Jump to content

Which Came First; Animals Or Adam?


JAHS

Recommended Posts

Animals, as every lesson teaches it and it is also taught in our Temple.

 

I tend to agree, yet the Book of Moses seems to disgree: It specifically says there was no flesh on the earth, water, or air before man was created. Man was created and then God created the animals and brought them to Adam. (Moses 3: 5-19)

 

I think we probably need to consider the possibility that the order in which things are presnted in the scriptures is not necessarily the order in which they were actually created.  It just seem that Joseph Smith, who translated both the Abraham papyri and retranslated the part of the Bible that is now the Book of Moses, would have noticed the difference between the two and gave us an explanation.

And that Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball would explain why they think Adam brought his wife and the animals from another planet, while knowing the contents of all the scriptures.  

Link to comment

"He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here."

So nothing was created. Adam brought his wife and the animals from a previous world and Brigham seems incredulous at the suggestion they were created on this world. We're still left to wonder where the first animals, first humans, first gods come from. Or is anyone aware of a good Brigham quote for that?

 

If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

 

Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
Where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers,
"No man has found 'pure space,'
Nor seen the outside curtains,
Where nothing has a place."
 
The works of God continue,
And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter;
There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit;
There is no end to race.
 
 
Link to comment

Problematic at best.

Must not rule out your precious evilution.  No other "interpretations" can be accepted.  Priesthood "template" for converting "dust" to living things is simply too far fetched.   Shudder.   Shudder.    :sorry:    :aggressive:    :mega_shok:     :fool:    :db:    =@    :o   

Link to comment

Must not rule out your precious evilution.  No other "interpretations" can be accepted

 

Sure we can. Do you know of another scientific theory that challenges the theory of Evolution? We want to know about it.

Does your new theory make predictions? How does it work? and does it have independent evidences that confirm that same thing? Please give us the details

 

 

Evolution has been the basis of many predictions. For example:

 

  • Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
  • Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
  • Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
  • Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
  • Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
  • Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
  • Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

 

So please present the evidence that challenges scientific consensus 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Link to comment

Must not rule out your precious evilution.  No other "interpretations" can be accepted.  Priesthood "template" for converting "dust" to living things is simply too far fetched.   Shudder.   Shudder.    :sorry:    :aggressive:    :mega_shok:     :fool:    :db:    =@    :o   

 

It is not "my precious" evolution. It is a fact of nature that living organisms change over time. That those species that reproduce win.

 

Nice deliberate misspelling. Can you come up with another witticism? 

 

Please explain how dust becomes living organisms by breathing on it? Is it some type of magic golem spell? If we are just dust where does all that water in our bodies come from? Wouldn't that make us mud?

 

BTW does 2+2=5 in your belief system?

SEE

Edited by thesometimesaint
Link to comment

Please explain how dust becomes living organisms by breathing on it? Is it some type of magic golem spell? 

 

I am afraid that you too do not have an explanation as to how non-organic matter becomes living, so let's just disregard your theory too then.

Link to comment

I am afraid that you too do not have an explanation as to how non-organic matter becomes living, so let's just disregard your theory too then.

 

Non-organic matter is just matter without carbon. IE; Water. Carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe, and is almost infinitely combinable with other elements to make organic molecules

 

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

SEE

Link to comment

Non-organic matter is just matter without carbon. IE; Water. Carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe, and is almost infinitely combinable with other elements to make organic molecules

 

You are skirting around the fact that you can't explain how non-living matter became living.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

You are skirting around the fact that you can't explain how non-living matter became living.  

 

Abiogenesis is not Evolution. Evolution is by definition how life changed once it was established.

 

Abiogenesis

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

SEE http://www.wired.com/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

SEE http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43971/20544373/Abiogenesis_scientist_wins_Nobel_Prize_for_Medicine

Link to comment

I am afraid that you too do not have an explanation as to how non-organic matter becomes living, so let's just disregard your theory too then.

 

I never said it was evolution

 

The question still essentially remains the same.

 

Abiogenesis is the working theory of how non-living matter became living matter.

 

BTW. It isn't my precious theory.

SEE

 

.

Link to comment

The question still essentially remains the same.

 

Abiogenesis is the working theory of how non-living matter became living matter.

 

BTW. It isn't my precious theory.

 

Abiogenesis is a theory with no explanation or understanding of the critical "how".  

 

You can't shoot down one theory because we don't know "how" it works, only to provide another theory that equally has no explanation. 

Link to comment

Abiogenesis is a theory with no explanation or understanding of the critical "how".  

 

You can't shoot down one theory because we don't know "how" it works, only to provide another theory that equally has no explanation. 

 

SEE post #36.

 

Abiogenesis

SEE http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/abioprob/

SEE http://www.wired.com...ibonucleotides/

SEE http://community.bel...ze_for_Medicine

 

Do you even know what a scientific theory is?

Link to comment

You can't shoot down one theory because we don't know "how" it works, only to provide another theory that equally has no explanation. 

 

The Theory of Evolution does explain the origin of species, but not the origin of the first life form. 

 

Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Link to comment

 

I don't know as he is being dishonest or just ignorant, But for diversification to take place in living organisms DNA is required. Abiogenesis is the process of the development of the first RNA and subsequent DNA.

Edited by thesometimesaint
Link to comment

and many disagree with medical researchers about vaccines

 

 

Please answer my question in post 31

Lachoneus provided a VERY excellent link to a well reasoned discussion of how Abiogenesis can be considered a process of chemical evolution.  Which apparently TSS agrees with but it should NOT be limited to RNA origins.

 

I have no urgent need to respond to your post #31.  You do not get to control the narrative or to specify the premises.   However, I am not ashamed to view all scripture as being capable of providing philosophical ponderings about how (as well as why) God did His Work.  Here is one of the great examples that shows God would NOT go through the tedium of endless evolution on countless planets:

 

 

Moses 1:35

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

Link to comment

I don't know as he is being dishonest or just ignorant, But for diversification to take place in living organisms DNA is required. Abiogenesis is the process of the development of the first RNA and subsequent DNA.

I though Greg Laden made a very cogent discussion of the processes of evolution of various kinds.   He presented many sides of the debate in a thoughtful manner.   I do not see what your problem is?   You should extend the courtesy of specifying which statements he has made that you would consider to be so wrong-headed.   I did that for one of your link several threads ago by including about 20 snippets and outlining my arguments against each.  But no, you ignored my points and went on slinging useless links one after another.

Link to comment

 I am not ashamed to view all scripture as being capable of providing philosophical ponderings

 

and you had that conclusion before looking at the Science. I never heard of a Evolutionary Biologists that became a creationist and a no death before the Fall fan. 

Even Mike Behe believes in Evolution and common descent.

 

 

I have no urgent need to respond to your post #31. 

 

So why respond at all?

Link to comment

If Evolution was used by The Lord, were Adam and Eve fraternal twins because they were born of the same monkey parents?

Or is Evolution so precise, that Adam was born of one set of monkey parents?

And Eve was born of another set of monkey parents?

And the 4 monkey parents were born of 8 monkey parents?

And Adam and Eve had Monkeys for Uncles?

And Adam was a monkey's Uncle?

Edited by PeterPear
Link to comment

I though Greg Laden made a very cogent discussion of the processes of evolution of various kinds.   He presented many sides of the debate in a thoughtful manner.   I do not see what your problem is?   You should extend the courtesy of specifying which statements he has made that you would consider to be so wrong-headed.   I did that for one of your link several threads ago by including about 20 snippets and outlining my arguments against each.  But no, you ignored my points and went on slinging useless links one after another.

 

The problem is that without DNA and it precursor RNA there is no evolution in living organisms. Evolution in biology is where one living species of organism changes over time to the point where subsequent generations can no longer interbreed with the parent species,

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...