Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Did God Create All Living Things?

MormonFreeThinker

By MormonFreeThinker
in General Discussions

Did God create all living things including Tuberculosis?   

19 members have voted

  1. 1. Did God create tuberculosis?

    • A) Yes, no Evolution
      4
    • B) Yes, using Evolution
      7
    • C) No, Tuberculosis was created by Evolution alone, no kind of intelligent intervention
      6
    • D) No, it was Satan
      0
    • E) No, Tuberculosis has always existed, it was brought by a meteorite
      0
    • F) Yes, Tuberculosis was good before the Fall
      2

Recommended Posts

Sevenbak Mentor

Sevenbak

Posted
Posted

Christians, Jews, Muslims, other Theists along with Hindus, Buddhists, and other non-Theists can and do accept evolution as the means by which God created us and our world/universe.

TSS, this isn't responding to the above post specifically, but I didn't get a chance to respond to you before the ebola thread was closed (although, considering how many threads on the same subject he starts, I don't think it will be long before another comes along.)  You mentioned that P. Benson's #5 out of his 14 rules for following the prophet was unacceptable and outdated.

 

This got me thinking.  I think you may not be alone, given that in G. Conference of 2010, two different GA's mentioned the list and specifically #5.  

 

Here's the quote that I think you're having a problem with, as well as two different links to when it was addressed in the same conference.

 

"Fifth fundamental: “The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time”

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/our-very-survival?lang=eng

 

 

So like I said, I don't think you're alone, given that we were bombarded with the teaching during the same conference.  But that said, I don't see how one can say this is not an accurate teaching of the church... although I don't think that's what you were saying specifically, just that you didn't agree with it??

MormonFreeThinker Mentor

MormonFreeThinker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I do not believe in evolution because of the science involved. You do not have to be a biology professor to understand the basic elements of evolution. 

 

 

True, but you do not understand the Theory of Evolution completely, that is why you don't believe it. 

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

True, but you do not understand the Theory of Evolution completely, that is why you don't believe it.

Well, believe what you want. Only you believe it in your own close minded little corner you occupy.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

TSS, this isn't responding to the above post specifically, but I didn't get a chance to respond to you before the ebola thread was closed (although, considering how many threads on the same subject he starts, I don't think it will be long before another comes along.)  You mentioned that P. Benson's #5 out of his 14 rules for following the prophet was unacceptable and outdated.

 

This got me thinking.  I think you may not be alone, given that in G. Conference of 2010, two different GA's mentioned the list and specifically #5.  

 

Here's the quote that I think you're having a problem with, as well as two different links to when it was addressed in the same conference.

 

"Fifth fundamental: “The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time”

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/obedience-to-the-prophets?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/our-very-survival?lang=eng

 

 

So like I said, I don't think you're alone, given that we were bombarded with the teaching during the same conference.  But that said, I don't see how one can say this is not an accurate teaching of the church... although I don't think that's what you were saying specifically, just that you didn't agree with it??

 

How far we have fallen from a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. Actually it isn't. These are very good men, and I respect and believe them as Apostles and prophets of God. But the second anyone, including these men, tries to tell me they can act anyway they darn well please. Then it is time to object.

Sevenbak Mentor

Sevenbak

Posted
Posted

How far we have fallen from a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. Actually it isn't. These are very good men, and I respect and believe them as Apostles and prophets of God. But the second anyone, including these men, tries to tell me they can act anyway they darn well please. Then it is time to object.

I don't think that's what the quote is saying. To me it is a statement that revelation trumps the learning of men. I think we tend to judge and measure, even these men, too often by earthy standards. Will they err, I have no doubt, but I believe it to be safer territory then our own limited understanding, and that includes the learning of men.

Just my two cents...

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

I don't think that's what the quote is saying. To me it is a statement that revelation trumps the learning of men. I think we tend to judge and measure, even these men, too often by earthy standards. Will they err, I have no doubt, but I believe it to be safer territory then our own limited understanding, and that includes the learning of men.

Just my two cents...

 

I believe God inspires men, including scientists, to find out about our natural world/universe. Here a bit, there a bit. We even have established Scripture on it. Some day I hope to know all things. In the mean time I think it is best to learn everything we can, about everything we can.

 

To give but one example, and there are many, Joseph Fielding Smith claimed that man would never be in space or on our moon. He said this as a Apostle of God. Now God seems to have had other idea's and inspired scientists(other men) to figure out how to do it, and actually do it. You can look up into the night sky and see men on the International Space Station, and where 12 men were on our moon. Clearly ETB, and other Apostles of God do need at least some expertise in a great many areas to speak knowledgeably/correctly about them.

danielwoods Grand Master

danielwoods

Posted
Posted (edited)

True, but you do not understand the Theory of Evolution completely, that is why you don't believe it.

 

Even scientists who study it don't understand it. 

 

"Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered. And I have not even addressed origin of first life issues. For me, that is even more scientifically mysterious than evolution."

 

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/the-scientist-and-his-“theory”-and-the-christian-creationist-and-his-“science”/

Edited by danielwoods
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

The basic principles of Darwinian evolution are atheistic. They completely must dismiss God in order to explain the theory. Its just a downward spiral in my opinion. It bothers me that the Pope would make such comments and allow atheism to come in out of the rain and have a place at the table. At least that will not happen in our church (thank God). Perhaps that is why we are the true church- because we know by revelation that man is not the result of animal evolution.

 

Incorrect.

 

The basic principles of evolution are that life changes over time, and that those living things that reproduce win. Man is the result of changes in life over time. We won.

 

SEE http://www.mormonchannel.org/our-heavenly-fathers-plan?v=1834798902001〈=eng#video=we-lived-with-god&cid=HPMO102714514

Ahab Grand Master

Ahab

Posted
Posted

Back to the main issue, and I'd rather see the question rephrased like this:

Did and does God give all beings their existence?

(The word creating could refer to organizing and I don't think that's what the question should be.)

So what do you say now, Rob, and anyone else?

I agree that like begets like so I would say no, although I know he does organize and move beings around including transporting from planet to planet.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

God creates the planets and conditions that will support and perpetuate life. Animals were brought here from another planet and allowed to reproduce on this planet and perpetuate their species/kinds. God also planted seeds in the earth that would grow into all the plant life. God and his wife also came here after they created the earth and procreated to form Adam and Eve. That is my belief on how life came here to this planet.

Ahab Grand Master

Ahab

Posted
Posted (edited)

God creates the planets and conditions that will support and perpetuate life. Animals were brought here from another planet and allowed to reproduce on this planet and perpetuate their species/kinds. God also planted seeds in the earth that would grow into all the plant life. God and his wife also came here after they created the earth and procreated to form Adam and Eve. That is my belief on how life came here to this planet.

Do you ever wonder, like me, why so many people don't accept that as the most reasonable explanation for how life forms of various kinds got here on this planet?

I think it helps sometimes to avoid using the word create because some people have strange notions about what that word means when God is the one doing it.

And I also think it helps sometimes to avoid using the word/name/title God

Edited by Ahab
Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Do you ever wonder, like me, why so many people don't accept that as the most reasonable explanation for how life forms of various kinds got here on this planet?

I think it helps sometimes to avoid using the word create because some people have strange notions about what that word means when God is the one doing it.

And I also think it helps sometimes to avoid using the word/name/title God

I dont get why people just cant take the most natural simple explanation- the very ways we witness in our everyday world, to explain the origins of life. For instance- If we are created in Gods image, what simpler way than for God to just use procreation to create duplicates? If we have sexual reproductive organs, then so too must God. If our "seed" is in our reproductive organs, then so too must God's "seed" be in his reproductive organs. If all this is true, then why would God not use them to create bodies for his children and use evolution instead?

Ahab Grand Master

Ahab

Posted
Posted (edited)

I dont get why people just cant take the most natural simple explanation- the very ways we witness in our everyday world, to explain the origins of life. For instance- If we are created in Gods image, what simpler way than for God to just use procreation to create duplicates? If we have sexual reproductive organs, then so too must God. If our "seed" is in our reproductive organs, then so too must God's "seed" be in his reproductive organs. If all this is true, then why would God not use them to create bodies for his children and use evolution instead?

I think it's that "looking beyond the mark" thing, the idea that it just must be something extraordinary instead of something simple and easy to understand. You know there are people who don't even realize we are already the same kind of being God is, with some who don t even think it is possible for us to be the same kind of being he is, so just think of this as an extension of that.

Oh, and there's also the idea some people have that there must be an ultimate origin for the beginning of life, instead of realizing life is eternal and simply perpetuates itself.

Edited by Ahab
Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

I think it's that "looking beyond the mark" thing, the idea that it just must be something extraordinary instead of something simple and easy to understand. You know there are people who don't even realize we are already the same kind of being God is, with some who don t even think it is possible for us to be the same kind of being he is, so just think of this as an extension of that.

Oh, and there's also the idea some people have that there must be an ultimate origin for the beginning of life, instead of realizing life is eternal and simply perpetuates itself.

Having an ultimate origin of life doesnt solve the problem either. If there was an ultimate beginning as some say, what was before that? Matter just cant materialize out of nothing. Our doctrine does teach that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. How much matter is there? How deep is space really? These questions we just have no answer for.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

The ultimate beginning of this universe was approximately 14 billion years ago. At this time we have no scientific way of knowing what if anything was before it.

SEE Big Bang.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

It is that sciency thing E=MC(squared).

SEE http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970326a4.html

 

This is how much matter is in the known universe.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/question221.htm

 

About 30 billion cubic light years. for the known universe.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/question221.htm

Ahab Grand Master

Ahab

Posted
Posted

Having an ultimate origin of life doesnt solve the problem either. If there was an ultimate beginning as some say, what was before that? Matter just cant materialize out of nothing. Our doctrine does teach that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. How much matter is there? How deep is space really? These questions we just have no answer for.

I was saying that the idea that there is an ultimate origin for life is wrong and part of the problem for why some people don't understand how things really are. There is no ultimate origin for life. There was no ultimate first cause for any living being, or any ultimate beginning for any form of matter. There is only perpetuation, at best, with all of whatever there is being eternal.

And your insistence that we do not have this knowledge revealed to us from God is just plain wrong. We have been told, generally, and some just haven't heard it or if they have heard it they refuse to believe it. Just search for the info and ask God about it. There is no way to make anyone believe it but the truth is here to be found.

Ahab Grand Master

Ahab

Posted
Posted

The ultimate beginning of this universe was approximately 14 billion years ago. At this time we have no scientific way of knowing what if anything was before it.

SEE Big Bang.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

It is that sciency thing E=MC(squared).

SEE http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970326a4.html

This is how much matter is in the known universe.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/question221.htm

About 30 billion cubic light years. for the known universe.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/question221.htm

The answer guy in your link said "we" (whoever he considers as we) don't really know, and then suggests making some assumptions which you apparently have chosen to accept. I recommend you keep searching for truth and avoid making assumptions.
thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

I was saying that the idea that there is an ultimate origin for life is wrong and part of the problem for why some people don't understand how things really are. There is no ultimate origin for life. There was no ultimate first cause for any living being, or any ultimate beginning for any form of matter. There is only perpetuation, at best, with all of whatever there is being eternal.

And your insistence that we do not have this knowledge revealed to us from God is just plain wrong. We have been told, generally, and some just haven't heard it or if they have heard it they refuse to believe it. Just search for the info and ask God about it. There is no way to make anyone believe it but the truth is here to be found.

 

The steady state universe is inconsistent with the evidence.

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

 

Science can not posit any God or God like force and still be science.

Did Joseph Fielding Smith ask God when he made the claim that man would never be in space or on the moon?

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...