Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

List Of Prophetic Statements Against Evolution From Josephsmithforum.org

Tiki

By Tiki
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

longview Grand Master

longview

Posted
Posted (edited)

. . .  

Science doesn't claim we're made out of clay, and to accurate neither does the Bible. The Bible claims we were made of of dust. Chemically we are closer to dirty water than dust.

"Clay" is symbolic or representative of our physical mortal condition. See:

Mosiah 3:5

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

 

Exactly where have I claimed Evolution is brilliant? Yes! Evolution is the best scientific explanation of how life changed once it got here. Please point out exactly where I have not used accurate scientific words to describe Evolution.

You said in post # 60: "Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of Evolution." You say in this post that evolution is "accurate". You are being emotional when you use the terms "fact" and "accurate". That is unscientific. Will you acknowledge that some "facts" can be subject to a range of possible interpretations?

 

Evolution is anything but random.

Evolution is the very definition of random. I am shocked that you would imply that evolution is "deliberate". Evolution is defined to be an "aggregation" of living things that fight for survival where the "winners" live long enough to pass on successful genes. The strongest or smartest creature don't always prevail. Sometimes they meet up with very unexpected events, such as lightning bolt out of the sky or a meteor strike, etc.

 

God is omniscience and omnipotent. There is nothing too arduous for him.

And God is not stupid, either. He would not use "brute force" or endless tinkering when He can simply say the word and the elements obey His commands.

 

So God destroyed life on other planets, carefully arraigned it here on this planet to make it just look like life evolved here. Doesn't that make God the great deceiver?

 

I have already responded to Grudunza on this concept. Perhaps you missed it or forgot?

 

There is no last word on any science. Only demagogs and religionists claim to have the last word on anything. If you are comfortable in your ignorance the last place I want you is in science, let alone teaching science.

Heaven forbid if you should be the arbiter of who gets to participate in the discussion. Careful, you sound dangerously close to being like a radical university professor that will brook no dissent.  Why would you state that I am ignorant or that I would be comfortable with it?  Now you are being very emotional.  That is FACT.

 

That is incorrect that we know less than 1% of the past. We have less than a thimbles worth of knowledge in the vast oceans of our ignorance. However what we do know we do know. Evolution is one of the things we do know.

 

As I have demonstrated you know so little about Evolution it is probably best you say nothing about it.

Sorry. I am not persuaded that you have "demonstrated" anything meaningful except to say that micro evolution happens. I am still unsatisfied with your response on fossil records showing conclusively the fact of interspecies transitions.

Edited by longview
1
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

You said in post # 60: "Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of Evolution." You say in this post that evolution is "accurate". You are being emotional when you use the terms "fact" and "accurate". That is unscientific. Will you acknowledge that some "facts" can be subject to a range of possible interpretations?

 

 

 

We don't like the Theory of Evolution, the only reason we believe it is because of the scientific evidence.

Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper that challenges Evolution? Not from an Evangelical website please.

 

The reason why Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution is because the evidence.

On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy, how do you interpret that fact?

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

 

"Clay" is symbolic or representative of our physical mortal condition. See:

Mosiah 3:5

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

 

You said in post # 60: "Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of Evolution." You say in this post that evolution is "accurate". You are being emotional when you use the terms "fact" and "accurate". That is unscientific. Will you acknowledge that some "facts" can be subject to a range of possible interpretations?

 

Evolution is the very definition of random. I am shocked that you would imply that evolution is "deliberate".

 

And God is not stupid, either. He would not use "brute force" or endless tinkering when He can simply say the word and the elements obey His commands.

 

 

I have already responded to Grudunza on this concept. Perhaps you missed it or forgot?

 

Heaven forbid if you should be the arbiter of who gets to participate in the discussion. Careful, you sound dangerously close to being like a radical university professor that will brook no dissent.  Why would you state that I am ignorant or that I would be comfortable with it?  Now you are being very emotional.  That is FACT.

 

Sorry. I am not persuaded that you have "demonstrated" anything meaningful except to say that micro evolution happens. I am still unsatisfied with your response on fossil records showing conclusively the fact of interspecies transitions.

 

 

So you agree it is symbolic; Not literal. Now we're getting somewhere. Science among its many shortcoming doesn't deal in the symbolic.

 

Does the fact that 2+2=4 is an accurate statement make it an emotional statement to you? Does the fact that you don't look exactly like either of your parents is an accurate statement make it an emotional statement to you?  If those do I'll put on my social Worker hat and we'll have a nice long talk. I charge $75 for a 45 minute hour.

 

NO! Facts are just facts. The theory behind those facts is subject to interpretation. IE; Numbers Theory explains how we arrive at the fact that 2+2=4.

 

Evolution is not random.

SEE

 

"Evolution is defined to be an "aggregation" of living things that fight for survival where the "winners" live long enough to pass on successful genes. The strongest or smartest creature don't always prevail. Sometimes they meet up with very unexpected events, such as lightning bolt out of the sky or a meteor strike, etc"

 

You conveniently leave out the most important part. "Within their environment". Lightning bolts, meteor strikes, etc., change their environment. IE; Say a new species of tiny insects emerges. They live on only one tree. Lightning destroys, by fire, that tree.  Lightning did not cause that tiny insect to emerge. It just changed the environment suddenly enough, that there was no more of that tiny insect.

 

Paraphrasing what I said before to you. You obviously know so little about evolution that it is best for you to not say anything at all.

 

I've certainly have never said God was stupid. I've consistently said God was omniscient and omnipotent. Further time to God is a non issue. When you are an eternal being billions of our years is almost nothing. IE; We ourselves claim that it is God that knows who would have repented if they were allowed to tarry in this life.

 

If you want to know what I believe ask me. Believe me I'm the foremost expert on what I believe. Grudunza for all his other fine qualities isn't me. So please respond to what I say to me.

 

I've never claimed to be arbiter of who can participate on this message board. All I have asked is that whomever participates knows what they are talking about when they make claims about any subject. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

If you don't accept the evidence of speciation. Then I don't know of anything that I can point to as evidence of anything. If spread to the general population of a society such willful ignorance can lead to only only place. Living in caves afraid of things that go bump in the night.

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

 

"Clay" is symbolic or representative of our physical mortal condition. See:

Mosiah 3:5

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

 

You said in post # 60: "Evolution is a fact. The explanation of that fact is the Theory of Evolution." You say in this post that evolution is "accurate". You are being emotional when you use the terms "fact" and "accurate". That is unscientific. Will you acknowledge that some "facts" can be subject to a range of possible interpretations?

 

Evolution is the very definition of random. I am shocked that you would imply that evolution is "deliberate". Evolution is defined to be an "aggregation" of living things that fight for survival where the "winners" live long enough to pass on successful genes. The strongest or smartest creature don't always prevail. Sometimes they meet up with very unexpected events, such as lightning bolt out of the sky or a meteor strike, etc.

 

And God is not stupid, either. He would not use "brute force" or endless tinkering when He can simply say the word and the elements obey His commands.

 

 

I have already responded to Grudunza on this concept. Perhaps you missed it or forgot?

 

Heaven forbid if you should be the arbiter of who gets to participate in the discussion. Careful, you sound dangerously close to being like a radical university professor that will brook no dissent.  Why would you state that I am ignorant or that I would be comfortable with it?  Now you are being very emotional.  That is FACT.

 

Sorry. I am not persuaded that you have "demonstrated" anything meaningful except to say that micro evolution happens. I am still unsatisfied with your response on fossil records showing conclusively the fact of interspecies transitions.

 

 

But you obviously do not understand else you would agree.

ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

He's presented no information that confirms he understands it, He just disagrees with it.

 

He's presented no information(that we accept) that confirms he understands it.

 

There I fixed it for you.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted (edited)

He's presented no information(that we accept) that confirms he understands it.

 

There I fixed it for you.

 

Sure. I can present information that claims Pi is equal to exactly three. That it is required to kill witches. That the earth is flat. That he should be stoned to death for wearing wool and cotton clothes. All in the Bible. Though I seriously doubt even he would accept any of it.

Edited by thesometimesaint
longview Grand Master

longview

Posted
Posted

We don't like the Theory of Evolution, the only reason we believe it is because of the scientific evidence.

Can you cite a peer-reviewed paper that challenges Evolution? Not from an Evangelical website please.

 

The reason why Mormon Biologists believe in Evolution is because the evidence.

On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy, how do you interpret that fact?

This is my point that I keep repeating but you seem unable to grasp.  It is not a matter of "believing" but of continual questioning.  That is the disposition of the true scientist.  That should also be your disposition.

 

Facts, evidences, observations.  Some if not all are SUBJECT to differing possible interpretations.  I ask why would God use the process of macro evolution when He has a more direct power of inviting the various intelligences to participate with His creative works.  Even the very dust respond to His words.  Evolution requires brute force and endless tinkering.  If there are endless generations of the Gods, why repeat the whole mess of evolution over and over again with each new creation?   Make sense?

 

As far as peer reviews, I do not have the expertise to dig up particular viewpoints.  As I have already discussed with you, there is a tremendous amount of fear in academic circles due to intolerant radical professors that have the power to ruin the careers of any that would dare question or propose new perspectives.  For a starting point, see:

 

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?type=aca

longview Grand Master

longview

Posted
Posted

So you agree it is symbolic; Not literal. Now we're getting somewhere. Science among its many shortcoming doesn't deal in the symbolic.

Clay and dust are both symbolic and literal. It is a convenient term to refer to the incredible complexity of the human body. It is also a reference to the creative process God used for forming Adam and Eve's bodies:

Gen 2: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

I was a computer programmer for 30 years.  Symbolism is important in programming.  It enables more effective design work, top down structuring and segmentation.  We can put symbols on parts that can't be worked on till much later or if there are too many unknowns we will defer until we have a chance to consult with the clients.

 

Does the fact that 2+2=4 is an accurate statement make it an emotional statement to you? Does the fact that you don't look exactly like either of your parents is an accurate statement make it an emotional statement to you?  If those do I'll put on my social Worker hat and we'll have a nice long talk. I charge $75 for a 45 minute hour.

 

NO! Facts are just facts. The theory behind those facts is subject to interpretation. IE; Numbers Theory explains how we arrive at the fact that 2+2=4.

There are hard sciences and there are soft sciences. Evolution is a soft science because there are too many unknowns, even the facts and evidences have multiple possible interpretations.

 

Evolution is not random.

I watched the video and generally agree with their conceptions.  It does NOT change my understanding that evolution truly is a random process (just as life in the ecosystem have unpredictable events).  BUT there still remains the challenge: PLEASE give one credible documentation of inter-species transition in the fossil record.

 

If you want to know what I believe ask me. Believe me I'm the foremost expert on what I believe. Grudunza for all his other fine qualities isn't me. So please respond to what I say to me.

 

I've never claimed to be arbiter of who can participate on this message board. All I have asked is that whomever participates knows what they are talking about when they make claims about any subject. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

 

If you don't accept the evidence of speciation. Then I don't know of anything that I can point to as evidence of anything. If spread to the general population of a society such willful ignorance can lead to only only place. Living in caves afraid of things that go bump in the night.

There is a great deal of interplay between participants that color the group. Usually I respond directly to individuals but I will also address the pack in general.

You make such silly and emotional statements. I am disappointed that you have not responded to important points such as reuse of fragments of dead planets or whether God is able to speak the word to bring about the creation, etc.

longview Grand Master

longview

Posted
Posted

 

This link proves that the fossil record is TOO fragmentary, unfortunately.   There is a HUGE amount of extrapolation done by theorists.  As stated in the link:

 

As noted already by Darwin, the fossil record is incomplete.

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor

Seems to me the only evidence in the evolutionist favor is that the fossil layers show a progression from simple to complex. But I would need to find the right kind of textbook (for my background) to show what layers are found where, how dating is done, and many more considerations. My impression is there are a lot more "blank" zones in the geology and fossils are rare in comparison. Even geophysics have many questions and unknowns (even though geophysics is a more solid science than evolution with its chemistry, volcanic activity, and a whole host of more directly observable processes).

Zakuska Grand Master

Zakuska

Posted
Posted (edited)

Clay and dust are both symbolic and literal. It is a convenient term to refer to the incredible complexity of the human body. It is also a reference to the creative process God used for forming Adam and Eve's bodies:

 

When all is said and done...   in the complex skeem of things...  Matter in the dirt gets incorporated and organized into plants and other animals which in turn gets eaten by others and so on and so on until it finally gets eaten by us.  So in a very real sense "we are what we eat". And it all does come from clay or dust or molecules in our environment.

 

 

..., how dating is done, ...

 

 

I think you might be on the wrong website for that.  Try LDS singles. dot com ;)

Edited by Zakuska
MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is my point that I keep repeating but you seem unable to grasp.  It is not a matter of "believing" but of continual questioning.  That is the disposition of the true scientist.  That should also be your disposition.

 

 

I don't like the Theory of Evolution, of course I question it, and I hope one day ID creationism is proven, but so far the evidence strongly points to Evolution. How about you? Do you question ID creationism? You should, because no peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal has been published that proves ID creationism. 

 

 

 

 

Facts, evidences, observations.  Some if not all are SUBJECT to differing possible interpretations.  I ask why would God use the process of macro evolution when He has a more direct power of inviting the various intelligences to participate with His creative works.  Even the very dust respond to His words.  Evolution requires brute force and endless tinkering.  If there are endless generations of the Gods, why repeat the whole mess of evolution over and over again with each new creation?   Make sense?

 

 

endless generations of God is not official doctrine. Your questions are not science, why not ask questions that can  falsify Evolution?

 

 

As far as peer reviews, I do not have the expertise to dig up particular viewpoints.  As I have already discussed with you, there is a tremendous amount of fear in academic circles due to intolerant radical professors that have the power to ruin the careers of any that would dare question or propose new perspectives.  For a starting point, see:

 

 

Conspiracy theories, the reason why ID creationism has not pass peer-reviewed, it's because there are no evidences that support it, at least not yet.  If a scientist presents evidence that proves ID creationism, he wins a noble prize 

 

Many scientists rejected the Big Bang Theory, they didn't like it, and they rejected it when there was no strong evidence for it, but when strong evidence was discovered, they embrace it.  When strong evidence was presented that proved the Big Bang, where was the persecution?  The fear? and the intolerance? 

 

If there were no strong evidences that prove Evolution, Mormon Biologists wouldn't mention it in their testimony in MormonScholarsTestify. 

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

When all is said and done...   in the complex skeem of things...  Matter in the dirt gets incorporated and organized into plants and other animals which in turn gets eaten by others and so on and so on until it finally gets eaten by us.  So in a very real sense "we are what we eat". And it all does come from clay or dust or molecules in our environment.

 

 

 

I think you might be on the wrong website for that.  Try LDS singles. dot com ;)

 

Then in turn we are worm food. One eternal round and all that. ;)

 

Here I thought dating was when I put dates into my banana date nut bread. ;)

longview Grand Master

longview

Posted
Posted

I don't like the Theory of Evolution, of course I question it, and I hope one day ID creationism is proven, but so far the evidence strongly points to Evolution. How about you? Do you question ID creationism? You should, because no peer-reviewed paper in a respected journal has been published that proves ID creationism.

 

I have seen several ID speculations. All of them makes me gag. Such as photons suddenly coming into existence at the time of creation in the emptiness of space. I most sincerely do not believe God can do that.  He does not make something out of nothing.

I agree with you on the "plausibility" of evolution as far as natural selection (micro evolution). But only to a very small degree. You simply can NOT deny there is a huge amount of speculations and extrapolations being foisted in evolution. That is the biggest FACT of evolution. It is NOT anti science to state this fact.

 

endless generations of God is not official doctrine. Your questions are not science, why not ask questions that can  falsify Evolution?

This is where you are grieviously mistaken. It is official doctrine that we can take on covenants with God to BECOME like Him and eventually be resurrected with Celestial Glory. What will that make us? Of course, the "next" generation of the Gods. It is official doctrine that Heavenly Father was once man like us. He lived on a mortal world, worshiped his God (our grandfather God) and moved on to His current position. THEREFORE there are ENDLESS generations. These things have been taught unequivocally by Joseph Smith and sustained by all successor prophets.

 

Conspiracy theories, the reason why ID creationism has not pass peer-reviewed, it's because there are no evidences that support it, at least not yet.  If a scientist presents evidence that proves ID creationism, he wins a noble prize

If you are referring to David Horowitz as the author of numerous documentation and studies of universities with their professors in their efforts to constrain academic freedom then you should not so blithely dismiss them as "conspiracy theories". We have testimonies of many students being subjected to harassment for voicing contrary opinions, being forced to listen to social engineering and political indoctrinations (even though the courses are not related to what is being said). And examples of professors who lost their chance for career advancement due to being blacklisted by radical peers.

 

Many scientists rejected the Big Bang Theory, they didn't like it, and they rejected it when there was no strong evidence for it, but when strong evidence was discovered, they embrace it.  When strong evidence was presented that proved the Big Bang, where was the persecution?  The fear? and the intolerance?

I think there was full and open debate on the red shifts and the subsequent exploration on the big bang hyposthesis in the beginning. I am not aware of any constraints being placed currently. But I do get the impression that there is a great deal of politicization of the theory of evolution.  This is especially the case with the global warming scam.

In an earlier thread, I raised the possibility of another cause of the "red shift" in photons. We know that some if not all elements decay, what if photons regularly shoot off infinitesimal sub-particles during the transit between stars (thereby causing loss of energy) ? This would be a very strong example of an alternative INTERPRETATION on the phenomena of the "red shift". If this bears out, then we can raise the question of the big bang ever happening. You may not think this is plausible but I do.

 

If there were no strong evidences that prove Evolution, Mormon Biologists wouldn't mention it in their testimony in MormonScholarsTestify.

This is an example of "begging the question" . . .

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

 

I have seen several ID speculations. All of them makes me gag. Such as photons suddenly coming into existence at the time of creation in the emptiness of space. I most sincerely do not believe God can do that.  He does not make something out of nothing.

I agree with you on the "plausibility" of evolution as far as natural selection (micro evolution). But only to a very small degree. You simply can NOT deny there is a huge amount of speculations and extrapolations being foisted in evolution. That is the biggest FACT of evolution. It is NOT anti science to state this fact.

 

This is where you are grieviously mistaken. It is official doctrine that we can take on covenants with God to BECOME like Him and eventually be resurrected with Celestial Glory. What will that make us? Of course, the "next" generation of the Gods. It is official doctrine that Heavenly Father was once man like us. He lived on a mortal world, worshiped his God (our grandfather God) and moved on to His current position. THEREFORE there are ENDLESS generations. These things have been taught unequivocally by Joseph Smith and sustained by all successor prophets.

 

If you are referring to David Horowitz as the author of numerous documentation and studies of universities with their professors in their efforts to constrain academic freedom then you should not so blithely dismiss them as "conspiracy theories". We have testimonies of many students being subjected to harassment for voicing contrary opinions, being forced to listen to social engineering and political indoctrinations (even though the courses are not related to what is being said). And examples of professors who lost their chance for career advancement due to being blacklisted by radical peers.

 

I think there was full and open debate on the red shifts and the subsequent exploration on the big bang hyposthesis in the beginning. I am not aware of any constraints being placed currently. But I do get the impression that there is a great deal of politicization of the theory of evolution.  This is especially the case with the global warming scam.

In an earlier thread, I raised the possibility of another cause of the "red shift" in photons. We know that some if not all elements decay, what if photons regularly shoot off infinitesimal sub-particles during the transit between stars (thereby causing loss of energy) ? This would be a very strong example of an alternative INTERPRETATION on the phenomena of the "red shift". If this bears out, then we can raise the question of the big bang ever happening. You may not think this is plausible but I do.

 

This is an example of "begging the question" . . .

 

OK let's go down this road one last time. Then I am done with it. Life is just too short for it.

 

Evolution is not concerned about how the universe came into being. That is cosmology a worthy study in it own right, but not Evolution. I'll address it only very briefly and let you study it on your own time. Space was very much smaller towards the beginnings of our universe than it is today.

SEE Big Bang Theory, and not the TV show one.

 

Micro-Evolution is the exact same thing as Macro-Evolution at the DNA level. To claim that one doesn't exist negates the other.

 

There is not any speculation as to the fact of Evolution.  How its course actually happened in the minutest of detail is what is not known. Of necessity there are gaps in our knowledge concerning its course over many millions of years if not billions of years. To put God into those gaps is what is known as a God of the Gaps Argument. You of course are free to believe anything you want. However God of Gaps arguments fail as more and more of those gaps get smaller and smaller. I like my God that is bigger than the stuff I don't know.

 

I have no problem with LDS doctrine. NO! It is not LDS doctrine that God worshiped other Gods. That is from the King Follett Sermon which has NEVER been accepted as doctrine of the Church.

 

David Horowitz is a known liar and con artist. Who uses the politically naive to feather his own nest.

So as to not further derail this discussion I'll let you look it up.

 

There was the steady state theories and the inflation theories of the universe. The inflation theories won. Again Cosmology is not Evolution.

 

Political content removed

 

Theoretical "What if's" questions do of necessity require a theoretical "if" answer. If it turns out that photons do shed smaller particles. Then yes we'd have to either abandon, modify, the Electro-Magnetic Force as one of the four fundamental forms of energy in the universe, that we know of, or add it to the list. We don't know what Dark Energy is so while possible that photons shedding smaller particles are scientifically valid, don't hold your breath. Again not a subject for Evolution.

 

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

I have seen several ID speculations. All of them makes me gag. Such as photons suddenly coming into existence at the time of creation in the emptiness of space. I most sincerely do not believe God can do that.  He does not make something out of nothing.

 

 

We are not talking about photons, we are talking about Biology. Have you question Intelligent Design Creationism alternative to evolution?

 

 

I agree with you on the "plausibility" of evolution as far as natural selection (micro evolution). But only to a very small degree. You simply can NOT deny there is a huge amount of speculations and extrapolations being foisted in evolution. That is the biggest FACT of evolution. It is NOT anti science to state this fact.

This is an example of "begging the question" . . .

 

On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the fact of common descent, there is no scientific controversy

 

 

 He lived on a mortal world, worshiped his God (our grandfather God) and moved on to His current position. THEREFORE there are ENDLESS generations. These things have been taught unequivocally by Joseph Smith and sustained by all successor prophets.

"President, coined a well-known couplet: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”43 Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught. When asked about this topic, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley told a reporter in 1997, “That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about.” When asked about the belief in humans’ divine potential, President Hinckley responded, “Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.”

https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

 

Where does it say that we have a heavenly Grandfather ?

 

 

 

I think there was full and open debate on the red shifts and the subsequent exploration on the big bang hyposthesis in the beginning. I am not aware of any constraints being placed currently. But I do get the impression that there is a great deal of politicization of the theory of evolution.  This is especially the case with the global warming scam.

 

 

No legit climate scientist believes it is a scam,  few are still skeptical, but no one believes it's a hoax. 

Here is a List of worldwide scientific organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

 

In an earlier thread, I raised the possibility of another cause of the "red shift" in photons. We know that some if not all elements decay, what if photons regularly shoot off infinitesimal sub-particles during the transit between stars (thereby causing loss of energy) ? This would be a very strong example of an alternative INTERPRETATION on the phenomena of the "red shift". If this bears out, then we can raise the question of the big bang ever happening. You may not think this is plausible but I do.

 

 

I am not talking about what the evidence for the Big Ban is, I am just saying that many scientists rejected the Big Bang theory until strong evidence was presented.

Most scientists didn't like the Big Bang Theory, but when the evidence was presented, they embraced it. Where was the persecution?

 

The only reason why there is "persecution" it's because no real evidence is presented, only Flat Earth like Evidence is presented.

Even Flat Earth Theorist make good points, but their points have not pass peer-reviewed.

 

See the points they make, they appear to be scientific, they make sense, but they have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions

and especially http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration#Accelerating_to_the_Speed_of_Light

 

If Evangelicals  teach Flat Earth Theory arguments to their children in the future, they will always believe it, even if they learn the contrary in school.

 

If a didn't care about scientific journals like Science Journal and Nature Journal, and if I didn't care what scientific organizations like NASA say, I would be a Young Earth Creationist and a Flat Earth Theorist.

 

 

This is an example of "begging the question" . . .

 

Why is it begging the question? Why do all Mormon PhD Biologist believe in Evolution? Is it because they been indoctrinated? Do you know more than them? Do your Evangelical scientists know more than them? Even in their testimony, some said that the evidence is strong.

Edited by MormonFreeThinker
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...