dichotomy.  My position is, however, much different. I believe in an old earth with life and death taking place, the Garden of Eden was a discrete area.  I totally accept micro-evolution but cannot see that it can be extrapolated to macro-evolution despite all the simplistic scenarios presented.  It just doesn't work for me.  I see way too much selective dismissal and ridicule of data that doesn't fit the preconceived model instead of looking for answers to see why the rejected data is there.

 

OK back to the regularly scheduled war.  Carry on.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Is that a "for sure," or a "depends on who you ask" kind of thing?

 

http://www.faithandevolution.org/debates/was-darwin-a-social-darwinist.php

 

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/social-darwinism

 

Social Darwinism

Misusing Darwin's Theory

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is entirely focused on an explanation of life's biological diversity. It is a scientific theory meant to explain observations about species. Yet some have used the theory to justify a particular view of human social, political, or economic conditions. All such ideas have one fundamental flaw: They use a purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose. In doing so they misrepresent and misappropriate Darwin's original ideas.

One such distortion and misuse is the loose collection of ideologies grouped under the label of "Social Darwinism." Based largely on notions of competition and natural selection, Social Darwinist theories generally hold that the powerful in society are innately better than the weak and that success is proof of their superiority.

Darwin passionately opposed social injustice and oppression. He would have been dismayed to see the events of generations to come: his name attached to opposing ideologies from Marxism to unbridled capitalism, and to policies from ethnic cleansing to forced sterilization. Whether used to rationalize social inequality, racism, or eugenics, so-called Social Darwinist theories are a gross misreading of the ideas first described in the Origin of Species and applied in modern biology.

Edited May 27, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

 

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/social-darwinism

 

Social Darwinism

Misusing Darwin's Theory

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is entirely focused on an explanation of life's biological diversity. It is a scientific theory meant to explain observations about species. Yet some have used the theory to justify a particular view of human social, political, or economic conditions. All such ideas have one fundamental flaw: They use a purely scientific theory for a completely unscientific purpose. In doing so they misrepresent and misappropriate Darwin's original ideas.

One such distortion and misuse is the loose collection of ideologies grouped under the label of "Social Darwinism." Based largely on notions of competition and natural selection, Social Darwinist theories generally hold that the powerful in society are innately better than the weak and that success is proof of their superiority.

Darwin passionately opposed social injustice and oppression. He would have been dismayed to see the events of generations to come: his name attached to opposing ideologies from Marxism to unbridled capitalism, and to policies from ethnic cleansing to forced sterilization. Whether used to rationalize social inequality, racism, or eugenics, so-called Social Darwinist theories are a gross misreading of the ideas first described in the Origin of Species and applied in modern biology.

 

 

I see way too much selective dismissal and ridicule of data that doesn't fit the preconceived model instead of looking for answers to see why the rejected data is there.

[Rob Osborn]

Okay Rob, lets do a test, lets look at your links with some intellectual analyzing process, evaluate the information, and apply some critical thinking. Please list 2 or 3 links and lets go over them and have a dialogue without any contention. I hope we both can go away from this experiment understanding one another's position.

Heres one http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html