No Death Before The Fall Anywhere On Earth

[thesometimesaint]

 

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.

 

 

I'm fine with Creationism as a philosophy. "God did it". It is when when Creationists try to explain how, and usually when, God did it, that I have problems. We really have only two alternatives Creationism or Evolution. All other ideas are merely combinations of the two.

 

Evolution is a fact. Look in a mirror and you cans see it for yourself. You don't look exactly like both of your parents. You look like a combination of their traits. Different "looks" accumulate over time and at some point because of genetic isolation a new species is produced. We see it in nature and we see it in the lab. It is settle science. Now, and for the foreseeable future, the exact course evolution took is open to further refinement.

[Ahab]

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.

I think our main point of disagreement is our different understandings of what death is.

The fact that as spirits we said good-bye to other spirits who went on to be born into a body of flesh in this mortal world doesn't equate to them dieing to get here, just as someone isn't dieing when they get in a car or a train to go on a trip.

Think of living differently than you do now and then maybe we can come to agree on this issue.

[thesometimesaint]

I think our main point of disagreement is our different understandings of what death is.

The fact that as spirits we said good-bye to other spirits who went on to be born into a body of flesh in this mortal world doesn't equate to them dieing to get here, just as someone isn't dieing when they get in a car or a train to go on a trip.

Think of living differently than you do now and then maybe we can come to agree on this issue.

 

We gave up everything to come here our family, home, everything we ever loved including our memories of it.

[CV75]

Think of living differently than you do now and then maybe we can come to agree on this issue.

Death is living differently than we did before. When mortality ends, we live differently in the spirit world than we do now in this world. Just like we live differently in mortality than we did in the pre-mortal world (which is also happens to be what birth is).

[Rob Osborn]

I'm fine with Creationism as a philosophy. "God did it". It is when when Creationists try to explain how, and usually when, God did it, that I have problems. We really have only two alternatives Creationism or Evolution. All other ideas are merely combinations of the two.

 

Evolution is a fact. Look in a mirror and you cans see it for yourself. You don't look exactly like both of your parents. You look like a combination of their traits. Different "looks" accumulate over time and at some point because of genetic isolation a new species is produced. We see it in nature and we see it in the lab. It is settle science. Now, and for the foreseeable future, the exact course evolution took is open to further refinement.

Yes it is true that I look different than my parents- the many various genes and traits that can be turned on and off show that fact. But, I am still like them- still a human with fingers and toes, a heart and brain and countless other features. This much all is a fact. What we have never seen, never witnessed, or even know if it is true is if our human species came from a lower order of species. For all we know we are here because A God who procreated us, a distant human population in the galaxy that came here in ships and procreated us and then left, or any number of other possibilities.

 

Speaking of evolution- how come, according to evolutionary theory, humans have been around such a long time and yet we all pretty much look the same with the same ability to procreate with each other and have the same exact basic intelligence? Certainly there must have been widespread areas where populations were isolated for tens of thousands of years.

 

My main complaint with evolutionary theory is that we have never witnessed how evolution has led to new and intelligent information. All the evidence points to a basic loss of information.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

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.

 

Sure, a testimony, I am a fan of the Fine-tuned Universe hypothesis, but a testimony only works when you open your heart to the spirit. My point is that ID creationism is not a proven scientific theory that forces belief. 

 

 

As I already have indicated, creationist theories makes me gag.

 

You seem to be an Old Earth ID Creationist. My definition of  an ID creationist is somebody that believes Evolution is impossible because life is too complex, or someone that doesn't believe in Evolution. 

 

 

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

 

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

 

There are unknowns, but the unknowns don't disprove the known. On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the fact of common descent, there is no scientific controversy

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html

 

The church linked to Dr. Perego's article in the DNA studies essay, twice. 

Ugo A. Perego, “The Book of Mormon and the Origin of Native Americans from a Maternally Inherited DNA Standpoint,”

https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng

Mormon Dr. Ugo Perego (PhD Genetics) wrote, 

"Mainstream population geneticists are in agreement that, based on the available mtDNA data, the most recent common female ancestor (from whom all mtDNAs in modern humans derive) lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago and that an initial migration out of Africa took place around 70,000 years ago"  

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/book-mormon-and-origin-native-americans-maternally-inherited-dna

To clarify, He is talking about the most recent known common ancestor. 

 

Mormon Dr. Laura Clarke Bridgewater has a PhD in Genetics, and has no hidden agenda, wrote 

"In fact, we do share something like 97% of our genes with chimpanzees...In light of the irrefutable evidence of our genetic and biochemical similarity to all other life on earth, my personal conviction is that it’s not our genes that make us different. It’s our spirits"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2600/laura-clarke-bridgewater

 

Mormon Dr. Richard D. Gardner (PhD in molecular and cellular biology) wrote, 

"However, since the church has taken no official position, other than that God was in charge of the process (whatever it was), I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1400/richard-d-gardner

 

Mormon Dr. Heath Ogden (PhD in integrative biology)

"I do not know when Adam and Eve lived on this Earth. However, I accept that their physical bodies are united to all other life on this planet in a great tree of life. In other words, all of life, from the smallest bacteria to humans, is related and united by descent with modification. The evidences that support this idea are astounding"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1680/t-heath-ogden

[thesometimesaint]

Yes it is true that I look different than my parents- the many various genes and traits that can be turned on and off show that fact. But, I am still like them- still a human with fingers and toes, a heart and brain and countless other features. This much all is a fact. What we have never seen, never witnessed, or even know if it is true is if our human species came from a lower order of species. For all we know we are here because A God who procreated us, a distant human population in the galaxy that came here in ships and procreated us and then left, or any number of other possibilities.

 

Speaking of evolution- how come, according to evolutionary theory, humans have been around such a long time and yet we all pretty much look the same with the same ability to procreate with each other and have the same exact basic intelligence? Certainly there must have been widespread areas where populations were isolated for tens of thousands of years.

 

My main complaint with evolutionary theory is that we have never witnessed how evolution has led to new and intelligent information. All the evidence points to a basic loss of information.

 

No one is disputing that. Now what happens if 200,000 years from now a long distant ancestor doesn't have enough "looks" alike to breed with your species.

Whether life came from God or space aliens that would have no effect on evolution.

 

That is NOT what evolution says. It merely says that all life is related by Common Descent. People were never apes and apes were never people. It doesn't say that one species morphs into another species, or gives birth to another species. We have a Common Ancestor that was neither.

 

I don't know what you mean by "basic intelligence". As far as we know plants and simple animals don't have what we'd call intelligence. IE; There are more bacteria in a single teaspoon of soil than there are people on this planet. Yet they do evolve.

 

We have witnessed it in nature and in the lab.

SEE

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/devitt_02

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U6HsF7G9Ztg

[Ahab]

We gave up everything to come here our family, home, everything we ever loved including our memories of it.

No, we didn't give up anything to come here or to move forward in our advancement through life. You may not remember or realize what you had before you came here but those things are not lost forever. The point of returning to our Father in heaven is to get all we had then and in addition all we will gain through our experiences here, and our progress won't necessarily end for us even then. Edited June 18, 2014 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Death is living differently than we did before. When mortality ends, we live differently in the spirit world than we do now in this world. Just like we live differently in mortality than we did in the pre-mortal world (which is also happens to be what birth is).

Thank you for confirming the fact that I correctly identified the problem. We do not agree on the idea of what the word death refers to, and you are free to use your imagination in any way that you want to.

[cinepro]

Thank you for confirming the fact that I correctly identified the problem. We do not agree on the idea of what the word death refers to, and you are free to use your imagination in any way that you want to.

 

When it comes to issues like this, I think you'll find that imagination is never in short supply.

[CV75]

Thank you for confirming the fact that I correctly identified the problem. We do not agree on the idea of what the word death refers to, and you are free to use your imagination in any way that you want to.

The word "death" (as do "world," "Creation," and "Fall") refers to many things, some which you apparently agree with me on. You may disagree with me on some points, and you may choose to make that a problem for you, but for me, I don't disagree with your narrow description of physical death as a separation of the formerly connected spirit and mortal body, and I don't have a problem with it. You seem to have a problem with other concepts of death, even though every one of them have to do with Adam's role in the Fall, whatever the mechanics (per post #57), but I haven't a problem with them or with you having a problem with them!

 

I have pointed out the doctrinal missteps you've taken (such as your assertions that the resurrection puts us into an Edenic state and the law of opposition has nothing to do with life and death)--why would you interpret that as a disagreement and problematic?

 

I am happy that you have imagined to confirm to yourself that you have pointed out a one-sided problem.

[Rob Osborn]

Two kinds of "death". Physical death is the first type and is the separation of the spirit from the physical body. Spiritual death is the second type of death and refers to someone who is "dead" to the things of righteousness and as a result are cut off from God.

[longview]

Sure, a testimony, I am a fan of the Fine-tuned Universe hypothesis, but a testimony only works when you open your heart to the spirit. My point is that ID creationism is not a proven scientific theory that forces belief.

Agreed.

 

You seem to be an Old Earth ID Creationist. My definition of  an ID creationist is somebody that believes Evolution is impossible because life is too complex, or someone that doesn't believe in Evolution.

I am more of a "anything goes" creationist. I am leaning towards an infinite universe (both in time and space and many dimensions scientists have not yet pondered). Yet, I believe this "dispensation" of the creative "generation" the earth and solar system (along with multiple words currently) probably were organized in a smaller fraction of the 5 billion years. I have provided an alternative for the cause of the "red shift" of photons in previous posts (therefore "big bang" did not happen).

Evolution is intellectually "plausible" but I am convinced this process is ridiculously cumbersome and inconvenient for the Creator. I have no problem believing all matter/elements have some embedded intelligences of varying degrees. I am convinced that God's power results from the "HONOR" given Him by the "Hosts" (Lucifer: "therefore give me THINE Honor). It is this Honor that enables God to say the word and the elements will fulfill His commands to pull together systems or carry out an errand (according the "templates" provided in the Priesthood databases).

 

There are unknowns, but the unknowns don't disprove the known. On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the fact of common descent, there is no scientific controversy

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html

But the "known" is not written in stone. It is subject to multiple possible interpretations. You have yet to respond to this concept.

 

Mormon Dr. Laura Clarke Bridgewater has a PhD in Genetics, and has no hidden agenda, wrote "In fact, we do share something like 97% of our genes with chimpanzees...In light of the irrefutable evidence of our genetic and biochemical similarity to all other life on earth, my personal conviction is that it’s not our genes that make us different. It’s our spirits"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/2600/laura-clarke-bridgewater

I do not consider this person (and others like her) to be very persuasive.  They don't always get their "ducks in a row".

[MormonFreeThinker]

But the "known" is not written in stone. It is subject to multiple possible interpretations. You have yet to respond to this concept.

 

Then nothing can ever be known in science, only interpretations. I hope you don't think that same about medical science. If Evolution (common descent) is false, then anything that we learn in science can be false. What about the Theory of the Solar System, is it only a interpretation?

 

 

I do not consider this person (and others like her) to be very persuasive.  They don't always get their "ducks in a row".

 

Why not? She has a PhD in Genetics. Who do you find persuasive? The Evangelical scientists (very few in number) that don't like Evolution because their parents told them it was a lie?

 

How about Dr. Walter E. A. van Beek? Professor of African Anthropology, he was stake president of the Rotterdam Stake, and is presently on the high council of that stake, while also teaching Institute and Sunday School, and often translates for General Conference. He wrote, "Biological evolution is a fact, well established, with overwhelming evidence from a large array of scientific disciplines, and with an integrating theory (called ‘natural selection’) that has been tested empirically and come out with flying colors. We know now that our bodies were formed in a long process, which in Africa resulted in early human forms from which we descend."

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1694/walter-e-a-van-beek

[JLHPROF]

 

That is NOT what evolution says. It merely says that all life is related by Common Descent. People were never apes and apes were never people. It doesn't say that one species morphs into another species, or gives birth to another species. We have a Common Ancestor that was neither.

 

If that was all evolution said no religious person would have an issue with it.  It's the notion that God's spirit children had parents that were not human at some point in our ancestry.  In other words, that God would send his children to earth through more corrupt/lower life form genealogy.  It's the notion that that it took millions of years to create what we call "human" through the common descent principle. 

 

God is a perfect man.  We are men created in his image.  Whatever other primate/hominids may have existed on this earth or on previous earths we are not their grandchildren.  To say so is to say that eventually a fish can evolve into a lizard which can evolve into a mammal which can evolve into a primate which can evolve into a man which can become a God after millions of years.  I don't believe that Gods can be created or descend from any lower DNA.

I mean, seriously.  Is it like "Crap, I was one generation too early to become a God?"

[Rob Osborn]

If that was all evolution said no religious person would have an issue with it.  It's the notion that God's spirit children had parents that were not human at some point in our ancestry.  In other words, that God would send his children to earth through more corrupt/lower life form genealogy.  It's the notion that that it took millions of years to create what we call "human" through the common descent principle. 

 

God is a perfect man.  We are men created in his image.  Whatever other primate/hominids may have existed on this earth or on previous earths we are not their grandchildren.  To say so is to say that eventually a fish can evolve into a lizard which can evolve into a mammal which can evolve into a primate which can evolve into a man which can become a God after millions of years.  I don't believe that Gods can be created or descend from any lower DNA.

I mean, seriously.  Is it like "Crap, I was one generation too early to become a God?"

Just too add-

In evolutionary theory, man has looked the same for apparently tens of thousands of years. But when you couple this with Mormon doctrine you get "people" or what we could officially be called "modern humans" that predate Adam who, by scripture and doctrine state he is the first man o all men. The notion that these pre-adamites were somehow lacking souls or whatever doesnt add up.

[longview]

Then nothing can ever be known in science, only interpretations.

You have your "best fit" which is the case with most of science (especially "soft" science). It is a process, not an end point.

 

I hope you don't think that same about medical science.

I most certainly do. George Washington detested being subjected to the "bloodletting" procedure. Some prescribed medicine containing mercury. In 1940's, lobotomies were perpetrated on people (still being done in Cuba on people who resist communism). These days, doctors have a strong tendency to treat the symptoms instead of trying to find the deeper cause and being over reliant on chemical drug prescriptions (with tempting incentives from pharmaceutical companies). We could go on and on.

 

If Evolution (common descent) is false, then anything that we learn in science can be false. What about the Theory of the Solar System, is it only a interpretation?

 

I will say it again: evolution is neither true or false. We just don't have the whole picture. God may actually have moved planets between systems. How can science find out about that? Some may be comfortable with a theory until a "fact" is discovered that will totally demolish the theory. I love scientific inquiries. But it is inexcusable for a Dr. Leakey to call evolution "fact".

 

Why not? She has a PhD in Genetics. Who do you find persuasive? The Evangelical scientists (very few in number) that don't like Evolution because their parents told them it was a lie?

 

How about Dr. Walter E. A. van Beek? Professor of African Anthropology, he was stake president of the Rotterdam Stake, and is presently on the high council of that stake, while also teaching Institute and Sunday School, and often translates for General Conference. He wrote, "Biological evolution is a fact, well established, with overwhelming evidence from a large array of scientific disciplines, and with an integrating theory (called ‘natural selection’) that has been tested empirically and come out with flying colors. We know now that our bodies were formed in a long process, which in Africa resulted in early human forms from which we descend."

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1694/walter-e-a-van-beek

They are entitled to their opinions. Even General Authorities have been wrong about some religious concepts and a greater number of scientific topics.  We must keep asking questions and not blindly follow the herd.  Make the effort to commune with God for some truths (we cannot expect to know everything during mortality).

Edited June 20, 2014 by longview

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

I will say it again: evolution is neither true or false. We just don't have the whole picture. God may actually have moved planets between systems. How can science find out about that? Some may be comfortable with a theory until a "fact" is discovered that will totally demolish the theory. I love scientific inquiries. But it is inexcusable for a Dr. Leakey to call evolution "fact".

 

 

I will say it again, Common ancestry has been proven. We don't have the whole picture on many things, but just because we don't have the whole picture doesn't mean Evolution is false. For example, medical doctors don't fully understand the human body, there are many unknowns, but the unknowns don't disprove what doctors already know about the human body. What they know, they know it. Let me quote Elder Oaks, he said, "Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge" - General Conference, April 2010

 

Why do you insist that evolution is not supported by strong evidence? 

 

Even if Evolution is false, Evolution is still the "best available scientific knowledge" for now. 

For now, the evidences that confirm it are strong. Even if God moved planets, Genetic evidence for common ancestry remains. 

 

Please answer my question, who said that Evolution is not supported by strong evidence? Where did you read that?  Or did you do your own research in a laboratory? 

 

Mormon Dr. Richard D. Gardner (PhD in molecular and cellular biology) wrote,"However, since the church has taken no official position, other than that God was in charge of the process (whatever it was), I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1400/richard-d-gardner

Edited June 20, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Rob Osborn]

I will say it again, Common ancestry has been proven. We don't have the whole picture on many things, but just because we don't have the whole picture doesn't mean Evolution is false. For example, medical doctors don't fully understand the human body, there are many unknowns, but the unknowns don't disprove what doctors already know about the human body. What they know, they know it. 

 

Why do you insist that evolution is not supported by strong evidence? Let me quote Elder Oaks, he said, "Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge" - General Conference, April 2010

 

Yes, Science is not an endpoint, scientists keep finding evidences that confirm Evolution. 

Even if Evolution is false, Evolution is still the "best available scientific knowledge" for now. 

For now, the evidences that confirm it are strong.

 

Please answer my question, who said that Evolution is not supported by strong evidence? Where did you read that?  Or did you do your own research in a laboratory? 

 

Mormon Dr. Richard D. Gardner (PhD in molecular and cellular biology) wrote,"However, since the church has taken no official position, other than that God was in charge of the process (whatever it was), I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1400/richard-d-gardner

Some things you said don't make sense. You say that commn ancestory is proven but then in the next breath say that you dont have the whole picture on many things. Thats kind of like a forensic detective saying they have solved the case even though they are missing most of the evidence.

Not sure how you can make such a bold statement. If common ancestry is proven it would mean that we have a definite proven biologic set of evidences showing each and every line of animal from whence they came directly back to one single ancestor. I know for a fact that you are missing 99.99% of the evidence required to trace every single life form exactly back to one ancestor. Drawing pictures and conjecture amongst evolutionists do not prove common ancestry.

Later you say that even if evolution is false it is still the best scientific evidence for now. I thought you just said it was "proven", what gives? Besides that, if it is false, it cant be the best scientific evidence because the thing that proves it false would be the best scientific evidence.

[longview]

I will say it again, Common ancestry has been proven. We don't have the whole picture on many things, but just because we don't have the whole picture doesn't mean Evolution is false.

I agree.

 

For example, medical doctors don't fully understand the human body, there are many unknowns, but the unknowns don't disprove what doctors already know about the human body.

True. Doctors do have useful knowledge that provide effective treatment, some that are amazing. But they are far from perfect. On some things they stumble in the dark.  They know some things they do are not to their satisfaction but they just do the best they can.

 

What they know, they know it.

Not everything they touch is perfectly handled. They don't always know the best approach for some conditions. For the most part, we expect continued improvements in medical technology and understanding of root causes.

 

Let me quote Elder Oaks, he said, "Latter-day Saints believe in applying the best available scientific knowledge" - General Conference, April 2010

So true. This is your "best fit".

 

Why do you insist that evolution is not supported by strong evidence?

What ratio of "proven facts" versus "unknowns" would make a theory strong? More than 50%? It seems to me that evolution is only 5% strong or less.

 

Even if Evolution is false, Evolution is still the "best available scientific knowledge" for now.

For now, yes. Your "best fit".

 

For now, the evidences that confirm it are strong.

There is NO confirmation. You are simply being emotional.

 

Even if God moved planets, Genetic evidence for common ancestry remains.

Not demonstrated to my satisfaction.

 

Please answer my question, who said that Evolution is not supported by strong evidence? Where did you read that?  Or did you do your own research in a laboratory?

Are you trying to "appeal to authority" ? Isn't that a logical fallacy?

 

Mormon Dr. Richard D. Gardner (PhD in molecular and cellular biology) wrote,"However, since the church has taken no official position, other than that God was in charge of the process (whatever it was), I haven’t taken an “official” viewpoint of my own, other than that the evidence for evolution is strong but that God created us"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1400/richard-d-gardner

He has not taken an "official" viewpoint? Maybe he is being prudent. There are professors in academia that will ruin his career if he said the wrong things. This is a complex subject. I think it is very likely all LDS scientist will have differing give and take between religious and secular points.

[thesometimesaint]

If that was all evolution said no religious person would have an issue with it.  It's the notion that God's spirit children had parents that were not human at some point in our ancestry.  In other words, that God would send his children to earth through more corrupt/lower life form genealogy.  It's the notion that that it took millions of years to create what we call "human" through the common descent principle. 

 

God is a perfect man.  We are men created in his image.  Whatever other primate/hominids may have existed on this earth or on previous earths we are not their grandchildren.  To say so is to say that eventually a fish can evolve into a lizard which can evolve into a mammal which can evolve into a primate which can evolve into a man which can become a God after millions of years.  I don't believe that Gods can be created or descend from any lower DNA.

I mean, seriously.  Is it like "Crap, I was one generation too early to become a God?"

 

No religious person should have an issue with it. God's spirit children were placed in human bodies. The first being Adam and Eve. I don't view other creatures as corrupt. They are  just not  Adam, Eve, and their descendents. 

 

True, true, true, Fish don't evolve into lizards. Both lizards and fish have a Common Ancestor that was neither fish nor a lizard. Primates don't evolve into humans. We have a Common Ancestor that was neither a primate nor a human. All this did take many millions of years.

 

I mean seriously that we are the only creatures that can someday become Godlike. All others meet the measure of their creation. Whether that is in Heaven I don't know, but I like to think that our beloved pets can be with us there.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

There is NO confirmation. You are simply being emotional.

 

 

I don't like the Theory of Evolution,  you think I am the one being emotional?

 

 

 

Are you trying to "appeal to authority" ? Isn't that a logical fallacy?

 

 

Who said that Evolution is not supported by strong evidence? Where did you read that? Or did you do your own research in a laboratory? You have to have a source for your claims, or are you a scientist doing research?

Please cite 

 

 

 

What ratio of "proven facts" versus "unknowns" would make a theory strong? More than 50%? It seems to me that evolution is only 5% strong or less.

 

Scientists understand Evolution better than they understand the theory of Gravity. 

There are more evidences that confirm  Evolution than any other theory in science, Evolution is the most successful theory. 

 

 

 There are professors in academia that will ruin his career if he said the wrong things. This is a complex subject. I think it is very likely all LDS scientist will have differing give and take between religious and secular points.

 

They are not Biologists. The few  Biologists (Evangelical) that don't believe in Evolution have  never presented evidence against Evolution. Their "evidence" is flawed according to most scientists. 

 

Mormon scientists didn't have to talk about Evolution, they mentioned Evolution in their testimony because the evidences are strong. 

 

Dr. Craig M. Young (Ph.D. in Zoology), "It is clear to me as a scientist that much of what we have learned about biology, including evolution, is correct and true"

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/1699/craig-m-young

Edited June 20, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Some things you said don't make sense. You say that commn ancestory is proven but then in the next breath say that you dont have the whole picture on many things. Thats kind of like a forensic detective saying they have solved the case even though they are missing most of the evidence.

Not sure how you can make such a bold statement. If common ancestry is proven it would mean that we have a definite proven biologic set of evidences showing each and every line of animal from whence they came directly back to one single ancestor. I know for a fact that you are missing 99.99% of the evidence required to trace every single life form exactly back to one ancestor. Drawing pictures and conjecture amongst evolutionists do not prove common ancestry.

Later you say that even if evolution is false it is still the best scientific evidence for now. I thought you just said it was "proven", what gives? Besides that, if it is false, it cant be the best scientific evidence because the thing that proves it false would be the best scientific evidence.

 

We don't  know lots of things. IE; My sir name goes back to some time in the 14 Century.CE.  I don't know who those peoples names were before that time. But is a pretty good assumption that they did exist.

SEE Limits of Knowledge

 

Yours is still a God of the Gaps argument.

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

 

Science isn't about proof. Science is about having the best explanation for any given observation of the natural world/universe. Science draws pictures all the time. IE; We can't directly see electrons moving..So we draw pictures of what the observations tell us it looks like. The same with Evolution. We look for evidence of what is observed. Of reality is that we probably never will have more than a small fraction of the all bones of every creature that has ever lived on this earth. So of necessity we draw pictures of what it should like. So far we have enough bones along with other evidence to support the Theory Evolution.

 

Simply prove it false. Just go dig up a fully modern human skeleton is a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. It should be easy for a coconut eating, Adam and Eve riding, T-Rex believer like you.

[longview]

. . . 

Scientists understand Evolution better than they understand the theory of Gravity.

This is an irrational statement. Evolution is a "soft" science. Gravity is a "solid" science. Relativity is even more "solid".

 

There are more evidences that confirm  Evolution than any other theory in science, Evolution is the most successful theory.

Another irrational statement. The "solid" sciences have more precision because of mathematics, directly observable phenomena, and testable conditions. Evolution is extremely "fuzzy" with too many unknowns, plethora of questions, paucity of "facts", all of which are subject to multiple possible interpretations.

 

Evolution is "plausible". God's ability to move planets from system to system is "plausible". The interplay of various disciplines, such as geophysics, chemistry, DNA, paleontology, etc make evolution more "plausible". The idea of complex attributes arisng from simple, the statistics for co-dependent transitions make it more likely to fail, geosystems being massively complex make it very dependent on a Supreme being to fine-tune components that make our world a much more "gentle" place for us to live in, and more make evolution less "plausible".

[Ahab]

No religious person should have an issue with it. God's spirit children were placed in human bodies. The first being Adam and Eve. I don't view other creatures as corrupt. They are just not Adam, Eve, and their descendents.

True, true, true, Fish don't evolve into lizards. Both lizards and fish have a Common Ancestor that was neither fish nor a lizard. Primates don't evolve into humans. We have a Common Ancestor that was neither a primate nor a human. All this did take many millions of years.

I mean seriously that we are the only creatures that can someday become Godlike. All others meet the measure of their creation. Whether that is in Heaven I don't know, but I like to think that our beloved pets can be with us there.

The issue can be focused on the idea of what that Common Ancestor supposedly was, I think. What was IT? What could IT have looked like? And where is IT or what happened to IT supposing that IT was capable of becoming us and every other creature that has ever lived on Earth? And what would we call IT if we ever found or somehow discovered IT in reality, rather than just supposing that IT must have existed because you guys can't fathom how any living being could have ever existed without IT? I've tried to explain what makes a lot more sense in my mind but people who think like you do are so insistent that IT must have existed, and possibly even continues to exist somewhere, without explaining IT so that others can understand IT or understand what IT could have been. You just refer to IT as the Common Ancestor of all living beings while at the same time saying IT wasn't any of IT's descendents, which isn't what we would usually refer to as an ancestor. Something that creates other living beings but isn't any of them. I would imagine IT to be some kind of God if I didn't know better. Edited June 20, 2014 by Ahab