Evidentially I'm descended from Adam

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you reject the notion of scientists like Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures," referring of course the great likelihood of extraterrestrial intelligences (ET).

See Marc Kaufman, First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth (Simon & Schuster, 2011).

Steven Spielberg, Taken, TV series, episode 8, “Dropping the Dishes,” at 1:07,

“They’re not gods, Charlie.”
“No, but they’ve got us outclassed enough so they can act like gods.”

If you have to posit alien super-beings to make science work. It isn't science but is it religion.

[thesometimesaint]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

d'accord.  However, what do we do with the horrors of the 21st century -- as viewed sub specie aeternitatis, or from the 23rd century?  Are we blind to our own shortcomings, as well as to the fact that the 20th century was the most horrible of any century in history?  What sort of perspective do we bring to bear?

I have plenty of problems with the 20-21st Century Horrors. Hopefully by the 23rd Century we'll have gone beyond the desire for those horrors.  All my professional life was dedicated to alleviating some of the mental pain experienced in them. 

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Of course we know dinosaurs existed, we have the bones to observe.

Great, then of course evolution happened, we have fossil and DNA evidence to observe

26 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Now your claim that no one has seen a living dinosaur, how would you prove that? There are many ancient writings and pieces of art depicting "dragons" (The word dinosaur wasn't coined until the 1800's).  You hear scientists all the time say that crocodiles, the coelacanth and other animals are dinosaurs. 

Have you seen a living T-Rex? 

[thesometimesaint]

45 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Science may be agnostic.
But for current scientific theories to be correct there are unavoidable repercussions to the beliefs and doctrines that we claim to follow.
In fact, much of scripture and doctrine would have to be jettisoned to make scientific theories fit, and frankly, the entire gospel and atonement becomes unnecessary.

So we can spend our time trying to mesh the two, or become like our resident Atheist friend.

Science must be agnostic, because if it were not, it would be a religion. Subject to same inherent problems of any religion. Individual scientists may believe anything they want.

Why? Some of the greatest scientists that have ever lived have been Christians. Plus some 40% of all American scientists are Theists.

I don't try to mesh the two. I've live comfortably in both worlds. For me God using science for his creation of us makes more sense than some Golem Spell. 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science must be agnostic, because if it were not, it would be a religion. Subject to same inherent problems of any religion. Individual scientists may believe anything they want.

Why? Some of the greatest scientists that have ever lived have been Christians. Plus some 40% of all American scientists are Theists.

I don't try to mesh the two. I've live comfortably in both worlds. For me God using science for his creation of us makes more sense than some Golem Spell.

Not suggesting that scientists can't be Christians/believers or operate in faith.
However, the theories that they accept and propose do cause irreconcilable challenges to the doctrines of the gospel.  At least in my opinion.

I suppose if you never even try to reconcile the two you can live with both and ignore the contradictions.  If that works for you, why not I suppose.

[snowflake]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Great, then of course evolution happened, we have fossil and DNA evidence to observe

Have you seen a living T-Rex? 

How does a skeleton in the dirt prove evolution happened? Please use the scientific method. All it proves is that an individual organism was buried, and almost always is sedimentary rock (rock laid down by water).

it does not: prove the individual had a beneficial genetic mutation

It does not: prove that individual had offspring

 

[thesometimesaint]

39 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not suggesting that scientists can't be Christians/believers or operate in faith.
However, the theories that they accept and propose do cause irreconcilable challenges to the doctrines of the gospel.  At least in my opinion.

I suppose if you never even try to reconcile the two you can live with both and ignore the contradictions.  If that works for you, why not I suppose.

I'm fine with peoples opinions. Even if I don't agree with them. But opinions are not science. Science must be able to show natural evidence for what is a positive claim. IE; 1/4 adult Americans still believe the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo had other idea's and demonstrated it with natural evidence. He was a Theist(Christian).

[thesometimesaint]

29 minutes ago, snowflake said:

How does a skeleton in the dirt prove evolution happened? Please use the scientific method. All it proves is that an individual organism was buried, and almost always is sedimentary rock (rock laid down by water).

it does not: prove the individual had a beneficial genetic mutation

It does not: prove that individual had offspring

???

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, ERayR said:

Then a paradigm based solely on scientific theories must be excruciating.

Yeahhh....

But beats the heck out of hoping for a "Smallville".

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was not referring to baceria or primitive life, but only to the method by which Adam and Eve came into existence.

but you said, " The LDS Church teaches the theory of transmission of life, rather than abiogenesis." 

The LDS church doesn't have a position on abiogenesis. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is, the assumptions which are made (for Dyson Spheres, for example) may not actually apply to highly advanced ETs. We may be looking for the wrong things.

"may" we don't know, scientists are simply doing the best they can do. The article also says, "Wright intends to perform follow-up work investigating some of his survey’s strangest galaxies, looking for civilizations further down the Kardashev scale. He also hopes to examine a curious cluster of optically dark point sources just outside the Milky Way’s galactic plane that his team discovered by their infrared glows in the WISE data. The cluster is probably a previously unknown giant molecular cloud, an unmapped stellar nursery filled with protostars, Wright says. But “it’s also almost exactly what you’d expect a cluster of Dyson Spheres to look like.” It seems Dyson’s dream is still alive." 

Quote

Also, your understanding of science is deeply flawed. Scientists don't get up in the morning thinking that they are agnostic, nor that their chosen field is agnostic. That is just silly.

It is thesometimesaint saying that Science is Agnostic, I agree with that. 

I am not saying all scientists are agnostic, all of them are different. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

How does a skeleton in the dirt prove evolution happened? Please use the scientific method. All it proves is that an individual organism was buried,

How does a skeleton in the dirt prove that living dinosaurs existed? All it proves is that that bone-shaped rocks exist within other rocks. We don't know how they got there - we weren't there to observe what happened! This is all very faith based stuff. 

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

and almost always is sedimentary rock (rock laid down by water).

How do you know that sedimentary rock is laid down by water? Were you there to observe the process?

 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

How does a skeleton in the dirt prove evolution happened? Please use the scientific method. All it proves is that an individual organism was buried, and almost always is sedimentary rock (rock laid down by water).

it does not: prove the individual had a beneficial genetic mutation

It does not: prove that individual had offspring

 

A fossil alone does not prove evolution...but combined with Environmental Pressers, Variation, Natural Selection and Reproduction...Evolution is a fact

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A fossil alone does not prove evolution...but combined with Environmental Pressers, Variation, Natural Selection and Reproduction...Evolution is a fact

Evolution as an occurrence is a fact.  Evolution as an origin theory may not be.

[Johnnie Cake]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Evolution as an occurrence is a fact.  Evolution as an origin theory may not be.

We do not know HOW abiogenesis happened just that it DID happen

[waveslider]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you have to posit any God or Godlike force onto science to make it work. It is no longer science, but it is religion.

So what's it called if you have to take God out of it to make science work? Especially if you have had very real answers that God does indeed exist. I don't mind following true religion. I would rather do that than trust in the imperfect teachings of man, who don't know anywhere near all the facts to begin with.

[stemelbow]

I have a fond memory of my dad when I was young--he died quite a few years ago.

I sat in Sacrament meeting as a boy when a stake leader (probably Johnnie Cake) spoke to us about the evils of evolution in a very dogmatic condemning way.  I sat as a pre-teen wondering what was going on in my Church.  After the meeting my dad must have noticed my annoyance and talked to me for a while about evolution.  he gave his theories about how it worked in the gospel but was clear that we can't really argue against it.  You just have to live with it.  It wasn't long after that that he sent us off to Church each week with my mom as he enjoyed his Sundays in other ways.  He was a good guy who liked to see things differently, which I always appreciated. 

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I have a fond memory of my dad when I was young--he died quite a few years ago.

I sat in Sacrament meeting as a boy when a stake leader (probably Johnnie Cake) spoke to us about the evils of evolution in a very dogmatic condemning way.  I sat as a pre-teen wondering what was going on in my Church.  After the meeting my dad must have noticed my annoyance and talked to me for a while about evolution.  he gave his theories about how it worked in the gospel but was clear that we can't really argue against it.  You just have to live with it.  It wasn't long after that that he sent us off to Church each week with my mom as he enjoyed his Sundays in other ways.  He was a good guy who liked to see things differently, which I always appreciated. 

There is a level of good courage it takes to being true to oneself.  I admire your Dad. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If you have to posit alien super-beings to make science work. It isn't science but is it religion.

Tell it to Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and to most astrophysicists -- who accept the theoretical existence of extraterrestrials who are far more advanced than we are.  You are in denial of science because it is inconvenient for you to admit fact-based assumptions.  Science is about natural law and a universe (or multiverse) free of the supernatural.  Religion is irrelevant and has nothing to do with it.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

...............................................................

Have you seen a living T-Rex? 

No, but there is this monster Gator on a Florida gold course.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXn1g0xtUMk .

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

A fossil alone does not prove evolution...but combined with Environmental Pressers, Variation, Natural Selection and Reproduction...Evolution is a fact

Now that is an example of a statement by a man with unshakable faith.  We throw out faith in one thing only to pick up another thing in which to believe.  I wonder how often humans do this before they recognize their nature that creates such repetitive behaviors. 

[Johnnie Cake]

45 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Now that is an example of a statement by a man with unshakable faith.  We throw out faith in one thing only to pick up another thing in which to believe.  I wonder how often humans do this before they recognize their nature that creates such repetitive behaviors. 

So I take it you don't accept evolution as the means by which animal diversity came about in the world?

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I have a fond memory of my dad when I was young--he died quite a few years ago.

I sat in Sacrament meeting as a boy when a stake leader (probably Johnnie Cake) spoke to us about the evils of evolution in a very dogmatic condemning way.  I sat as a pre-teen wondering what was going on in my Church.  After the meeting my dad must have noticed my annoyance and talked to me for a while about evolution.  he gave his theories about how it worked in the gospel but was clear that we can't really argue against it.  You just have to live with it.  It wasn't long after that that he sent us off to Church each week with my mom as he enjoyed his Sundays in other ways.  He was a good guy who liked to see things differently, which I always appreciated. 

LOL...no it wasn't me 🤓

[Storm Rider]

4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So I take it you don't accept evolution as the means by which animal diversity came about in the world?

Johnnie, I have already said I don't disagree with the science.  What I found so funny is that you spoke with complete faith that you are right - you bore an absolute testimony that you know.  I just found it comical given what you have shared about your complete lack of faith in the old man in the sky, Jesus on the cross, and old Joe and his gold plates.  I don't think you see yourself very easily - another human I guess.  

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Johnnie, I have already said I don't disagree with the science.  What I found so funny is that you spoke with complete faith that you are right - you bore an absolute testimony that you know.  I just found it comical given what you have shared about your complete lack of faith in the old man in the sky, Jesus on the cross, and old Joe and his gold plates.  I don't think you see yourself very easily - another human I guess.  

Storm Rider, I'm confused. You continue to challenge my confidence in the assertions I make instead of challenging my assertions.  Why?

It's not my fault that we are evolved animals. It's not my fault that evolution is true. Evolution happened and is happening and will continue to take place long after you and I are gone. It is THE foundation upon which all human understanding of biology is built upon.  It is not built on faith or feeling or desire...it is built on tangible evidence, fact, observation and testable science.  It is true.  Sorry if that truth is disturbing to you or my confidence in it.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[BCSpace]

19 hours ago, waveslider said:

Thank you for this. I always thought that ID went against Evolution. That is why I disliked Evolution. Taken the way you just described I have no problem with evolution, except for when people tell me it's settled science. I don't think it's settled by any means, but I also don't see how it goes against the knowledge I have that God did create everything through Jesus.

I have no problems with how long a, "day," meant in the creation story because that word can mean a period of time, just as easily as a literal Earth day. for example saying something like, "Back in my day, no body had a cell phone." It doesn't mean any specific Earth day, but rather a time period describing when I was young. So it really doesn't matter how long of a time period is meant by the words, "first day," "second day," etc..

This all brings a new question for me though: How does the theory of Evolution fit with the narrative that Eve was created from Adam's bone, in what sounds kind of like a surgery? "21  And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22  And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:21-22

You're welcome waveslider.  I would agree that nothing in science is settled though I would say that the number of alternatives grows less the more we know.  ID typically as taught, is contrary to Evolution, but if you're just looking at the surface meaning of the words "Intelligent Design", then yes, an Intelligent God could have made us via Evolution. As for the rib story, perhaps by now someone has already quoted it, but I will quote from official LDS doctrine:

President Spencer W. Kimball taught that Eve was not literally created from Adam’s rib. He said: “The story of the rib, of course, is figurative” (“The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 71).

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-moses?lang=eng

Having said that though, I believe one can accept Creationism or Evolution and be in harmony with the doctrine of the Creation.  You'll notice that some apostles obviously vehemently disagree with Evolution, but they are also obviously held back by official published doctrine and other statements and can't quite say it in an official capacity.  One modern example of this is Russell M Nelson.  Consider this interview where he made an unfortunate scientific mistake, the popular error that Evolution teaches that one species gives birth to another, and was also corrected by his junior companion:

"The church has said it neither promotes nor opposes capital punishment. It says it “opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience.” It does not oppose removing a medical patient from “artificial means of life support.” Different denominations deal differently with questions about life’s origins and development. Conservative denominations tend to have more trouble with Darwinian evolution. Does the church have an official position on this topic?

Nelson: We believe that God is our creator and that he has created other forms of life. It’s interesting to me, drawing on my 40 years experience as a medical doctor, how similar those species are. We developed open-heart surgery, for example, experimenting on lower animals simply because the same creator made the human being. We owe a lot to those lower species. But to think that man evolved from one species to another is, to me, incomprehensible.

Why is that?

Nelson: Man has always been man. Dogs have always been dogs. Monkeys have always been monkeys. It’s just the way genetics works.

Wickman: The Scripture describing the Lord as the creator of all of these things says very little about how it was done. I don’t know of anybody in the ranks of the First Presidency and the Twelve [Apostles] who has ever spent much time worrying about this matter of evolution.

Nelson: We have this doctrine, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101: “When the Lord shall come again, he shall reveal all things, things which have passed, hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth by which it was made and the purpose and the end thereof, things most precious, things that are above, things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, upon the earth, and in heaven.” So as I close that quotation, I realize that there are just some things that we won’t know until that day."

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/pew-forum-interviews-church-leaders

And Nelson has on at least two recent occasions, tried to take a stab at Evolution in General Conference, but he had to be very circumspect because of the aforementioned doctrine and couldn't deliver any official pronouncement against it. This does not, in my opinion take anything from these men, their calling, their priesthood or priesthood keys.  A man, being a man, may certainly hold some erroneous views and still be called of God.