No Death Before The Fall Anywhere On Earth

[longview]

Resurrection simply restores living beings to their pre-fall state (or estate}, at which point they are then back in the state they were in before they fell and will not (or will no longer) experience death, which they never would have experienced at all if they had not fallen before.

Think of Christ as an example, if that helps you any at all. He was living and would have gone on living forever had he not fallen to a mortal state as Adam and Eve did, and they too would have gone on living forever if they had not fallen to the mortal state, just as birds and bees and whales and elephants and every other living being would have gone on living forever if they had not fallen to a mortal state.

 

. . .

Just to clarify . . . Terrestrial beings (every earth resident during the Millennium including a number of Celestial worthy humans) will be "immortal" but they will still need to undergo further transformation or quickening to obtain THE resurrection.  Wether it be to Celestial Glory, Terrestrial Glory, or if they apostatize somehow, to Telestial or a kingdom of no glory.

 

Jesus was a spirit being before being born to Mary.   After birth, He was more than an ordinary mortal but was subject to thirst, hunger, and all kinds of afflictions.  I agree that Jesus could have lived a very long time since half his DNA was from God the Father (due to implantation by the Holy Ghost in Mary and preserving her virgin status).  When Jesus was on the cross, He apparently could not be killed so He had to yield His spirit into His Father's hands.  After 3 days, Jesus was the FIRST to be resurrected.

[longview]

Let me correct- it was Adam's actual eating of the fruit of the tree of good and evil that caused the fall of the creation into mortality.

Was there something in the fruit that cause all of nature to fall?  Probably not.  Maybe the fruit actually did cause the transformation of Adam and Eve's bodies to become mortal.  But in any case, the symbolism of "eating of the fruit" is what "pulled the trigger" for starting the "Plan of Redemption" and setting everything into motion.

[Ahab]

I don't expect the resurrection to restore me into a spirit, which is all I was before my pre-fall state.

I'm talking about the next state after that state, like when our Father placed the spirit of Adam into the body of flesh which our Father created for him and which the spirit of Adam would have lived in forever had he not done something which eventually resulted in his death. The fall to mortality didn't have to happen, and it resulted from Adam (and Eve's) choice, rather than because they were living and the false idea that all living beings must die.

My post-fall state is all that I can be resurrected from.

Yes but if you had not fallen, along with Adam, you would not have had to worry about death in the first place

If "living" means a connected spirit and body, then the transition from their separate states to their united state is as much a death of their separated condition as their subsequent separation is a death of their united, connected state.

What is it about the fact that life doesn't necessarily involve death that is hard for you to understand? Edited June 16, 2014 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Live long enough and something is going to kill you.

I will never die after I am resurrected, and if I had not fallen to mortality like Adam did I would have gone on living forever in my spirit.

[CV75]

Yes but if you had not fallen, along with Adam, you would not have had to worry about death in the first place

Ever? 2 Nephi 2;11-13 gives me plenty to worry about if there were no such opposition!

 

What is it about the fact that life doesn't necessarily involve death that is hard for you to understand?

Life always involves death, even the continuation of the seeds in exaltation involves death.

[CV75]

Let me correct- it was Adam's actual eating of the fruit of the tree of good and evil that caused the fall of the creation into mortality.

I agree.

 

And if this truth pertains to Adam’s covenants and stewardship, then it is possible that other forms life existed (lived and died) for millions of years outside of his covenants and stewardship.

 

So death still came into the world of his covenant/stewardship when he partook of the fruit and fell, but it also could have been occurring outside of it, allowing for various scientifically observed events to have taken place long before the 7000-year scriptural timeline. This does not contradict the scriptures or the teaching that there was no death before the Fall or that Adam prompted it by partaking of the fruit.

 

And since the atonement is infinite and eternal, it covers all forms of life existing outside of Adam’s stewardship as well as those that fell along with him.

[longview]

"The ordering of the strata in the earth's crust just does not fit this picture. No traces of humans have ever been found in the same strata as dinosaur bones, for example" - Dr. Frank B. Salisbury, Maxwell Institute 

http://ash.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=18&num=1&id=610&cat_id=592

 

"orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils, argues strongly against the notion that the earth has been assembled, relatively recently, from the wreckage of earlier worlds" - Henry Eyring, Leader in the church and Father of an apostle

http://emp.byui.edu/OTTS/Science_and_Religion/Documents\Reflections_of_a_Scientist_by_Henry_Eyring.html

 

"Both the scriptural record and the strata of the earth are two elements of God’s record...For many years I have personally studied evidences that show evolution has taken place throughout the history of life on earth"

- Wade E. Miller, Ph.D. in paleontology

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2132/wade-e-miller

I appreciate Salisbury's review and agree with most of what he said.  However, I was disappointed that he did touch on possibility of reuse of planet fragments.  This would account for absence of humans in the dinosaur layers.

I enjoyed Eyring's statement. He was good enough to say he only had opinions, although he did say that "the orderly layers" provide considerable evidence. He stated:

 

Many complications may arise to make the clock give incorrect time. If some argon were entrapped in the crystal as it formed, the clock will read too long a time. If some of the argon has escaped since crystallization occurred, the indicated time will be too short. Nonetheless, by being careful to choose elements with appropriate half-lives and by careful selection of the crystal used and by using more than one kind of a "clock," a reasonably consistent time scale for the formation of the various strata in the world has been achieved.

This agrees with my opinion that we do not know just what the conditions were in previous time periods.  Therefore dating techniques cannot be considered conclusive.

I respect Wade Miller's testimony but still do not accept his statements as being conclusive.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I appreciate Salisbury's review and agree with most of what he said.  However, I was disappointed that he did touch on possibility of reuse of planet fragments.  This would account for absence of humans in the dinosaur layers.

 

 

If you see the video, it is not just the absence of  humans in dinosaurs layers. 

You never find big mammals, dinosaurs, trilobites and other "kinds" of animals in the same layers.  

 

 

This agrees with my opinion that we do not know just what the conditions were in previous time periods.  Therefore dating techniques cannot be considered conclusive.

 

 

Forget about the clocks, even if the dating methods are all incorrect, that still doesn't explain the "orderly structure of these horizontally lying layers, with their fossils" - Dr. Eyring

 

and he also said, "reasonably consistent time scale for the formation of the various strata in the world has been achieved" anyways. 

 

How about the Ensign? Morris S. Petersen (professor of geology) wrote, 

"As one examines the rock layers, it becomes evident that there is a highly ordered pattern in the occurrence of fossils. As Elder James E. Talmage, a geologist, wrote in the Deseret News on 21 November 1931:“Geologists say that these very simple forms of plant and animal bodies were succeeded by others more complicated; and in the indestructible record of the rocks they read the story of advancing life from the simple to the more complex, from the single-celled protozoan to the highest animals, from the marine algae to the advanced types of flowering plant—to the apple tree, the rose and the oak.”The sequence in the occurrence of fossils repeats itself in sedimentary rocks throughout the world. Furthermore, whether they were in Australia, Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere, the various forms of life on earth appeared and disappeared at the same time. To the faithful student of the scriptures, this precision reflects the ordered processes of God, the divine Creator. The sequence of the creation of life on earth as recorded in Genesis—first plants (Gen. 1:11–12), then animals (Gen. 1:20–23)—is duplicated in the fossil record: plant fossils precede the appearance of animal fossils." 

- I Have a Question - Ensign Sept. 1987 - ensign

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1987/09/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

 

Watch the video, he is a geologist

 

Edited June 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Lachoneus]

How about the Ensign? Morris S. Petersen (professor of geology) wrote, 

"As one examines the rock layers, it becomes evident that there is a highly ordered pattern in the occurrence of fossils. As Elder James E. Talmage, a geologist, wrote in the Deseret News on 21 November 1931:“Geologists say that these very simple forms of plant and animal bodies were succeeded by others more complicated; and in the indestructible record of the rocks they read the story of advancing life from the simple to the more complex, from the single-celled protozoan to the highest animals, from the marine algae to the advanced types of flowering plant—to the apple tree, the rose and the oak.”The sequence in the occurrence of fossils repeats itself in sedimentary rocks throughout the world. Furthermore, whether they were in Australia, Africa, the Americas, or elsewhere, the various forms of life on earth appeared and disappeared at the same time. To the faithful student of the scriptures, this precision reflects the ordered processes of God, the divine Creator. The sequence of the creation of life on earth as recorded in Genesis—first plants (Gen. 1:11–12), then animals (Gen. 1:20–23)—is duplicated in the fossil record: plant fossils precede the appearance of animal fossils." 

- I Have a Question - Ensign Sept. 1987 - ensign

 

Yea, how about that article? The next paragraph includes this statement: "A conflict arises only when we assume that God has revealed all he is going to reveal on the subject or forget that scientific theories change as new discoveries are made."

 

Do you think God has revealed all He has to say on this matter? (See Article of Faith 9)

 

Do you think science will remain unchanged when new discoveries are made?

 

Do you think no new scientific discoveries will ever be made?

[Rob Osborn]

I agree.

 

And if this truth pertains to Adam’s covenants and stewardship, then it is possible that other forms life existed (lived and died) for millions of years outside of his covenants and stewardship.

 

So death still came into the world of his covenant/stewardship when he partook of the fruit and fell, but it also could have been occurring outside of it, allowing for various scientifically observed events to have taken place long before the 7000-year scriptural timeline. This does not contradict the scriptures or the teaching that there was no death before the Fall or that Adam prompted it by partaking of the fruit.

 

And since the atonement is infinite and eternal, it covers all forms of life existing outside of Adam’s stewardship as well as those that fell along with him.

Only the scriptures state that all of the creation was immortal until after the fall.

[Ahab]

Ever? 2 Nephi 2;11-13 gives me plenty to worry about if there were no such opposition!

Quality of life, like a life lived without any knowledge or awareness of anything that is evil, is totally different than no life at all, and yes death would not have ever been necessary.

Life always involves death, even the continuation of the seeds in exaltation involves death.

No, you are wrong about that. Life doesn't always involve death and we could have gone on forever without ever dieing. Accept that as the truth and you'll free yourself from the lie of evolution. Edited June 16, 2014 by Ahab

[CV75]

Quality of life, like a life lived without any knowledge or awareness of anything that is evil, is totally different than no life at all, and yes death would not have ever been necessary.

No, you are wrong about that. Life doesn't always involve death and we could have gone on forever without ever dieing. Accept that as the truth and you'll free yourself from the lie of evolution.

Well, I kind of "gotcha" on that one, I guess (didn't mean to)--where have I ever defended evolution? I've been talking about death and the Fall.

 

Death is necessary for life to progress. We cannot progress from one estate to another without it. For example, our pre-mortal condition died when we became mortal--we will never be the same. We die in our mortal estate, and will never be the same after that. Our post-mortal estate dies when we are resurrected. With each continuation of the seeds, the previous glory dies and an added glory is brought forth. One of my favorite scriptures is "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." (John 12:24).

 

Two living gametes died so that you could live as a zygote which further divided and differentiated to become you.

 

Life always involves death as a compound in one; that is what the scripture means. The only way we can on forever without experiencing death is to never progress, and that would mean never moving in any direction, which would mean not having agency (and we're simply not built that way). So we cannot live without dying, either physically or spiritually. This because "all things must needs be a compound in one …[otherwise] all things must have vanished away."

 

Had Adam and Eve remained in the Garden of Eden, they would have been alive in one sense (possessing their physical senses) and dead in another (no progress). If they never used their agency, which would be contrary to the nature of God's children, they would lose it and eventually become like the elements and die. The same with Satan; when he is bound, he will have nothing left to act upon and for all intents and purposes "dies" as far as we are concerned (and some people think he will die quite literally).

Edited June 17, 2014 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

Yea, how about that article? The next paragraph includes this statement: "A conflict arises only when we assume that God has revealed all he is going to reveal on the subject or forget that scientific theories change as new discoveries are made."

 

Do you think God has revealed all He has to say on this matter? (See Article of Faith 9)

 

Do you think science will remain unchanged when new discoveries are made?

 

Do you think no new scientific discoveries will ever be made?

 

Interesting article.

 

No.

 

No. That is how science works. New discoveries of necessity means our understanding of the science must change.

 

No. At least I certainly hope not. I eagerly await them.

[Ahab]

Well, I kind of "gotcha" on that one, I guess (didn't mean to)--where have I ever defended evolution? I've been talking about death and the Fall.

Death is necessary for life to progress. We cannot progress from one estate to another without it. For example, our pre-mortal condition died when we became mortal--we will never be the same. We die in our mortal estate, and will never be the same after that. Our post-mortal estate dies when we are resurrected. With each continuation of the seeds, the previous glory dies and an added glory is brought forth. One of my favorite scriptures is "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit." (John 12:24).

Two living gametes died so that you could live as a zygote which further divided and differentiated to become you.

Life always involves death as a compound in one; that is what the scripture means. The only way we can on forever without experiencing death is to never progress, and that would mean never moving in any direction, which would mean not having agency (and we're simply not built that way). So we cannot live without dying, either physically or spiritually. This because "all things must needs be a compound in one …[otherwise] all things must have vanished away."

Had Adam and Eve remained in the Garden of Eden, they would have been alive in one sense (possessing their physical senses) and dead in another (no progress). If they never used their agency, which would be contrary to the nature of God's children, they would lose it and eventually become like the elements and die. The same with Satan; when he is bound, he will have nothing left to act upon and for all intents and purposes "dies" as far as we are concerned (and some people think he will die quite literally).

Maybe it would help you to think of our Savior as an example? Do you think he had to die to be able to live forever or to progress to a higher state? Or what if he had been in the role of Adam, whose spirit was clothed with an immortal body of flesh which is the same kind of body our Lord was clothed in when he was resurrected? Do you think it's impossible for any person who is placed in the same conditions as Adam to live on forever without ever dieing?

The only reason resurrection is necessary is because that's what it takes to put us back into the same condition Adam and Eve were in before they fell. It's a restoration to that former condition, and the only reason it seems like an advancement to us now us because we fell to our current inferior condition.

Adam did advance in his condition when his spirit put on a body of flesh, but then he lost that advancement so that he could gain knowledge of good and evil in this fallen inferior condition, at which point he then needed a way to get back to his former superior condition while still retaining the knowledge he gained from what would then be his former mortal experience.

[thesometimesaint]

Resurrection doesn't put us back to how A&E were before the fall. We don't become like little children. Forever doomed to stay that way.

[CV75]

Maybe it would help you to think of our Savior as an example? Do you think he had to die to be able to live forever or to progress to a higher state? Or what if he had been in the role of Adam, whose spirit was clothed with an immortal body of flesh which is the same kind of body our Lord was clothed in when he was resurrected? Do you think it's impossible for any person who is placed in the same conditions as Adam to live on forever without ever dieing?

The only reason resurrection is necessary is because that's what it takes to put us back into the same condition Adam and Eve were in before they fell. It's a restoration to that former condition, and the only reason it seems like an advancement to us now us because we fell to our current inferior condition.

Adam did advance in his condition when his spirit put on a body of flesh, but then he lost that advancement so that he could gain knowledge of good and evil in this fallen inferior condition, at which point he then needed a way to get back to his former superior condition while still retaining the knowledge he gained from what would then be his former mortal experience.

Of course Jesus had to die in the flesh before living forever in His exalted state.

 

If Jesus was in the role of Adam, He would have done what Adam did. But there is a reason He wasn’t in that role, just as Adam wasn’t in His.

 

Yes, it was impossible for Adam to live forever in the Garden of Eden without dying. He died as a pre-mortal spirit by coming into the Garden and in forgetting everything beyond the veil; he died again as a single man when he became one flesh with Eve; and he would have eventually died (as in becoming completely inert) had he not exercised his agency. At some point he would have had to die to continue progressing.

 

Resurrection is accompanied with a degree of glory, which can be greater or lesser than the condition Adam and Eve were in before they fell. It is also accompanied with a knowledge that Adam and Eve did not possess. The earth will be restored to a paradisiacal glory with the Second Coming, which is not a resurrection into its celestial state. Translated beings are said to be in a terrestrial condition before they are resurrected, and they have to die before they are resurrected. So yes, resurrection is advancement far beyond a simple restoration to a pre-Fall condition.

 

If Adam only lived as “one body [he] must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death.” He would “have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation…wherefore, all things must have vanished away.” He would have remained in the garden of Eden in the same state in which he was after he was created except without purpose, or remaining as dead. I would not like to remain forever as Adam was in that first moment after he was created—might as well be an infant in a coma.

 

 The “purpose in the end of its creation” is eternal life, and the “end of its creation” requires death. That something is created and has an end means it must move beyond its creation, and death is the bridge between creation and its living end.

[Ahab]

Of course Jesus had to die in the flesh before living forever in His exalted state.

Interesting assertion.

If Jesus was in the role of Adam, He would have done what Adam did.

And you say this because you think Eve still would have done what she did and Jesus would have wanted to stay with her, which is why Adam did what he did?

But there is a reason He wasn’t in that role, just as Adam wasn’t in His.

Yes and I understand that.

Yes, it was impossible for Adam to live forever in the Garden of Eden without dying.

Even though Lehi said he could have. Got it.

He died as a pre-mortal spirit by coming into the Garden and in forgetting everything beyond the veil;

I don't think the word death means what you think it means.

he died again as a single man when he became one flesh with Eve;

I don't think the word single means what you think it means, either.

and he would have eventually died (as in becoming completely inert) had he not exercised his agency. At some point he would have had to die to continue progressing.

He would have still been exercising his agency had he chosen to not gain knowledge of evil, too.

Resurrection is accompanied with a degree of glory, which can be greater or lesser than the condition Adam and Eve were in before they fell. It is also accompanied with a knowledge that Adam and Eve did not possess. The earth will be restored to a paradisiacal glory with the Second Coming, which is not a resurrection into its celestial state. Translated beings are said to be in a terrestrial condition before they are resurrected, and they have to die before they are resurrected. So yes, resurrection is advancement far beyond a simple restoration to a pre-Fall condition.

I think you're confusing not knowing something to not remembering what you know, and it's entirely possible that Adam knew as much about good and evil before eating the fruit from a tree as he did after he ate it. And either way, death was not necessary for living forever.

If Adam only lived as “one body [he] must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death.” He would “have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation…wherefore, all things must have vanished away.” He would have remained in the garden of Eden in the same state in which he was after he was created except without purpose, or remaining as dead. I would not like to remain forever as Adam was in that first moment after he was created—might as well be an infant in a coma.

That's more about quality of life than no longer living in any way whatsoever, and I think it's interesting that the focus on living the best kind of life is all about being able to multiply.

The “purpose in the end of its creation” is eternal life, and the “end of its creation” requires death. That something is created and has an end means it must move beyond its creation, and death is the bridge between creation and its living end.

We still don't agree and I have explained why. Edited June 17, 2014 by Ahab

[longview]

If you see the video, it is not just the absence of  humans in dinosaurs layers. 

You never find big mammals, dinosaurs, trilobites and other "kinds" of animals in the same layers.

I agree with the general concepts.  I am going to start delving into more of the textbooks and websites to gain a better familiarity with how the layers are formed and how much are "blank" (no fossils).  However, since 1980 there have been increasing questions about "catastrophisms".  This website I am interested in has some very interesting concepts.  It is rather lengthy so it will take me a while to study.  It is written by Sean Pittman, M.D.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html

 

He says this about science:

 

http://www.everythingimportant.org/SeanPitman/

 

 

Sean Pitman

Your argument for your belief in the inspiration of Scripture via your sense of the Holy Spirit isn't helpful to me. I have no such impression which I can point to which I can readily distinguish from indigestion or just plain wishful thinking.

Also, your notion that mathematical theories are essentially irrefutable which it comes to their correlation with the real world in which we live is also false. See argument from Gregory Chaitin as to why even mathematics has its clear limitations when it comes to what can be definitively known.

You don't seem to grasp the concept that science, by its very nature, is limited and, to a certain degree, subjective. It cannot be more than what it actually is - a useful but limited tool which can narrow the field to where truth may be found, while never actually finding absolute certainty. The controversy between most atheists and/or theistic evolutionists and creationists is not resolvable precisely because scientists are human too - and come to the table with bias just like everyone else. This is unavoidable in a certain sense. The very best we as individuals can do is to be aware of our own bias and how it can color how we perceive reality.

We should be careful that our desires do not overwhelm are higher logical God-given minds when it comes to determining what we really do "believe" to be true. This is why I think your blind-faith based belief in God isn't helpful and is in fact dangerous... distinctly unChristian as far as I understand the basis of the Christian Gospel. The Christian Faith isn't based on some sense of the Holy Spirit alone - but on solid physical empirical evidence. God gave us higher logical intelligent minds for a reason - so that we would use them. He therefore appeals to that higher reason in his efforts to win us to himself. God does not expect or desire blind faith believers.

 

Of course, this is a very general pattern and does not explain why certain creatures that lived on the bottoms of oceans, like trilobites, make their first appearance in the Cambrian (505-540 Ma) while other creatures that live on ocean bottoms, like crabs and lobsters, don't appear until the beginning of the Cretaceous (65-145 Ma). Why would creatures that would seem to share the same general environment while alive be so widely separated in the fossil record if they did indeed live at the same time and in pretty much the same location? If the geologic column truly represents a series of closely spaced catastrophic burial events instead of long ages of time, how can this feature be explained? Certainly this seems like a difficult and rather mysterious problem for those, like myself, who might think to question the long age notion of the fossil record.

The uniformitarian notion of slow deposition over millions of years of time is no longer accepted by scientists. It is now believed that various catastrophes, large and small and sometimes worldwide, played a key role in the Earth's history and are recorded in the geologic column. In this regard, consider the following comments from David, M. Raup of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History:

"A great deal has changed, however, and contemporary geologists and paleontologists now generally accept catastrophe as a 'way of life' although they may avoid the word catastrophe... The periods of relative quiet contribute only a small part of the record. The days are almost gone when a geologist looks at such a sequence, measures its thickness, estimates the total amount of elapsed time, and then divides one by the other to compute the rate of deposition in centimeters per thousand years. The nineteenth century idea of uniformitarianism and gradualism still exist in popular treatments of geology, in some museum exhibits, and in lower level textbooks....one can hardly blame the creationists for having the idea that the conventional wisdom in geology is still a noncatastrophic one."

Also, consider the following comments by Robert H. Dott given during a Presidential Address To Society of Economic

Paleontologists & Mineralogists:

"I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that episodicity is the rule, not the exception. . . We need to shed those lingering subconscious constraints of old uniformitarian thinking."

Coelacanths are thought to be very ancient fish who lived before, during, and after the time of the dinosaurs.  However, like the dinosaurs, the coelacanths vanished from the fossil record (some 80 million years ago).  However, before they seemingly went extinct they lived prosperously for nearly 400 million years.  They are in fact thought to be the ancestors to the first vertebrates to step out of the seas and walk on dry land some 350 million years ago.  Because of this belief that coelacanths are an important evolutionary link between sea and land dwelling vertebrates, special significance has been given to their place in the fossil record.  In fact, it was long thought that the fossil record was the only place where coelacanths would ever be found.  This seemed to be true until 1938 when living coelacanths were found alive and well off the coast of South Africa living at a depth of around 120 to 250 meters.   Since then, other colonies of coelacanths have been found in various areas such the coast of Madagascar, Sulawesi (Indonesian Archipelago), Mozambique, and Comoran.  

The initial discovery of living coelacanths came as quite a shock to the scientific community.  To find a "living fossil" after it had vanished from the fossil record for some 80 million years was quite a stunning revelation.  How could this be explained?  How could a creature be preserved/fossilized over and over again during the course of 300+ million years and then vanish for some 80 million years only to reappear, alive and well, in modern oceans?

Well, there are several explanations commonly given to explain such a phenomenon.  Perhaps one of the more popular explanations is that the modern coelacanth is not the same creature as those coelacanths found in the fossil record.  In fact, the differences are thought to be so significant that modern coelacanths have not only been classed in a different species category, but in a different genus group as well.  The classification of the modern coelacanth Latimeria chalumnae verses the very similar fossil coelacanth Macropoma lewesiensis, goes as follows:

 

Coelacanth Classification

 

Kingdom: Anamilia vs. Anamilia

Phylum: Chordata vs. Chordata

Class: Osteichthyes vs. Osteichthyes (bony fishes)

Order: Coelacanthini vs. Coelacanthini

Family: Sarcopterygii vs. Sarcopterygii

Genus: Latimeria vs. Macropoma

Species: chalumnae vs. lewesiensis

 

Many "emphasize" the point that, "The living coelacanth is not a living fossil in the very strict sense that members of the species L. chaumnaeitself have never been found as a fossil.  In fact, no other species assignable to the Genus Latimeria has been found as a fossil either.  Latimeriaand the Cretaceous fossil Genus Macropoma are quite closely related, and we could possibly include them in the same family.  Beyond that, all fossil coelacanths belong to the order Coelacanthini." ^38,40

The problem with this argument, as discussed in some detail above, is that phylogenic classification schemes are quite subjective.  A comparison of the modern coelacanth with those found in the fossil record really does not necessitate their being any more different from various breeds of dogs who are all members of not only the same genus and family groups, but the same species group as well.  Even so, some do argue that, "A person can see substantial differences in the fins, tail, lobe fin, and drastic changes in the structure of the head." ⁴⁰  However, it seems to me that this is an over emphasis when such differences are no more drastic than the differences that are seen within species groups (ie: bulldog vs. German Shepherd).  It is true that the picture comparisons do show some obvious differences, but these do not seem to be as striking as many seem to suggest.  The lobe fins themselves are almost identical.  The tails are also practically identical excepting for comparisons of the "supplementary tail fin."  The problem here is that the supplementary tail fin was left out of the drawing of the fossil coelacanth, Macropoma lewesiensis (as were the fin bones).  This is because, "Details of the fossil's supplementary tail fin are insufficiently known to allow restoration" (The same can be said for the fin bones).  This leaves, basically, the "drastic changes in the structure of the head" as the only real possible difference between the two coelacanths. 

 

[CV75]

We still don't agree and I have explained why.

Not very well.

 

Narrowing the discussion to physical death alone, 2 Nephi 2:16 explains that Adam could not act if he was unable to physically die as well as physically live. He chose to physically die. Had he chosen only to continue to live in the garden not knowing death (and not recognizing the transition from his pre-mortal state onto his bodily state--yes, a form of physical death in that the introduction of the physical body to the spirit meant the death of the disembodied spirit in the pre-mortal spirit world), he would have eventually “become as dead” (verse 11), further devolving to remain in the same state in which he was after he was created (inert).

 

Thus he would have died with the transition from the pre-mortal world into the terrestrial garden without progressing beyond that death. Another way of putting it is that such an existence would have been the end of his kingdom; he would not have had an increase. And the end or the purpose of the garden was to 1) end the disembodied life of the pre-mortal spirit children (one death) and 2) propel the children of God (through another death) into a higher state, thus ending the terrestrial state.

 

Some have argued that Adam and Eve could have been raised into exaltation without partaking of the fruit. Regardess, there would still need to be the transition (death) from a separably connected spirit and paradisaical element to an inseparably connected spirit and eternal element.

[Ahab]

Not very well.

Narrowing the discussion to physical death alone, 2 Nephi 2:16 explains that Adam could not act if he was unable to physically die as well as physically live. He chose to physically die. Had he chosen only to continue to live in the garden not knowing death (and not recognizing the transition from his pre-mortal state onto his bodily state--yes, a form of physical death in that the introduction of the physical body to the spirit meant the death of the disembodied spirit in the pre-mortal spirit world), he would have eventually “become as dead” (verse 11), further devolving to remain in the same state in which he was after he was created (inert).

Death refers to a separation of our spirit from our (other) physical body, without any regard for place or time, so no I don't agree that a spirit putting on a body of flesh is some kind of death for that spirit. And I also don't agree that a spirit would be in an inert state if it continued to live in that body of flesh.

Thus he would have died with the transition from the pre-mortal world into the terrestrial garden without progressing beyond that death. Another way of putting it is that such an existence would have been the end of his kingdom; he would not have had an increase. And the end or the purpose of the garden was to 1) end the disembodied life of the pre-mortal spirit children (one death) and 2) propel the children of God (through another death) into a higher state, thus ending the terrestrial state.

That looks like nothing but nonsense to me, as if you don't really understand what I'm talking about.

Some have argued that Adam and Eve could have been raised into exaltation without partaking of the fruit. Regardess, there would still need to be the transition (death) from a separably connected spirit and paradisaical element to an inseparably connected spirit and eternal element.

Question for you: Were Adam and Eve celestial beings before they each came, as a spirit, to a body of flesh that their and our Father (and Mother) had created for them in the garden of Eden. I say yes, and from what you say I think you are thinking no.

Another question for you: Do you realize glory is all about intelligence, or having a certain degree of light and truth?

Edited June 17, 2014 by Ahab

[CV75]

Death refers to a separation of our spirit from our (other) physical body, without any regard for place or time, so no I don't agree that a spirit putting on a body of flesh is some kind of death for that spirit. And I also don't agree that a spirit would be in an inert state if it continued to live in that body of flesh.

That looks like nothing but nonsense to me, as if you don't really understand what I'm talking about.

Question for you: Were Adam and Eve celestial beings before they each came, as a spirit, to a body of flesh that their and our Father (and Mother) had created for them in the garden of Eden. I say yes, and from what you say I think you are thinking no.

Another question for you: Do you realize glory is all about intelligence, or having a certain degree of light and truth?

So when one kind of body is replaced with a better body, that is the death of the old body – death isn’t always bad. The same holds true where a physical body is given where none existed before—that is the end or death of the bodiless spirit. We bid them farewell from the presence of God just as we bid them farewell when they leave this mortal sphere; they are gone and become separably connected to element only to die yet again (We all experience of death both from our own personal experience and as part of a larger family of God’s children, as we are able). Also, where death is an ending and a beginning, and a pre-mortal spirit takes on a body of flesh and blood, that transition is a form of death just as much as it is a form of birth.

 

If it is nonsense to you, maybe you’re the one that doesn’t understand what either of us is talking about! LOL

 

I believe Adam and Eve, like all of us, were celestial spirits in that they lived in the presence of God. Adam and Eve, like all of us, were celestial spirits in that they qualified to come to Earth to be tested and return to God’s presence. None were of the stature of Christ, however, either in the presence of God or in the Earth.

 

Yes, I realize what glory is.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

I agree with the general concepts.  I am going to start delving into more of the textbooks and websites to gain a better familiarity with how the layers are formed and how much are "blank" (no fossils).  However, since 1980 there have been increasing questions about "catastrophisms".  This website I am interested in has some very interesting concepts.  It is rather lengthy so it will take me a while to study.  It is written by Sean Pittman, M.D.

 

 

MD, not a paleontologist.

 

"The Christian Faith isn't based on some sense of the Holy Spirit alone - but on solid physical empirical evidence"

 

That contradicts what Elder D. Todd Christofferson said in General Conference , 

"Faith will not come from the study of ancient texts as a purely academic pursuit. It will not come from archaeological digs and discoveries. It will not come from scientific experiments"

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/the-blessing-of-scripture?lang=eng

 

ID creationists try to prove the existence of God with their "scientific" arguments. 

 

""I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that episodicity is the rule, not the exception."

 

I agree, but that still doesn't explain why trilobites, large mammals, and dinosaurs are never found in the same layer. 

 

"scientists are human too - and come to the table with bias just like everyone else."

But Mormon Scientists that believe in Evolution is not because they like it, it is because of the evidence. 

A Mormon is not an atheist, so Mormon scientists don't have another reason to believe in the theory of Evolution,  there is no hidden agenda. 

 

Here is a real source, 2013 Nature Education Paper 

 

"In the Grand Canyon, the layers of strata are nearly horizontal. Most sediment is either laid down horizontally in bodies of water like the oceans, or on land on the margins of streams and rivers. Each time a new layer of sediment is deposited it is laid down horizontally on top of an older layer. This is the principle of original horizontality: layers of strata are deposited horizontally or nearly horizontally (Figure 2). Thus, any deformations of strata (Figures 2 and 3) must have occurred after the rock was deposited....The principle of faunal succession states that different fossil species always appear and disappear in the same order, and that once a fossil species goes extinct, it disappears and cannot reappear in younger rocks (Figure 4)" 

 

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044  Please see the website 

 

If the Theory of Evolution is false, then anything can be false, like the Theory of the Solar System, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, the Theory of the Atom, the Theories in Medical Science, but they work.  

Edited June 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[longview]

MD, not a paleontologist.

This is why I attached M.D. after his name because I knew you would jump on Sean Pittman's background. But you should not begrudge his deep interest in the subject. He is not just another I.D. creationist. Far from it. He seems to take the middle ground between religious and secular perspectives on evolutionary history. If he took a great deal of self-discipline to become a medical doctor, I am sure he makes the same effort in carefully studying this subject.  I don't know how extensively but I respect this kind of person.

 

"The Christian Faith isn't based on some sense of the Holy Spirit alone - but on solid physical empirical evidence"

 

That contradicts what Elder D. Todd Christofferson said in General Conference , 

"Faith will not come from the study of ancient texts as a purely academic pursuit. It will not come from archaeological digs and discoveries. It will not come from scientific experiments"

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/the-blessing-of-scripture?lang=eng

I do not see any contradictions between the two statements. I actually agree with both. They are saying you cannot rely on one or the other exclusively. The "walk of faith" requires experience in getting "feedback" from spiritual study, meditations, self-restraint.  AND from applications, observations, and testing in temporal world and actual relationships. The word "empirical" to me means a fact that cannot be further reduced to basic level, that there is no longer more than one possible interpretation. Faith requires interplay between the religious and the secular while attempting to keep aspects in their proper places.

Alma 30:

44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of all these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

 

ID creationists try to prove the existence of God with their "scientific" arguments.

As I already have indicated, creationist theories makes me gag. There is no "proving" of evolutionary theories, which is a "soft" science. Only continual discoveries and refinements.

 

""I hope I have convinced you that the sedimentary record is largely a record of episodic events rather than being uniformly continuous. My message is that episodicity is the rule, not the exception."

 

I agree, but that still doesn't explain why trilobites, large mammals, and dinosaurs are never found in the same layer. 

 

"scientists are human too - and come to the table with bias just like everyone else."

But Mormon Scientists that believe in Evolution is not because they like it, it is because of the evidence. 

A Mormon is not an atheist, so Mormon scientists don't have another reason to believe in the theory of Evolution,  there is no hidden agenda.

They believe it to be "plausible". Not because they "believe" it to be true. They know the science is not "settled".

 

Here is a real source, 2013 Nature Education Paper 

 

"In the Grand Canyon, the layers of strata are nearly horizontal. Most sediment is either laid down horizontally in bodies of water like the oceans, or on land on the margins of streams and rivers. Each time a new layer of sediment is deposited it is laid down horizontally on top of an older layer. This is the principle of original horizontality: layers of strata are deposited horizontally or nearly horizontally (Figure 2). Thus, any deformations of strata (Figures 2 and 3) must have occurred after the rock was deposited....The principle of faunal succession states that different fossil species always appear and disappear in the same order, and that once a fossil species goes extinct, it disappears and cannot reappear in younger rocks (Figure 4)" 

 

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044  Please see the website

That was excellent. Appreciate it.

 

If the Theory of Evolution is false, then anything can be false, like the Theory of the Solar System, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, the Theory of the Atom, the Theories in Medical Science, but they work.

Evolution is neither true or false. There is simply too many unknowns. Some questions so massive, we can only speculate (or ponder).

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution is neither true or false. There is simply too many unknowns. Some questions so massive, we can only speculate (or ponder).

 

That is simply incorrect.

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

[longview]

Evolution is neither true or false. There is simply too many unknowns. Some questions so massive, we can only speculate (or ponder).

 

That is simply incorrect.

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

If you read carefully my previous post, you would know that I disdain "creationist" theories. They are too emotional, unscientific, and hard to demonstrate (if not impossible). But I do believe the "secularist" should NOT be saying that evolution is "fact". It was wrong for Dr. Leakey to state on a PBS/NOVA show that evolution is a fact. The science courses should be modified to indicate there is no "certainty" in various theories (especially in the "soft" sciences). Only projections, speculations, "best fit". All subject to further refinements.