Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[Jeanne]

17 hours ago, BCSpace said:

 

Yes.  I also believe that Evolution is fully compatible with LDS doctrine on the Creation. 

Start with the notion that Evolution was the way that God created our physical bodies and when all was ready, He placed Adam and Eve into the Garden.

That Adam is the first man can be reasoned in a variety of ways.  The first to be born with a spirit that was a literal child of Heavenly Father (my personal favorite).  The first to be subject to the Fall and Atonement.  Etc.  See also the OT Institute manual on what it means to be "first flesh".

2 Nephi 2:22 does not apply the state of no death to the creative period but only to the state after the creation was finished.

Thinking of the timeline: Death and evolution during the Creation, Garden state of no death, The Fall, resumption of death and Evolution.  Notice that the statement "There was no death before the Fall" is true in this timeline.

Evolution does NOT address or preclude the existence of God or that He had a hand in the Creation.

Evolution does NOT teach that one species gives birth to another species.  It teaches that like produces like (see my siggy).

The 1931 First Presidency statement makes it clear that the notion of pre-Adamite races of man are not in opposition to doctrine.

The current Institute OT manual (which is official doctrine) makes it clear that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth. C.f. also the BoA in which the Gods waited for the elements to obey during the creation.

The 1909 (repeated in 2000 or 2001 or so) statement does not come out against Evolution.

One could go with Ussher's chronology like the Church does and think of a 4004 BC Fall.  But I see no actual revelation that this is the correct chronology.  I personally place the Fall at around 8-10,000 BC, the time of the rise of the first civilization; Sumer.

Etc. etc.

 

In my senior year in high school, I took this prehistoric life class for science..and then all of it came together..even with religious doctrine I felt it would be very possible.  It was a great "aha" moment.  Surprisingly though, the class was taught by an LDS high council man..but I could not get my seminary teacher to agree.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Jeanne

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

The truth is that there is no falsifiable theory period, that can account for the evidence - including evolution. 

There is new evidence that the theory of evolution cannot account for.  There is no theory to date that can account for this natural phenomenon that I will explain.  The theory of evolution states that through random mutation, the divergence of genes over time is expected.  Meaning that two separately evolving species would be expected (due to random mutation) to become less alike, genetically speaking, and not more alike over time.  This accounts for the diversity of life.  Given this understanding of divergence through mutation over time, "the probability of complex organs evolving multiple times with similar trajectories should be vanishingly small (see link)."  In other words, it should be next to impossible, under the theory of evolution, for two organs of different species to be convergent in genetic expression rather than divergent. Yet a team of researchers have found that to be the case in nature.  They have found that in two different species, "the evolution of convergent phenotypes is associated with the convergent expression of thousands of genes (see link)."

The likelihood of this happening would be equal to having two different people rolling thousands of dice, thousands of times, and having each person role the same thing every time.

This simply does not fit the model of evolution and random mutation.

It does support my belief in guided evolution however.  

http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2014/014453/let-there-be-light

I'm not sure how you'd establish a real numerical probability, but I think the answer for similar adaptations in different species is there are a limited number of successful configurations of life that are possible.

In other words, environment drives the success of mutations. Environment, unlike mutation, is not a random force, and directs mutations along a limited number of viable paths. In other words evolution is guided as you suggest, but not by a divine intelligence. It's guided by environment and physical law. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Environment, unlike mutation, is not a random force, and directs mutations along a limited number of viable paths.

When you say "limited", we should be clear that it is an unimaginably large variation of possibilities, hence the diversity of life and genes, that will continue to diversify over an indefinite amount of time.  Even accounting for environmental drive, diversity and divergence of genes is the prediction of evolution.  Convergent genotypes is not and could not be predicted by the theory.  Convergent phenotypes can be explained by environmental drive, but not convergent genotype. 

To put this in context, we are talking about thousands of convergent genes here.  Each single gene has long sequences of nucleotides.  Each nucleotide has 4 possible base sequences. There are 4 different types of mutations that can take place along a gene that will either keep the sequence the same length, shorten it, or lengthen the sequence.  The chances of thousands of different genes in two separate species over thousands of years of random mutation, ending up with the same exact sequence is, as the researchers suggested (not me), "vanishingly small".

I have studied this quite a bit, and your explanation does not satisfy genetic and evolutionary scientists.  At this point, they are left scratching their heads trying to find an explanation. 

Edited March 23, 2016 by pogi

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'm all ears

Now that is an interesting evolutionary twist.

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, ERayR said:

Now that is an interesting evolutionary twist.

All the better to hear you with, my dear.

[snowflake]

On ‎3‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 10:39 PM, Cold Steel said:

Ordinarily I enjoy presentations by FairLDS, but recently I've been trying to make sense of Darwinian evolution and found this address by Stephen Peck. Entitled Why Evolution and LDS Thought are Fully Compatible, I thought there might be some relation between the title and the content. But if there is, I'm afraid I'm missing it. I'd hoped it might help me in some discussions with some atheists, also my understanding of the topic. On the one hand we LDS have a pronounced view of Adam, the Prince, the Ancient of Days, Michael the Archangel, Eve's Main Squeeze. The first man, who brought sin into the world and head of the first dispensation. 

On the other, we have man existing supposedly for millions of years. Neanderthals, Lucy and the Taung Child. Completely indisputable, you can't argue with science! Only I didn't find anything useful in his address. Is evolution a cold, hard fact? If so, where does Adam come in? How old is the oldest writing extant? How do we know man has been here for millions of years? And how do we know Lucy and the Taung Child are related to man and not just some unrelated creatures? 

Can anyone help me out?

 

 

 

The best way to tackle the theory of evolution is to clearly define it for what it is:  A state sponsored and state endorsed religion.

The only true "evolution" that one can observe is "micro evolution". 

The "scientists" have very little data to support "stellar evolution", chemical evolution, abiogenesis, organic evolution and mutations that cause benefits to organisms.

 

The best guy in the business travels around the country and debates professors on the topic.  Dr.Kent Hovind  has a creation seminar workshop that is super! Here is episode 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

19 hours ago, pogi said:

It's too bad that scientists can't be equally unbiased, pure, and unadulterated, because science only exists in the mind of the scientist. 

Just so we are clear, science doesn't make conclusions based on the evidence, scientists do.  While the findings may be pure (sometimes), the interpretations are limited to human perspective and yes, bias. 

"Practitioners of the doctrine of evolution"? Why not just say "quacks" and get it done with. Your qualified definition barely hides your contempt.

I'm all ears if you would like to present the "other interpretations of the data". 

To be fair there are other interpretations of the data, but unfortunately they all devolve into a discussion of which religion is correct.

SEE

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

The best way to tackle the theory of evolution is to clearly define it for what it is:  A state sponsored and state endorsed religion.

The only true "evolution" that one can observe is "micro evolution". 

The "scientists" have very little data to support "stellar evolution", chemical evolution, abiogenesis, organic evolution and mutations that cause benefits to organisms.

 

The best guy in the business travels around the country and debates professors on the topic.  Dr.Kent Hovind  has a creation seminar workshop that is super! Here is episode 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

You mean the Kent Hovind the recently released from prison for tax fraud?

SEE

 

[Gray]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

When you say "limited", we should be clear that it is an unimaginably large variation of possibilities, hence the diversity of life and genes, that will continue to diversify over an indefinite amount of time.  Even accounting for environmental drive, diversity and divergence of genes is the prediction of evolution.  Convergent genotypes is not and could not be predicted by the theory.  Convergent phenotypes can be explained by environmental drive, but not convergent genotype. 

To put this in context, we are talking about thousands of convergent genes here.  Each single gene has long sequences of nucleotides.  Each nucleotide has 4 possible base sequences. There are 4 different types of mutations that can take place along a gene that will either keep the sequence the same length, shorten it, or lengthen the sequence.  The chances of thousands of different genes in two separate species over thousands of years of random mutation, ending up with the same exact sequence is, as the researchers suggested (not me), "vanishingly small".

I have studied this quite a bit, and your explanation does not satisfy genetic and evolutionary scientists.  At this point, they are left scratching their heads trying to find an explanation. 

Can you point me to something where genetic and evolutionary scientists are framing this in the same way you are? Just for some context.

Thanks!

[cinepro]

On 3/23/2016 at 9:39 PM, BCSpace said:

 

Start with the notion that Evolution was the way that God created our physical bodies and when all was ready, He placed Adam and Eve into the Garden.

That's already extremely problematic, since evolution requires numerous generations of birth and death.  So you are pre-supposing a world with birth and death, which is contradicting LDS doctrines on the creation.

That Adam is the first man can be reasoned in a variety of ways.  The first to be born with a spirit that was a literal child of Heavenly Father (my personal favorite).  The first to be subject to the Fall and Atonement.  Etc.  See also the OT Institute manual on what it means to be "first flesh".

 

The "Fall" didn't just apply to Adam and Eve.  LDS doctrines teach that the Fall applied to all creatures on the planet. 

2 Nephi 2:22 does not apply the state of no death to the creative period but only to the state after the creation was finished.

But the idea that there was death during the creative period is a totally new invention, without basis in any LDS scripture or teaching, and contradictory to many LDS teachings on the subject (as well as common sense; if the world was created in a fallen state with physical death already present, then there would be no need for a "Fall".)

Thinking of the timeline: Death and evolution during the Creation, Garden state of no death, The Fall, resumption of death and Evolution.  Notice that the statement "There was no death before the Fall" is true in this timeline.

In your timeline, there is physical death before the Fall.  Thus, Adam's fall didn't introduce physical death to the world, but simply re-introduced it.  If there was already physical death on the planet, then there was no need for a (physical) fall.

Evolution does NOT address or preclude the existence of God or that He had a hand in the Creation.

Evolution does NOT teach that one species gives birth to another species.  It teaches that like produces like (see my siggy).

Evolution teaches that the species developed from countless generations of natural selection and mutation.  This is extremely problematic in light of the LDS Doctrine of spiritual pre-creation.

 

The 1931 First Presidency statement makes it clear that the notion of pre-Adamite races of man is not in opposition to doctrine.

The current Institute OT manual (which is official doctrine) makes it clear that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth. C.f. also the BoA in which the Gods waited for the elements to obey during the creation.

The 1931 First Presidency statement has been totally ignored by the Church for the last 80 years.  It doesn't appear in any official church publication that I can see.  The 1909 statement, on the other hand, was reiterated in 2002 and is pretty clear that they aren't buying the theory of Pre-Adamites.

One could go with Ussher's chronology like the Church does and think of a 4004 BC Fall.  But I see no actual revelation that this is the correct chronology.  I personally place the Fall at around 8-10,000 BC, the time of the rise of the first civilization; Sumer.

While the Church has no official doctrine on the physical age of the planet earth, the doctrine is pretty clear that the temporal age of the Earth (the time between Adam's fall and the end of the millennium) is 7,000 years.  A fall around the times you mentioned would mean that the temporal age of the Earth is at 10,000+ years and counting.  Which would mean that the revelation in D&C 77 is incorrect.

 

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While the Church has no official doctrine on the physical age of the planet earth, the doctrine is pretty clear that the temporal age of the Earth (the time between Adam's fall and the end of the millennium) is 7,000 years.  A fall around the times you mentioned would mean that the temporal age of the Earth is at 10,000+ years and counting.  Which would mean that the revelation in D&C 77 is incorrect.

 

So the temporal age of the earth is 7000 years. But the church has no position on the length of the creation. The six days of creation have been referred to as six creative periods of an unknown duration.  The creation process could very well have been about 4.5 billion years long. The details of the creation process are also left to speculation.  

Edited March 24, 2016 by Rivers

[bcuzbcuz]

8 hours ago, snowflake said:

The best way to tackle the theory of evolution is to clearly define it for what it is:  A state sponsored and state endorsed religion.

The only true "evolution" that one can observe is "micro evolution". 

The "scientists" have very little data to support "stellar evolution", chemical evolution, abiogenesis, organic evolution and mutations that cause benefits to organisms.

 

The best guy in the business travels around the country and debates professors on the topic.  Dr.Kent Hovind  has a creation seminar workshop that is super! Here is episode 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

Dr. (And this is a Dr. From an unlicensed academy) Kent Hovind who spent years in prison for tax evasion, and a man who continuosly deceived people with his interpretations of Bible stories......You're saying Kent Hovind is someone who is a "best guy in the business"???????

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

JS thought that the earth was 2.5 billion years old. Too bad his math is a suspect as Archbishop Ussher's. Unfortunately he's not here to explain what if anything he meant  by Temporal Age of the earth.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old with the life first evolving some 1 billions years later. Time to move on and figure out how best to serve our God and fellow man.

BTW:

"But to affirm that the Sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens and that the Earth revolves very swiftly around the Sun is a dangerous thing, not only irritating the theologians and philosophers, but injuring our holy faith and making the sacred scriptures false."

Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the foremost Vatican theologian of the seventeeth century.

Edited March 24, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Cold Steel]

One of the great teachings of Joseph Smith is that the universe is made up of two elements: intelligence and matter, both of which are eternal. One acts while the other is acted upon. Neither can be created or destroyed. Thus it would be problematic to think of life forms coming into or passing from existence until one had a spirit placed into it and began the present scheme of things. 

It's quite simple. Forget the man made from mudpies and ribs angle. Those are the things of myth and can be seen as metaphor. But we acknowledge and accept that Adam and Eve were real people with personalities, intelligence, dreams and language. Whether they were brought here or arrived in some other manner is unknown, but some in the scientific community have speculated that some sort of planting of humans occurred, possibly brought by other intelligences. As latter-day saints, we acknowledge that all that live are covered under the plan of salvation and if they live, they will be resurrected. Also, that man was initially schooled by God, not dwellers in caves. 

Then there are the dinosaurs, with some speculating that they lived alongside larger humans. We've all heard about the footprints of both dinosaurs and humans in bedrock (most of which have been debunked). No one seems to have a grip on this. 

 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Dr. (And this is a Dr. From an unlicensed academy) Kent Hovind who spent years in prison for tax evasion, and a man who continuosly deceived people with his interpretations of Bible stories......You're saying Kent Hovind is someone who is a "best guy in the business"???????

Well, it's not much of a business.

[BCSpace]

Quote

That's already extremely problematic, since evolution requires numerous generations of birth and death.  So you are pre-supposing a world with birth and death, which is contradicting LDS doctrines on the creation.

What doctrines? You reference the Bible Dictionary which has been established as non-doctrinal by it's own introduction.  But let's address it it anyway.  That the Fall of Adam introduced death into (the already created) world is no problem because of the context I just put in brackets.

Quote

The "Fall" didn't just apply to Adam and Eve.  LDS doctrines teach that the Fall applied to all creatures on the planet.

Meaningless as Evolution is part of the creative period, not the garden state.

Quote

But the idea that there was death during the creative period is a totally new invention, without basis in any LDS scripture or teaching, and contradictory to many LDS teachings on the subject (as well as common sense; if the world was created in a fallen state with physical death already present, then there would be no need for a "Fall".)

Such an idea is not new.  It was argued in the early 20th century and the Church seems to be okay with it considering the 1931 statement.  There is indeed basis for death during the creative period in scripture, but I'll grant you that I seem to be the first one to have noticed 2 Nephi 2:22 which as anyone can plainly see distinguishes between the creative and the already created periods when applying a state of no death.

Quote

In your timeline, there is physical death before the Fall.  Thus, Adam's fall didn't introduce physical death to the world, but simply re-introduced it.  If there was already physical death on the planet, then there was no need for a (physical) fall.

<taps the sign> Context.  See above and 2 Nephi 2:22

Quote

Evolution teaches that the species developed from countless generations of natural selection and mutation.  This is extremely problematic in light of the LDS Doctrine of spiritual pre-creation.

Non sequitur. The only claim being made here is the creation of our physical bodies.

Quote

The 1931 First Presidency statement has been totally ignored by the Church for the last 80 years.  It doesn't appear in any official church publication that I can see.  The 1909 statement, on the other hand, was reiterated in 2002 and is pretty clear that they aren't buying the theory of Pre-Adamites.

The 1931 statement hasn't been ignored at all.  I'd be willing to bet It's the one of two reasons why Creationist apostles don't directly address Evolution in their comments.  It sure quieted JFS for a few decades and relegated his opinion to non doctrinal publications.  The other reason is ignorance of what Evolution actually is which deflects their comments away from Evolution and towards atheist conclusions about Evolution.

Quote

While the Church has no official doctrine on the physical age of the planet earth, the doctrine is pretty clear that the temporal age of the Earth (the time between Adam's fall and the end of the millennium) is 7,000 years.  A fall around the times you mentioned would mean that the temporal age of the Earth is at 10,000+ years and counting.  Which would mean that the revelation in D&C 77 is incorrect.

Official LDS doctrine on D&C 77 begs to differ with you:

"These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)"

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

 

[JAHS]

Here's a rather clever video I recently watched of a man asking several evolution believers if they could provide testable scientific evidence for evolution. He really made them think and start to doubt their belief

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by JAHS

[Storm Rider]

On 3/23/2016 at 11:44 PM, sunstoned said:

I just reviewed the material, and I have to agree with you.  There is not much real content that supports the title.  BTW, there are many quotes from prophets and apostles that state very clearly the the gospel as understood by the LDS church is incompatible with evolution.  The only people that have problems with that are the apologist.

Oh, what a quaint little jab to register your monotonous position.  Of course, you miss the boat again, but that seems rather common of late.  Those poor dunderheads you call apologists just don't seem to get it right....or maybe you have not got the gist of it. 

We have no doctrine of evolution in the Church.  My, that little tidbit escaped you I guess.  Further, LDS, as dumb as they are when compared to those cool, ever-willing to follow the new wave of thought that all lemmings are ready to chase after, have no boundaries set on them on what to believe on evolution or not.  

Next question. It is late for me and I have little patience for drive-by senseless statements. 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Oh, what a quaint little jab to register your monotonous position.  Of course, you miss the boat again, but that seems rather common of late.  Those poor dunderheads you call apologists just don't seem to get it right....or maybe you have not got the gist of it. 

We have no doctrine of evolution in the Church.  My, that little tidbit escaped you I guess.  Further, LDS, as dumb as they are when compared to those cool, ever-willing to follow the new wave of thought that all lemmings are ready to chase after, have no boundaries set on them on what to believe on evolution or not.  

Next question. It is late for me and I have little patience for drive-by senseless statements. 

No jab intended.  I am just dealing in facts.  You know as well as I do what the prophets and apostles have said about evolution. Their teachings are very clear.  Its the apologists that use weasel words and pretzel logic to get around this and other uncomfortable and embarrassing teachings.  

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

No jab intended.  I am just dealing in facts.  You know as well as I do what the prophets and apostles have said about evolution. Their teachings are very clear.  Its the apologists that use weasel words and pretzel logic to get around this and other uncomfortable and embarrassing teachings.  

Yet our most fundamental teaching is to not believe anything unless we have a confirmation by the Holy Spirit.  BY himself taught us not to follow him or believe him blindly.  Each prophet and leader is a man with all of the frailties that encompasses.  I appreciate your negative perspective and realize that I can rely on it for being steady and never changing.  

The Church has sure doctrine - you find it in the recognized scriptures.  I am a purist - if it is found it scripture than it is true.  I may listen to prophets and apostles and other inspired individuals, but their words only have value if the Holy Spirit guides, confirms that what they say is true.  Otherwise, they have no more respected claim to the gospel of Jesus Christ does than I do as an individual disciple of Christ.  

[snowflake]

15 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Dr. (And this is a Dr. From an unlicensed academy) Kent Hovind who spent years in prison for tax evasion, and a man who continuosly deceived people with his interpretations of Bible stories......You're saying Kent Hovind is someone who is a "best guy in the business"???????

Yes he was in prison......... not for tax evasion, for "structuring".  Now enough with the ad-homonym attacks. Have you bothered to watch the creation seminars or any of his debates done at the universities around the country?  He has an excellent presentation on creation and the flood and please share if you know of a better presentation or someone willing to go to the universities and debate.     

Also, If you want to talk about a man who deceived people, I can think of a few.......

[bcuzbcuz]

23 hours ago, snowflake said:

The best way to tackle the theory of evolution is to clearly define it for what it is:  A state sponsored and state endorsed religion.

The only true "evolution" that one can observe is "micro evolution". 

The "scientists" have very little data to support "stellar evolution", chemical evolution, abiogenesis, organic evolution and mutations that cause benefits to organisms.

 

The best guy in the business travels around the country and debates professors on the topic.  Dr.Kent Hovind  has a creation seminar workshop that is super! Here is episode 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY

The theory of evolution is "a state sponsored and state endorsed religion".???? Really? That view would be comical were it not so sad.

Evolution isn't a religion. You've probably come to that opinion because some people are either careless with their word usage or that they make statements that they "believe" in evolution. It has nothing to do with belief. I accept evolution as the best explanation of all the known factors. As soon as someone comes up with a better explanation I will willingly jump ship. Of course the new explanation must also meet the rigors of study and the evidence. I won't grab hold of a new theory merely because I have tired of the old one. 

What you describe as "micro evolution" is merely what can be observed in our extremely narrow field of vision through the time of  human existence. There are, for example, mosquitos in the London Underground that can no longer interbreed with the mosquitos above ground, because they are genetically distinct. The Underground mosquitos (you can read about them on the BBC news site) don't need blood to lay their eggs and they do not hibernate during the winter. All this has come about during the last 100 years or so.

Evidence of such mutational changes can be easily observed in the fossil record. The fossils, though, represent changes during thousands, tens of thousands of years or longer. Evolution is the plausible explanation of the changes in the fossil record. So far, no one has come up with an alternate viable theory that expalins the fossils.

That doesn't sound like a religion to me.   

[snowflake]

34 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

The theory of evolution is "a state sponsored and state endorsed religion".???? Really? That view would be comical were it not so sad.

Evolution isn't a religion. You've probably come to that opinion because some people are either careless with their word usage or that they make statements that they "believe" in evolution. It has nothing to do with belief. I accept evolution as the best explanation of all the known factors. As soon as someone comes up with a better explanation I will willingly jump ship. Of course the new explanation must also meet the rigors of study and the evidence. I won't grab hold of a new theory merely because I have tired of the old one. 

What you describe as "micro evolution" is merely what can be observed in our extremely narrow field of vision through the time of  human existence. There are, for example, mosquitos in the London Underground that can no longer interbreed with the mosquitos above ground, because they are genetically distinct. The Underground mosquitos (you can read about them on the BBC news site) don't need blood to lay their eggs and they do not hibernate during the winter. All this has come about during the last 100 years or so.

Evidence of such mutational changes can be easily observed in the fossil record. The fossils, though, represent changes during thousands, tens of thousands of years or longer. Evolution is the plausible explanation of the changes in the fossil record. So far, no one has come up with an alternate viable theory that expalins the fossils.

That doesn't sound like a religion to me.   

So if I were to tell you that I believe God did exactly as he described in Genesis, the creation, the flood, Adam and Eve etc, dinosaurs on the earth with humans, we would all agree that that is a religion. It is based on faith, and a belief that the Bible as the word of God.

Now take evolution, and I am supposed to "believe" that my great, great, great, great......grandfather was a rock, and you don't see that as a religion?  It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.  Now you can believe that animals change from one kind to another but can we observe that? Evolution is simply not science.  Science is defined as: The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.  The "fossil record" is a bunch of  bones in the ground. Evidence that a particular animal existed in the past. It does not mean that that animal procreated. You need another animal with the exact same mutation to procreate with to pass on the genetic information into a specific population. All of that is an assumption, not observable, or testable evidence, just some bones.  Now you can "believe" that those animals changed over thousand of years but that is not science, that is a religion.

Same with the "big bang" (which does a death blow to the LDS eternal matter concept).  I am supposed to believe that all matter, time and space exploded from nothing?  Now that is clearly a religion as well (or a fairy tale).  Here's the difference, I will admit that mine is a religion.  Evolutionists will not admit that their "theory" is a religion. 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Yes he was in prison......... not for tax evasion, for "structuring".  Now enough with the ad-homonym attacks. Have you bothered to watch the creation seminars or any of his debates done at the universities around the country?  He has an excellent presentation on creation and the flood and please share if you know of a better presentation or someone willing to go to the universities and debate.     

Also, If you want to talk about a man who deceived people, I can think of a few.......

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

[thesometimesaint]

15 minutes ago, snowflake said:

So if I were to tell you that I believe God did exactly as he described in Genesis, the creation, the flood, Adam and Eve etc, dinosaurs on the earth with humans, we would all agree that that is a religion. It is based on faith, and a belief that the Bible as the word of God.

Now take evolution, and I am supposed to "believe" that my great, great, great, great......grandfather was a rock, and you don't see that as a religion?  It takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God.  Now you can believe that animals change from one kind to another but can we observe that? Evolution is simply not science.  Science is defined as: The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.  The "fossil record" is a bunch of  bones in the ground. Evidence that a particular animal existed in the past. It does not mean that that animal procreated. You need another animal with the exact same mutation to procreate with to pass on the genetic information into a specific population. All of that is an assumption, not observable, or testable evidence, just some bones.  Now you can "believe" that those animals changed over thousand of years but that is not science, that is a religion.

Same with the "big bang" (which does a death blow to the LDS eternal matter concept).  I am supposed to believe that all matter, time and space exploded from nothing?  Now that is clearly a religion as well (or a fairy tale).  Here's the difference, I will admit that mine is a religion.  Evolutionists will not admit that their "theory" is a religion. 

So very sad.