Which Came First; Animals Or Adam?

[thesometimesaint]

I like God, and it matters not a whit to me what method(s) he used. The evidences point to evolution. An Atheist OTOH can look at the exact same evidences and claim there is no God.

[PeterPear]

I like God, and it matters not a whit to me what method(s) he used. The evidences point to evolution. An Atheist OTOH can look at the exact same evidences and claim there is no God.

Sort of an odd belief on your part the God would reveal to Charles Darwin how God created life.

Charles Darwin, initially religious became agnostic at the end of his life.

Darwin also believed:

"He thought men's eminence over women was the outcome of sexual selection..."

"He valued European civilisation and saw colonisation as spreading its benefits, with the sad but inevitable effect of extermination of savage peoples who did not become civilised."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views

Darwin's wife Emma was also his first cousin with whom he had children, which proves he also didn't know much about the survival of his own species. Nor was he a scientist. He was a philsopher.

God didn't call upon Charles Darwin to reveal how Creation worked.

[Maedros]

The account in the Book of the Jubilees concurs with Genesis and frankly makes the most sense - mankind was the last creation. 

 

"13. And on the sixth day he made all the animals of the earth and all the beasts and every thing that moves over the earth. 14. And after all this he made mankind, a single one ; male and female he created them, and made him ruler over all things upon the earth and in the seas and over that which flies and over all the animals and beasts and over every thing that moves on the earth, and over the whole earth; and over all this he made him ruler. 15. And these four kinds he made on the sixth day."

 

On the subject of Adam coming from another planet: that is utterly absurd! If the Saviour could heal a blind man with a mixture of dirt and spittle then I'm sure he can form a body from 'thin air' - is that really the most impossible of his creations? Also, concerning the naming of the animals, isn't seven thousand years enough to do that, because that's how much time he had.

[thesometimesaint]

Sort of an odd belief on your part the God would reveal to Charles Darwin how God created life.

Charles Darwin, initially religious became agnostic at the end of his life.

Darwin also believed:

"He thought men's eminence over women was the outcome of sexual selection..."

"He valued European civilisation and saw colonisation as spreading its benefits, with the sad but inevitable effect of extermination of savage peoples who did not become civilised."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Religious_views

Darwin's wife Emma was also his first cousin with whom he had children, which proves he also didn't know much about the survival of his own species. Nor was he a scientist. He was a philsopher.

God didn't call upon Charles Darwin to reveal how Creation worked.

 

God has been revealing his secrets to scientists for almost  6 Centuries now. The LDS believe God gives knowledge to all not just the LDS.

Plus we believe truth no matter where it comes from.

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo

 

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it." Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President,. You tell me me? He said this after Uri Gagarin and Alan Shepard had been in space and within a decade the US had put men on the moon.

 

Not so much, He had a argument with God. But he still believed in him. He is buried in Westminster Abbey.

 

Society does play a large role in mate selection criteria. Humans aren't the first animals to select a mate based on artificial criteria.

 

Darwin would have been horrified by the antics of a certain German dictator of the early 20th Century.

 

You Presentism is showing. Marrying first cousins was nothing unusual in the 19th Century.

 

He was a biologist.. Which at the time was called a naturalist.  What he didn't know about was DNA. Your  statement is about as useful as claiming because Alan Shepard didn't land on the moon he wasn't an astronaut.

Edited September 23, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[PeterPear]

God has been revealing his secrets to scientists for almost 6 Centuries now. The LDS believe God gives knowledge to all not just the LDS.

Plus we believe truth no matter where it comes from.

Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle.

Galileo

May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it." Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President,. You tell me me? He said this after Uri Gagarin and Alan Shepard had been in space and within a decade the US had put men on the moon.

Not so much, He had a argument with God. But he still believed in him. He is buried in Westminster Abbey.

Society does play a large role in mate selection criteria. Humans aren't the first animals to select a mate based on artificial criteria.

Darwin would have been horrified by the antics of a certain German dictator of the early 20th Century.

You Presentism is showing. Marrying first cousins was nothing unusual in the 19th Century.

He was a biologist.. Which at the time was called a naturalist. What he didn't know about was DNA. Your statement is about as useful as claiming because Alan Shepard didn't land on the moon he wasn't an astronaut.

Galileo. Right. He was raging against the Catholic Church. Your point dismissed.

It's nice to know that for you to accept Evolution as fact, you have to criticize the Lord's Prophets. That should win you converts.

Tell us now many men or women have remained in space. Are there any colonies on the moon or mars? Any astronuat or cosmonaut who has gone into space has returned to the Earth. You would take Pres. Smith's statement and warp it's meaning into a rocket should hit a wall at 100 km elevation.

If men went to the moon then why is the Apollo 11 moon rock given to Holland personally by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin a fake? It's a piece of petrified wood, likely from Arizona's Petrified National Forest, in AZ where Apollo Astronauts trained with man-made craters in a volcanic pumice field outside of Flagstaff.

Watch the old video below of how the craters were made to match the terrain of Mare Tranqilitatus the alleged site of the Apollo 11 moon landing. For all the public knew in the late 60s a helicopter could flown over the area making it appear to a lunar lander landing on the moon. And that is exactly what you see in the video.

But no, you want to make a liar out of Pres. Smith without lifting a finger to verify his statement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/rpif/videos/making-craters

Darwin would not have been horrified. His cousin, Sir Francis Galton used Chuckie's theory to come up with eugenics - you know killing undesirables - and introduced the idea selective breeding of humans to come up with a super race. Darwin accepted his cousin's extension of his theory and included it in writings. Yet, you claim Darwin would have been horrified! Oh my! You know so much about Chuck Darwin that would attribute Christ-like qualities to him while calling Pres. Smith a liar! Silly.

http://creation.com/eugenics-death-of-the-defenceless

Because Darwin, the great scientist you make him out to be, interbred with his family, which he should of avoided if he had observed and known the dangers of since it was so common even among Royalty producing looney offspring, like he ovserved swallows and tortoises, yet he did so. Real bright guy that Darwin. He can observe the animal kingdom but he inbreeds with his own family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270760/How-Charles-Darwins-family-paid-price-inbreeding.html

And Chuck-up Darwin should of offed his offspring who were inferior, by accepting his cousins eugenics! Charles Darwin is a stinking fraud.

In the Feb 2002 Ensign it states Man cannot discover God unless God reveals himself and the same is true of how He created man - God hasn't revealed it, thus Man cannot come up with it. 4th paragraph from the bottom.

Learn, little grasshopper!

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

Edited September 26, 2015 by PeterPear

[thesometimesaint]

Galileo. Right. He was raging against the Catholic Church. Your point dismissed.

It's nice to know that for you to accept Evolution as fact, you have to criticize the Lord's Prophets. That should win you converts.

Tell us now many men or women have remained in space. Are there any colonies on the moon or mars? Any astronuat or cosmonaut who has gone into space has returned to the Earth. You would take Pres. Smith's statement and warp it's meaning into a rocket should hit a wall at 100 km elevation.

If men went to the moon then why is the Apollo 11 moon rock given to Holland personally by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin a fake? It's a piece of petrified wood, likely from Arizona's Petrified National Forest, in AZ where Apollo Astronauts trained with man-made craters in a volcanic pumice field outside of Flagstaff.

Watch the old video below of how the craters were made to match the terrain of Mare Tranqilitatus the alleged site of the Apollo 11 moon landing. For all the public knew in the late 60s a helicopter could flown over the area making it appear to a lunar lander landing on the moon. And that is exactly what you see in the video.

But no, you want to make a liar out of Pres. Smith without lifting a finger to verify his statement.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/rpif/videos/making-craters

Darwin would not have been horrified. His cousin, Sir Francis Galton used Chuckie's theory to come up with eugenics - you know killing undesirables - and introduced the idea selective breeding of humans to come up with a super race. Darwin accepted his cousin's extension of his theory and included it in writings. Yet, you claim Darwin would have been horrified! Oh my! You know so much about Chuck Darwin that would attribute Christ-like qualities to him while calling Pres. Smith a liar! Silly.

http://creation.com/eugenics-death-of-the-defenceless

Because Darwin, the great scientist you make him out to be, interbred with his family, which he should of avoided if he had observed and known the dangers of since it was so common even among Royalty producing looney offspring, like he ovserved swallows and tortoises, yet he did so. Real bright guy that Darwin. He can observe the animal kingdom but he inbreeds with his own family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270760/How-Charles-Darwins-family-paid-price-inbreeding.html

And Chuck-up Darwin should of offed his offspring who were inferior, by accepting his cousins eugenics! Charles Darwin is a stinking fraud.

In the Feb 2002 Ensign it states Man cannot discover God unless God reveals himself and the same is true of how He created man - God hasn't revealed it, thus Man cannot come up with it. 4th paragraph from the bottom.

Learn, little grasshopper!

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

 

No he was raging against the positing of God at every turn to explain what he saw in nature. 

 

I have nothing against the Lords prophets. "The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go".

Galileo

 

I don't want converts. I want people to use their heads for more than just hat racks.

 

You are deliberate changing the criteria that JFS established. He said we would never go there.  "May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it." Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds: "The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

 

Space is an incredibly hostile place. We're still learning how to operate and survive there. BTW We have just successfully grown plants in space. One small step for man at a time.

 

543 people have been into space as of 2013. 12 of those have landed on the moon some 384,403 kilometers away. All of them Americans.

 

I never said JSF was a liar. Just that he was mistaken. Which he himself admitted to.

We don't believe in prophets or any mortals infallibility.

 

Is the earth flat? The Bible has it as flat. Even Jesus claims it is flat.

[JAHS]

No he was raging against the positing of God at every turn to explain what he saw in nature. 

 

I have nothing against the Lords prophets. "The Church can tell me how to go to Heaven, but not how the heavens go".

Galileo

 

I don't want converts. I want people to use their heads for more than just hat racks.

 

You are deliberate changing the criteria that JFS established. He said we would never go there.  "May 14, 1961 - Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith announces to stake conference in Honolulu: "We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it." Smith, the Twelve's president and next in succession as LDS President, adds: "The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

 

Space is an incredibly hostile place. We're still learning how to operate and survive there. BTW We have just successfully grown plants in space. One small step for man at a time.

 

543 people have been into space as of 2013. 12 of those have landed on the moon some 384,403 kilometers away. All of them Americans.

 

I never said JSF was a liar. Just that he was mistaken. Which he himself admitted to.

We don't believe in prophets or any mortals infallibility.

 

Is the earth flat? The Bible has it as flat. Even Jesus claims it is flat.

We could consider him partially right when he said "it was never intended that man should go there." Perhaps he was right about that, but we did it anyway. In fact it is my guess that man wil probably never actually populate space with large numbers of people in the future. It is not practical nor financially feasible. I think the second coming will happen before that does.

[thesometimesaint]

We could consider him partially right when he said "it was never intended that man should go there." Perhaps he was right about that, but we did it anyway. In fact it is my guess that man wil probably never actually populate space with large numbers of people in the future. It is not practical nor financially feasible. I think the second coming will happen before that does.

 

Well God sure did put a lot of distance between the planets. But I don't believe he intended for us to never go there. Anymore than him not having us born with wings means he never meant for us to fly using airplanes.  Never is a long time, even for me. I probably won't live to see man in large numbers on Mars, but I fully expect my Grand-kids will. Maybe even see their children born on Mars. The first Martians.

[PeterPear]

This is too technical for some here, I'm sure, and long and boring.

But theSomeTimeSaint would make a liar out of Pres. Smith.

NASA could not rely on Apollo data regarding getting man to the moon for the cancelled Constellation project or out of Low Earth Orbit for the Orion project, because the Apollo manned missions to the moon never happened.

"In April 2008, the GAO saw the key technical elements of the Apollo Space Program as a fall-back option to the system under development. However, quite possibly it was also becoming clear over time that supportive solutions were not always available from NASA’s previous experience and expertise. Whatever might be the real reasons behind this lack of will to rely upon Apollo data for matters lunar, by mid-2009, the US Government had come to realise the impossibility of completing the Constellation Program within the initially allocated timeframe of 15 years.

The GAO notes that it has reported on 'areas of technical challenge in the past, including thrust oscillation, thermal protection system ... and J-2X nozzle extension'. The GAO continues: 'In addition to these challenges, our recent work has highlighted other technical challenges, including Orion mass control, vibroacoustics, lift-off drift, launch abort system, and meeting safety requirements.' (GAO, 2009 p.10)

The GAO has identified multiple technical risks for both the launching rocket and the Orion development and, as a result, for the current mission to the Moon. Many problems identified in 2005-09 are surprisingly similar to those that would have been encountered and, of course, solved – in order for the legendary Apollo program to be successful.

The viability of the old program was inevitably questioned inside NASA when the new one started. If there wasn’t much expertise to inherit from the legendary Apollo program, then the question as to whether such a program could have been completed 40 years ago, is now highlighted in a major way. NASA still faces technical challenges which were seemingly resolved some 40 years ago. The overall message of the latest NASA reports is that the technology for journeying to the Moon is not available. Neither is a launching rocket, nor even a module for the safe transportation and return of a crew back to Earth.
Departure from the Moon’s surface, which wasn't a problem during the Apollo era, is now a problem due to the perceived difficulties in getting out of the so-called deep gravity well. Furthermore, NASA admits that the agency doesn’t have sufficient understanding of radiation beyond LEO. If just one crucial link in a Moon visitation project is missing, the whole program becomes impossible.

One such link is, certainly, the heat shield of the returning module which is still to be developed. Without an effective and reliable shield any manned lunar missions would be one way only – incapable of returning.
It was recently admitted by Tom Young, a retired Lockheed Martin executive that NASA is on "a declining trajectory". Asteroids and Lagrange points "can be steps," but do not "inspire", while there are only a few "practical" destinations – the Earth’s moon, the moons of Mars, and Mars itself. (Young, 2013) So, an idea to develop an inhabitable lunar outpost, cherished initially (Arch. Study, 2005, p. 56), still stands.

In the light of the above and many recent findings, to identify honestly the key problems and to clear the way forward to their pragmatic solution, wouldn’t it be more productive to finally recognise that the Apollo manned missions to the Moon, allegedly completed four decades ago, did not happen?

Phil Kouts
Aulis Online, June 2014"

http://www.aulis.com/moonbase.htm

"NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit to Mars… We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic radiation. That's a higher dose than we think humans right now should really get.”
Dr Ellen Stofan, Chief Scientist, NASA, and principal advisor
to NASA Administrator – BBC Newsnight interview, November 2014"
http://www.aulis.com

But men were on the moon 40 years ago and returned safely.

 

You are derailing the thread. Please get back on topic or you will be removed.

[thesometimesaint]

So when JFS states that he was mistaken I'm the liar. Good Bye.

[PeterPear]

So when JFS states that he was mistaken I'm the liar. Good Bye.

He was being sarcastic.

[Ginger Snaps]

Actually I have no problem in considering the possibility that God may have used some form of evolution which led to what we have and are today, so long as God is recognized as architect and controler of the existance of life.  My point is that we can not prove emperically in the lab that we are the end result of an evolutionary process. That's why it is called a theory and not a law.

No, you're using those terms incorrectly. Theories do not get "promoted" to laws. Those terms serve different purposes.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

And nobody should dismiss evolution as "just a theory", because that's an attempt to use the terms "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably. Theories are backed by substantial evidence, though it is true that they become the working supposition with the caveat that a better explanation might come along. But, as far as facts go, it's a fact that we benefit in real ways from several science theories. Germ theory (turns out old Semmelweis was really, really right). Theory of Relativity. Even Evolutionary theory has contributed in significant ways to the medical realm, most notably with regard to antibiotics.

[JAHS]

No, you're using those terms incorrectly. Theories do not get "promoted" to laws. Those terms serve different purposes.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

And nobody should dismiss evolution as "just a theory", because that's an attempt to use the terms "hypothesis" and "theory" interchangeably. Theories are backed by substantial evidence, though it is true that they become the working supposition with the caveat that a better explanation might come along. But, as far as facts go, it's a fact that we benefit in real ways from several science theories. Germ theory (turns out old Semmelweis was really, really right). Theory of Relativity. Even Evolutionary theory has contributed in significant ways to the medical realm, most notably with regard to antibiotics.

 

I did not say that a theory get's promoted to a law. But a law will be true all the time and is not likely to ever be proven false. A theory can change with added information and testing and can be interpreted differently by different people and perspectives. My opinion still stands that the theory of evolution can not be emperically proven in the lab. All we have are hints that tell us it is the best explanation we have so far.

[thesometimesaint]

I did not say that a theory get's promoted to a law. But a law will be true all the time and is not likely to ever be proven false. A theory can change with added information and testing and can be interpreted differently by different people and perspectives. My opinion still stands that the theory of evolution can not be emperically proven in the lab. All we have are hints that tell us it is the best explanation we have so far.

 

Somewhat true. A Law of Science is somewhat different, but closely related to a Theory. A Theory can change over time as new facts are added. However a well established Theory is not subject to your personal interpretations. You need to establish evidence for and convince your peer scientists, through evidence, in the appropriate field. No biological scientist has said that the Theory of Evolution has been proven, scientific sense of the word, in nature and the lab. You can't prove any theory, it can only be disproven. What has been shown is figurative mountains of evidences for it in nature and the lab.