No Death Before The Fall Anywhere On Earth

MormonFreeThinker · June 20, 2014

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

Scientists know that Gravity exist, they can calculate the acceleration of a falling object, but they don't understand that force very well http://www.newscientist.com/special/seven-things-that-dont-make-sense-about-gravity

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".

Evolution is not just plausible, it's been proven, I can cite many papers that prove it.

Why do you keep ignoring my question?

What is your source? 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? Without reliable sources, you are not getting anywhere.

Edited June 20, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

thesometimesaint · June 20, 2014

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

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".

There is no such thing as "soft" science.

The Theory of Evolution is supported by mathematics, directly observable phenomena, and testable conditions.

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=talk+origins+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

Statements from Scientific and Scholarly Organizations

Rob Osborn · June 20, 2014

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.

The best explanation for why we exist is because of an intelligent designer. The improbable odds of a planet forming and life arising on this planet is insurmountable. This is not just the laws of physics, chemistry and nature playing out. We can show over and over again in the lab how combining these three laws in unintelligent fashion do nothing that creates life let alone create humans. Evidence for evolution is extremely sparse and takes some imagination to be even considered. The fossil record contains a record of stasis- species all of a sudden come into existence, stay for a long time without much change and then suddenly disappear. Sometimes they show up tens of millions of years later and show pretty much the same exact features. we call these "living fossils". In fact, living fossils directly refute evolutionary theory. Living fossils show that animals stay unchanged as a species over long periods of time disagreeing with evolutionary theory where change is inevitable.

Then you get all of them spectacualr evolutionary theories to explain things like how dinosaurs evolved into birds. Their best explanation- that dinosaurs started climbing trees and jumping out of them and eventually over time they grew feathers and wings so they would stop dying. Only one problem- how does a dead dinosaur that went splat on a rock from its stupid vision of flight that never formulated pass on its genes? This is precisely why evolutionary theory is a joke!

JLHPROF · June 20, 2014

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.

So Adam and Eve and your basic gorilla share a common ancestor, but God chose to put his spirit children first into Adam and Eve? You see no religious flaw in this thinking? Based on this Adam had a biological father who either had no spirit or at the very least wasn't a spirit child of our Heavenly father. Based on this Adam can progress to Godhood but his biological father is prevented from doing so, along with his biological grandfather, great uncle, cousins etc.

So once again - "Crap, I was born one generation to early to progress to Godhood. At least my kid will have the chance. I wonder where he got his spirit that I don't have?" It defies all gospel logic.

I can accept the scientific principle of evolution. But I do not accept these ways of meshing it with gospel truth.

And ok, ok, fish don't evolve into lizards. The offspring of the common ancestor - some go down the fish evolution, some go down the lizard. This still presents gospel problems.

As far as our pets being with us in heaven, I'd like to hope they will be, but my gospel training makes me doubt it.

thesometimesaint · June 20, 2014

The best explanation for why we exist is because of an intelligent designer. The improbable odds of a planet forming and life arising on this planet is insurmountable. This is not just the laws of physics, chemistry and nature playing out. We can show over and over again in the lab how combining these three laws in unintelligent fashion do nothing that creates life let alone create humans. Evidence for evolution is extremely sparse and takes some imagination to be even considered. The fossil record contains a record of stasis- species all of a sudden come into existence, stay for a long time without much change and then suddenly disappear. Sometimes they show up tens of millions of years later and show pretty much the same exact features. we call these "living fossils". In fact, living fossils directly refute evolutionary theory. Living fossils show that animals stay unchanged as a species over long periods of time disagreeing with evolutionary theory where change is inevitable.
Then you get all of them spectacualr evolutionary theories to explain things like how dinosaurs evolved into birds. Their best explanation- that dinosaurs started climbing trees and jumping out of them and eventually over time they grew feathers and wings so they would stop dying. Only one problem- how does a dead dinosaur that went splat on a rock from its stupid vision of flight that never formulated pass on its genes? This is precisely why evolutionary theory is a joke!

No it is not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design

Yet is obviously arose on this planet.

It is not about impossibly high odds.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

BTW How the planet was formed has nothing to do with Evolution. That is Cosmology.

Evolution is not about how life first appeared. That is Abiogenesis.

Why do you keep throwing out Red Herrings?

Species come and go all the time. Transitional speciation is observed in nature and in the lab.

http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/Evolution_misconceptions/misconceptions.htm

Evidence of evolution is common and well observed in nature and in the lab. Just three examples.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U6RgmrG9Ztg

Evolution does not mandate change over time for every creature. All it mandates is that the most proficient at reproduction in a given environment win. IE; There are no more Passenger Pigeons because they could not reproduce fast enough in the environment of being shot by stupid Americans to decorate ladies hats.

Moreover we don't reproduce well in water, but fish sure do.

Birds are dinosaurs. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985201/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/nine-links-transition-dinosaurs-birds/#.U6RnsLG9Ztg

Your coconut eating, Adam and Eve riding, T-Rex is a joke.

thesometimesaint · June 20, 2014

So Adam and Eve and your basic gorilla share a common ancestor, but God chose to put his spirit children first into Adam and Eve? You see no religious flaw in this thinking? Based on this Adam had a biological father who either had no spirit or at the very least wasn't a spirit child of our Heavenly father. Based on this Adam can progress to Godhood but his biological father is prevented from doing so, along with his biological grandfather, great uncle, cousins etc.
So once again - "Crap, I was born one generation to early to progress to Godhood. At least my kid will have the chance. I wonder where he got his spirit that I don't have?" It defies all gospel logic.

I can accept the scientific principle of evolution. But I do not accept these ways of meshing it with gospel truth.

And ok, ok, fish don't evolve into lizards. The offspring of the common ancestor - some go down the fish evolution, some go down the lizard. This still presents gospel problems.

As far as our pets being with us in heaven, I'd like to hope they will be, but my gospel training makes me doubt it.

Who am I to challenge what God can or can't do?

I agree. I don't accept anyone's, other than my own, explanation for the meshing.

Doesn't present any Theological problems for me. But I don't speak for the Church and my formal training is in Social Work not biological evolution. OTOH I've taken more than a few classes Chemistry, Biology, Botany, and physical Anthropology. So I do understand what they are saying about evidence.

Rob Osborn · June 20, 2014

No it is not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_bodies_explicitly_rejecting_Intelligent_design

Yet is obviously arose on this planet.

It is not about impossibly high odds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

BTW How the planet was formed has nothing to do with Evolution. That is Cosmology.

Evolution is not about how life first appeared. That is Abiogenesis.

Why do you keep throwing out Red Herrings?

Species come and go all the time. Transitional speciation is observed in nature and in the lab.
http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/Evolution_misconceptions/misconceptions.htm

Evidence of evolution is common and well observed in nature and in the lab. Just three examples.
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U6RgmrG9Ztg

Evolution does not mandate change over time for every creature. All it mandates is that the most proficient at reproduction in a given environment win. IE; There are no more Passenger Pigeons because they could not reproduce fast enough in the environment of being shot by stupid Americans to decorate ladies hats.
Moreover we don't reproduce well in water, but fish sure do.

Birds are dinosaurs. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28985201/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/nine-links-transition-dinosaurs-birds/#.U6RnsLG9Ztg

Your coconut eating, Adam and Eve riding, T-Rex is a joke.

Oh, I get it, only the ones we can't document or have any evidence for are the ones that evolve. Thats pretty lame and blind. Just like evolution to be so magical.

thesometimesaint · June 21, 2014

Oh, I get it, only the ones we can't document or have any evidence for are the ones that evolve. Thats pretty lame and blind. Just like evolution to be so magical.

I watch my neighbor dig a hole. I take a picture of it.

I see an acorn planted where that hole was. I take a picture.

The next year I see a oak tree where that acorn was planted. I take a picture

Every year on the same day of the year for 40 years I take a picture of that tree.

There is nothing magical about Evolution.

SEE

Does the fact that I don't have a picture for every single minute of that tree's life mean that somehow acorns are not related oak trees?

There is plenty magical about a coconut eating, Adam a Eve riding, T-Rex.

http://everydayislikewednesday.blogspot.com/2014/04/not-comics-review-ken-hams-creationism.html

Edited June 21, 2014 by thesometimesaint

CV75 · June 21, 2014

I sometimes think of Adam as a gestalt. As such, the tree of life / web of life, the planet and the spaces it occupies would be an “organized whole that is perceived as more than the sum of its parts.” Adam cannot live outside of it and it cannot live or exist without Adam. Adam is the head of the gestalt as manifest in this world (under the delegation of the Son) and is therefore greater than a mere specimen of homo sapiens.

This is also why we are as Adam, and part of the gestalt ourselves, and why the gestalt is perfected in the “whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories …from the days of Adam even to the present time …[and] those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world.”

Perhaps upon the Fall, some infinitesimal rudiment of DNA was ejected from the Garden and underwent some recurring cycles of evolving and/or devolving for millions of years until Adam himself finally departed from the Garden, saw the fruits of this process and was given the task of leading it all back to God. The so-called “pre-Adamites” that we might consider homo sapiens or near-relatives are simply genetically challenged and/or unaccountable children of God. Or at some juncture, simply animals fulfilling the measure of their creation (Revelation 4:7; D&C 77:1-4—the ‘knowledge” of these beasts, including those that "had a face as a man," is easily described in scientific terms as the genetic (life-generating and supporting) information contained in DNA to translate the heavenly into the earthly.

It would have had to follow a predictable pattern or plan that “determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him…”

ERayR · June 21, 2014

Oh, I get it, only the ones we can't document or have any evidence for are the ones that evolve. Thats pretty lame and blind. Just like evolution to be so magical.

Nope the hard drive crashed and left no evidence.

thesometimesaint · June 22, 2014

Nope the hard drive crashed and left no evidence.

Like http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U6ZjVbG9Ztg

Rob Osborn · June 22, 2014

Like http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.U6ZjVbG9Ztg

Hum...bacteria still being bacteria after tens of thousands of generations. Truly novel!

thesometimesaint · June 23, 2014

Hum...bacteria still being bacteria after tens of thousands of generations. Truly novel!

Do you even know what speciation is? Tens of thousands of generations of bacteria isn't very long in human terms. Just like hundred of generations of humans isn't very long in Bristle Cone Pines terms.

Rob Osborn · June 23, 2014

Do you even know what speciation is? Tens of thousands of generations of bacteria isn't very long in human terms. Just like hundred of generations of humans isn't very long in Bristle Cone Pines terms.

Show me where the bacteria has evolved into an insect or a mushroom or something. I get so tired of hearing story after story about how some living thing evolved only to find out it is still the same thing. Take flys for instance- we have been doing tests on the mutation rates of their genes and even speeding up this evolution process in the lab and after tens of millions of generations of evolution guess what? They are still flys. No joke!http://www.icr.org/article/5532/

Flyonthewall · June 24, 2014

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.

This is a confusing concept of evolution... Both fish and lizards have a common ancestors that was neither fish nor lizard. So a fish came from a non-fish, and a lizard came from a non-lizard.

Both humans and primates have a common ancestor that was neither human nor primate.... again, humans came from a non-human and primates came from a non-primate.

Somewhere along the line one species became a different species...yet evolutions say that does not happen...???

ERayR · June 24, 2014

Show me where the bacteria has evolved into an insect or a mushroom or something. I get so tired of hearing story after story about how some living thing evolved only to find out it is still the same thing. Take flys for instance- we have been doing tests on the mutation rates of their genes and even speeding up this evolution process in the lab and after tens of millions of generations of evolution guess what? They are still flys. No joke!http://www.icr.org/article/5532/

Right, nobody I know is arguing that a bacteria can become a different bacteria or flies can become different flies or cats different cats. It's that big leap in the extrapolation of the evidence.

ERayR · June 24, 2014

This is a confusing concept of evolution... Both fish and lizards have a common ancestors that was neither fish nor lizard. So a fish came from a non-fish, and a lizard came from a non-lizard.
Both humans and primates have a common ancestor that was neither human nor primate.... again, humans came from a non-human and primates came from a non-primate.
Somewhere along the line one species became a different species...yet evolutions say that does not happen...???

Big leaps.

changed · June 24, 2014

It was brought up in another thread that there is no official teaching by the church concerning "no death before the fall" on the entire earth. Of obvious implication here is that if there was no death upon the earth before the fall of Adam and Eve then evolution is false along with a lot of other related issues like the age of things, etc. I found a short list of teachings from LDS official manuals that I thought would be helpful in clarifying that the church does have a position and its clear that there was no death on the entire earth before the fall of Adam. Here-
"The fall of Adam brought physical death into the world" (True to the faith pg. 46-47)
"Their part in our Father’s plan was to bring mortality into the world . " (Gospel Principles pg. 26)
" Adam and Eve were married by God before there was any death in the world" (Gospel Principles pg.219)
" 3. The Fall of Adam brought death onto this earth.... •“There was no death in the earth before the fall of Adam. … “The gospel teaches us that if Adam and Eve had not partaken of that fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would have remained in the Garden of Eden in that same condition prevailing before the fall. … In regard to the pre-mortal condition of Adam and the entire earth, Lehi has stated the following:
“‘And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end’ [2 Nephi 2:22]” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:108–9)." (Doctrines of the gospel student manual)
"The fall brought mortality and death to the earth" (The Guide to the Scriptures, death, physical)
"
“Then comes the Fall; Adam falls; mortality and procreation and death commence. Fallen man is mortal; he has mortal flesh; he is ‘the first flesh upon the earth.’ And the effects of his fall pass upon all created things. They fall in that they too become mortal. Death enters the world; mortality reigns; procreation commences; and the Lord’s great and eternal purposes roll onward” (“Christ and the Creation,” Ensign, June 1982, 14). “Mortality and procreation and death all had their beginnings with the Fall. …
“… An infinite Creator, in the primeval day, made the earth and man and all forms of life in such a state that they could fall. This fall involved a change of status. All things were so created that they could fall or change. …
“… In the primeval and Edenic day all forms of life lived in a higher state than now prevails. … Death and procreation had yet to enter the world” (Ensign, June 1982, 9). (Book of Mormon student manual pg. 46-47)

worlds without number.... many that have passed away.

new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds - a new heaven and a new earth, when older ones had passed away -

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&type=verse&query=new+heaven+new+earth

you have to be very careful when talking about a "world" - it is kind of like talking about an age, or an era, it applies only to a limited area and time.

Lachoneus · June 24, 2014

Scriptures imply what ever the reader wants them to... That is part of what makes them scripture.

False.

Rob Osborn · June 24, 2014

worlds without number.... many that have passed away.
new worlds get built on the ruins of older worlds - a new heaven and a new earth, when older ones had passed away -
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&type=verse&query=new+heaven+new+earth
you have to be very careful when talking about a "world" - it is kind of like talking about an age, or an era, it applies only to a limited area and time.

Its the context that matters. The quotes I gave refer to the entire physical earth.

Ahab · June 24, 2014

Oh, I get it, only the ones we can't document or have any evidence for are the ones that evolve. Thats pretty lame and blind. Just like evolution to be so magical.

Exactly. The supposed "Common Ancestor" of all living beings on this planet is the spot where the theory of evolution falls apart. IT doesn't and never has existed as a living being and even when IT is imagined they're saying IT isn't and never was what the descendents of IT were at their moment of birth. And yet they still believe in IT.

Totally bewildering.

CV75 · June 25, 2014

There is certainly common material and a common genetic code for all life on Earth.

There is certainly a common God, a common Priesthood, and a common Adam as Father/Steward overseeing all life on Earth.

When you look at phylogenetic trees and similar diagrams, the common starting point could well have been something that combined all these commonalities and which operated for millions of years on Earth between the initial Fall and the expulsion of Adam from the garden of Eden.

thesometimesaint · June 25, 2014

Exactly. The supposed "Common Ancestor" of all living beings on this planet is the spot where the theory of evolution falls apart. IT doesn't and never has existed as a living being and even when IT is imagined they're saying IT isn't and never was what the descendents of IT were at their moment of birth. And yet they still believe in IT.
Totally bewildering.

That is Abiogenesis NOT Evolution. Evolution is how life changed once it got here. Whether it got here through wholly natural processes, God, or space aliens that wouldn't effect the evidence for evolution.

We don't know what the Common Ancestor of all life looked like. The modern cell is just too successful to make that distinction YET. It is thought that DNA and mDNA evolved separately, and in the long distant past fused to form a symbiotic partnership.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

So far the oldest remains of living things is that of thermophilic Methane using bacteria. That is some 3.5 billion years old. But we keep looking. Who knows someday soon Ken Ham and company may dig up the bones of that coconut eating, Adam and Eve riding, T-Rex in a layer of previous undisturbed Precambrian dirt.

Edited June 25, 2014 by thesometimesaint

Sign In

No Death Before The Fall Anywhere On Earth

Recommended Posts

MormonFreeThinker

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

JLHPROF

thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

thesometimesaint

CV75

ERayR

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

thesometimesaint

Rob Osborn

Flyonthewall

ERayR

ERayR

changed

Lachoneus

Rob Osborn

Ahab

CV75

thesometimesaint

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse