No Death Before the Fall?

[Ouagadougou]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my gosh. 

See these little squiggles, these 26 little squiggles or their equivalent that make up all of human wisdom? You are looking at them right now.

Language itself is symbolic.

And if you think scientific literature, as literature, is not symbolic, you are just incorrect.

Different subject, but words are not things and all words are subject to interpretation and change.

Have you read Kuhn?

No, haven't read Kuhn.  But it's reasonable for someone to look at a number like 7,000 and expect that number to actually mean ~7,000 IMO.  You and the church are just changing the meaning of 7,000 to make it fit into the narrative you want because it's absolute nosense to believe the earth is 7,000 years old.  When scientists estimate the earth is over 4 billion years old, that number is not some metaphor or symbolic-- it's an actual number representing its estimated age.  Is it also symbolic when JS taught people were living on the moon, or when BY said people lived on the sun?   

[Ouagadougou]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't your argument just that with many passages it's not terribly obvious how to read them? I assume you acknowledge that such things could be symbolic and that in some cases unambiguously are symbolic. I assume you recognize that the number seven pops up in lots of odd places that likely isn't a coincidence.

Now it certainly is frustrating to critics who want clear unambiguous texts to critique that some texts are open to lots of justifiable readings. It's not like these "non-literalistic" readings are coming from left field. There's lots of texts from the general cultural and historical epochs one can point to that make similar use. So these readings are arbitrary however annoying they might be to some people.

The problem you have with D&C 77 is that the notion of the figurative already plays a huge role in the text. Likewise we know how Joseph reads time often is more complex - especially since you yourself quoted the bit of numerology using 1 year = 1000 years to get a 2.55 billion year history during Nauvoo. So that's the context for things like D&C 77 along with the various commentaries, masonic traditions and so forth Joseph had as a context. To simply say everything must have its straightforward reading the way you read it simply ignores the entire history of Joseph's writing. That the text in question is explicitly a revelation about a highly symbolic and figurative text, The Book of Revelation, that itself explicitly talks of figurative symbols, makes your critique less than compelling. Knowing the literary form a text is participating in is an important step in the hermeneutic process. To argue that apocalyptic literature isn't figurative and symbolic is just to be ignorant of that genre of literature.

In any case, even if one was inclined to be literal despite the obvious context, there's a problem. The verse doesn't say the earth was only around 7000 years. It just talks about the hidden economy during a 7000 year stretch. Nowhere does it say in that verse that the earth didn't exist before then. Just that the things in revelation deal with "the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence." To talk of 7000 years of existence is not to claim there are only 7000 years.

 

Once again here is what it says:

"A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence."

The heading states:

"This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years;"

The Bible dictionary says:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

Any way you try to slice it, there was still Death WAY before this supposed fall...and the earth is not even close to being 7,000 years old...it's billions of years old.   

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

No, haven't read Kuhn.  But it's reasonable for someone to look at a number like 7,000 and expect that number to actually mean ~7,000 IMO.  You and the church are just changing the meaning of 7,000 to make it fit into the narrative you want because it's absolute nosense to believe the earth is 7,000 years old.  When scientists estimate the earth is over 4 billion years old, that number is not some metaphor or symbolic-- it's an actual number representing its estimated age.  Is it also symbolic when JS taught people were living on the moon, or when BY said people lived on the sun?   

Neither Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young are here to explain what they meant.  We do have JS as believing the earth was 2.5 billion years old. A far cry from the 7000 year old earth first claimed by Archbishop Ussher, and still widely believed by the time of JS, You are also misrepresenting the Church by insisting that anything a leader says is inerrant. The Church doesn't believe or teach they are.

[thesometimesaint]

BTW. The Church owns BYU and here is its paleontology museum with the accurate dates for dinosaurs, and other very ancient species.

SEE http://geology.byu.edu/museum/content/paleontological-research

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

No, haven't read Kuhn.  But it's reasonable for someone to look at a number like 7,000 and expect that number to actually mean ~7,000 IMO.  You and the church are just changing the meaning of 7,000 to make it fit into the narrative you want because it's absolute nosense to believe the earth is 7,000 years old.  When scientists estimate the earth is over 4 billion years old, that number is not some metaphor or symbolic-- it's an actual number representing its estimated age.  Is it also symbolic when JS taught people were living on the moon, or when BY said people lived on the sun?   

No, it is not our church, it is the philosophy of science that says that data is subject to interpretation.  Many scientists say that the true nature of reality cannot be described in language. 

Quote

Stanford university physicist leonard susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles. Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality

http://www.peterbyrne.info/documents/sad0711Byrn3p.pdf

But that concept is not even registering with you- but even if you got educated, your argument is still off.

The entire point is that science is not scripture and scripture is not about science- it is about improving YOUR personal life.

The church did not come up with this idea- in fact many in the church disagree with the idea because they do not understand it themselves.  

What I am talking about is what intelligent atheists agree with.  MY VIEW is the view of intelligent atheists about the nature of scripture as "wisdom literature" and the difference between a theist and an atheist is having a religious experience.  

This was written by a philosopher who is an atheist but who considers his attitude toward the world "religious"

But I doubt that you will read it.  

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/04/04/religion-without-god/

You would not repeat this ridiculous argument that you present every month or so here, if you actually read this and actually comprehended it

But of course neither of these things will happen and you will be back next month or next week with the same tired argument.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

BTW. The Church owns BYU and here is its paleontology museum with the accurate dates for dinosaurs, and other very ancient species.

SEE http://geology.byu.edu/museum/content/paleontological-research

Correct of course but he is not here to be reasonable and learn anything..  People who are determined to keep their ignorance despite evidence to the contrary are truly sad to behold.

Edited May 27, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Once again here is what it says:

"A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence."

The heading states:

"This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years;"

The Bible dictionary says:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

Any way you try to slice it, there was still Death WAY before this supposed fall...and the earth is not even close to being 7,000 years old...it's billions of years old.   

I'm honestly not sure what to say. If you are just asking what one reading is, then of course that is a reading. If you are asking if that's the only reading, clearly it is not. If you are asking if that reading can be defended, I think it hard. Overall I'm not ultimately sure what your point is.

Quote

But it's reasonable for someone to look at a number like 7,000 and expect that number to actually mean ~7,000 IMO.  You and the church are just changing the meaning of 7,000 to make it fit into the narrative you want because it's absolute nosense to believe the earth is 7,000 years old.  When scientists estimate the earth is over 4 billion years old, that number is not some metaphor or symbolic-- it's an actual number representing its estimated age.  Is it also symbolic when JS taught people were living on the moon, or when BY said people lived on the sun?   

It's certainly reasonable for someone not familiar with figurative language or the various styles of literature. To say "we're just changing the meaning to fit into the narrative you want" though suggests a strong unfamiliarity with literary interpretation. Honestly I can't quite tell how sincere you are in that. Normally these sorts of things are taught in high school English classes and certainly are in college. It sounds though like you are sincerely unfamiliar with different literary styles. Honestly, if that's true, there's not much left to say since that's just not the sort of thing I can teach in a couple of comments. I can at best suggest getting some good books on literary interpretation and different works in different styles of literature. Once you've done that I'd pick up a few books on apocalyptic literature since Revelation isn't the only work in that style of literature. It's very well studied and there are very good reasons based upon the ancient genre of what people don't interpret the years as just a normal year.

Beyond that there's not much to say since all you're really saying is that "literalism" is the only way to read texts. That's demonstrably false but again I can't convince you of much until you become familiar with other styles of writing.

Edited May 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 5/26/2017 at 0:36 PM, snowflake said:

It seems that Joseph thought the earth was around 7,000 years old and was created in 6 days too. But then again, he might have been translating the Nephite term "day". D&C 77

12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

We actually have Joseph talking about that and he interpreted it as meaning life going on in this system at least 2.5 billion years. He appears to be using the 7000 year figure and tying it to the idea out of 1 Peter and the Book of Abraham translation project that this is God's years which are 1 day  = 1000 of our years. When this was published in Times and Seasons he noted that this wasn't the age of the earth though. But it appears to put a cap on the minimal age of the earth. Interestingly this is close to the time eukaryotic cells first evolved, about the time photosynthesis evolved, and exactly the date if the oxygen revolution in the atmosphere due to earlier development of life.

Edited May 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You clearly do not understand the true nature of simple adaptation within a species as differentiated from actual evolutionary change to a new species.  You choose to infer the transition, even though direct evidence does not exist, and that is a logical inference.  But it is not proof, but only a good inference, and the pattern does make sense.  Natural selection and within species adaptation do not entail genetic changes.  They are simply survival mechanisms which leave a species still the same species, but better able to survive in a particular environment.  And this occurs over time, leaving the newly adaptive individuals still capable of interbreeding with their former neighbors -- who are now somewhat different.  That is the nature of polytypism, and it exists among dogs just as it does among humans.  To understand it you need only to understand the Mendelian laws of inheritance.

All science is about inference not proof in that it depends upon induction and abduction rather than pure deduction like mathematics. So of course it's all inferences.

To say that "within species" adaptations don't entail genetic changes though is simply wrong. The whole ability to adapt hinges upon the role of DNA in building the creature. So all adaptations such as say in dog breeding are due to changes in DNA. Our ability to sequence genes rather cheaply now has revolutionized the research of evolution since we can see exactly how it is happening. Often once we know the changed genes for adaptations we can undo them.

Edited May 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Ouagadougou]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church did not come up with this idea- in fact many in the church disagree with the idea because they do not understand it themselves.  

Let's look at what three different apostles said after Joseph Smith:

"Evolutionary theories assume that hundreds of millions of years were involved, first in the creation of the earth as a habitable globe, and again in the evolution of spontaneously generated, single celled forms of life into the complex and multitudinous forms of life now found on its face. We have rather specific scriptural indications that the creative period was of relatively short duration."

Apostle McConkie
Mormon Doctrine

"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both."

Apostle George Albert Smith
Conference Report, Oct. 1925

"If evolution is true, the church is false.  If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?"

"Again I repeat, no man can consistently accept the doctrine of the evolutionist and also believe in the divine mission of our Redeemer. The two thoughts are in absolute conflict. You cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation 

You are trying to have it both ways -- but if you read what JSF said -- "you cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."  

I guess all three of these apostles were just speaking as men? 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All science is about inference not proof in that it depends upon induction and abduction rather than pure deduction like mathematics. So of course it's all inferences.

To say that "within species" adaptations don't entail genetic changes though is simply wrong. The whole ability to adapt hinges upon the role of DNA in building the creature. So all adaptations such as say in dog breeding are due to changes in DNA. Our ability to sequence genes rather cheaply now has revolutionized the research of evolution since we can see exactly how it is happening. Often once we know the changed genes for adaptations we can undo them.

Wrong.  Adaptation within a species merely employs the already present genetic variation of that species when necessary to deal with new challenges:  It is not new or changed DNA which enables a human group to adapt to greater or lesser solar impact, but rather the already present variations in skin pigmentation and melanin activation.  Over time it only appears that real change is taking place, but in fact that same variation can be fully reversed in the same species under an opposite stimulus.  The adaptive mechanism is called survival of the fittest, and does not entail genetic change.  The same applies to dog-breeding and to plant-domestication.  Mendelian laws of inheritance apply, not evolution.

A good example of this is the phenomenon of color change in moths during the 19th century industrial revolution in England.  Nearly all those moths had been light before the coal-fired and soot-producing factories of Manchester, England, began belching.  Soon nearly all were dark.  When the use of coal ended, the Moths magically became light-colored again (as tehy had remained in non-industrialized areas).  What happened?  Moth coloration helps camouflage and prevent bird-predation.  Survival of the fittest again.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

I guess all three of these apostles were just speaking as men? 

Correct.  You may just be starting to catch on to the fact that "no man's opinion is worth a straw" (Brigham Young).  Here's another threesome:

Joseph Fielding Smith: 

Quote

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.  Doctrines of Salvation, III:203-204.

J. Reuben Clark, Jr., “When Are Church Leaders’ Words Entitled to Claim of Scripture?” Church News, July 31, 1954, 9–10, “How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest” (10). 

Orson Pratt, “Joseph . . . received the ideas from God, but clothed those ideas with such words as came to his mind” (Minutes of the School of Prophets, Salt Lake Stake, Dec 9, 1872, Church Historical Department Archives).

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Wrong.  Adaptation within a species merely employs the already present genetic variation of that species when necessary to deal with new challenges:  It is not new or changed DNA which enables a human group to adapt to greater or lesser solar impact, but rather the already present variations in skin pigmentation and melanin activation.  Over time it only appears that real change is taking place, but in fact that same variation can be fully reversed in the same species under an opposite stimulus.  The adaptive mechanism is called survival of the fittest, and does not entail genetic change.  The same applies to dog-breeding and to plant-domestication.  Mendelian laws of inheritance apply, not evolution.

 

Adaption can happen by sexual mixing of the parents genes or by mutations. But in each case it's all just genes. You're simply leaving out in the story the huge role mutations play in adaptation. What determines a species is just whether offspring are viable. Again that's just genes. So you're just wrong. A great example of this is how seed companies have responded to the non-GMO movement. They just put plants near radiation sources that increase the mutation rate, grow them, and select the crops that have the desired properties, and then repeat. 

All that evolution really adds to the story is that those populations that are more successful in adapting survive to spread their genes. Successful genes persist while neutral or unsuccessful genes don't. But in a certain sense the whole species part matters only because of the importance of sexual reproduction as a means of propagating genes. In bacteria where that's less of an issue they can spread in many different novel ways.

But to say adaptation doesn't entail genetic change is just wrong. It's a change in which genes are most successful within the population. Now it's true that the genes may already be in the population. But you're just neglecting the wide range of ways genes change outside of sex. Often the adaptations simply aren't already in the population. What constitutes the adaptation are particular genes. At a certain perspective only the genes matter in terms of how they create better viability relative to the particular environment.

Edited May 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Let's look at what three different apostles said after Joseph Smith:

"Evolutionary theories assume that hundreds of millions of years were involved, first in the creation of the earth as a habitable globe, and again in the evolution of spontaneously generated, single celled forms of life into the complex and multitudinous forms of life now found on its face. We have rather specific scriptural indications that the creative period was of relatively short duration."

Apostle McConkie
Mormon Doctrine

"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both."

Apostle George Albert Smith
Conference Report, Oct. 1925

"If evolution is true, the church is false.  If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?"

"Again I repeat, no man can consistently accept the doctrine of the evolutionist and also believe in the divine mission of our Redeemer. The two thoughts are in absolute conflict. You cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation 

You are trying to have it both ways -- but if you read what JSF said -- "you cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."  

I guess all three of these apostles were just speaking as men? 

 

 

Of course. We're they NOT human?

What were they then?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Adaption can happen by sexual mixing of the parents genes or by mutations. But in each case it's all just genes. You're simply leaving out in the story the huge role mutations play in adaptation. What determines a species is just whether offspring are viable. Again that's just genes. So you're just wrong. A great example of this is how seed companies have responded to the non-GMO movement. They just put plants near radiation sources that increase the mutation rate, grow them, and select the crops that have the desired properties, and then repeat. 

All that evolution really adds to the story is that those populations that are more successful in adapting survive to spread their genes. Successful genes persist while neutral or unsuccessful genes don't. But in a certain sense the whole species part matters only because of the importance of sexual reproduction as a means of propagating genes. In bacteria where that's less of an issue they can spread in many different novel ways.

But to say adaptation doesn't entail genetic change is just wrong. It's a change in which genes are most successful within the population. Now it's true that the genes may already be in the population. But you're just neglecting the wide range of ways genes change outside of sex. Often the adaptations simply aren't already in the population. What constitutes the adaptation are particular genes. At a certain perspective only the genes matter in terms of how they create better viability relative to the particular environment.

The problem is the absence of transitional species.  Based on what you and evolutionists say, they should be there, in the form of fossils, or in modern recapitulation of actual evolution (at least demonstrable in the biochemical lab).  Makes logical sense.  However, neither can be demonstrated.  That is why Eldredge & Gould came up with the clever theory of punctuated equilibria -- to explain the absence of evidence which should be there.  Transitions were presumably just too fast to leave enough evidence.  Otherwise evolutionary biological theory is acceptable in every way.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Once again here is what it says:

"A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence."

The heading states:

"This earth has a temporal existence of 7,000 years;"

The Bible dictionary says:

"Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48)."

Any way you try to slice it, there was still Death WAY before this supposed fall...and the earth is not even close to being 7,000 years old...it's billions of years old.   

Excellent, but irrelevant points, as you continue to systematically ignore the points made by others.  Amazing how you completely disregard anything which might call into serious question your flawed statements.

[The Nehor]

On 5/26/2017 at 4:40 PM, Thinking said:

Ah yes, the all important disclaimer. Where would LDS doctrine be without it.

On one hand we are assaulted because correlation is sapping the lifeblood of the Church through applying dogma to everything. When we say something may not be doctrinally perfect we are accused of being evasive.

It is almost as if our enemies will use either scenario when it suits them rhetorically......but I am told they are all such wonderful people. Could they do such a thing?  

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The problem is the absence of transitional species.  Based on what you and evolutionists say, they should be there, in the form of fossils, or in modern recapitulation of actual evolution (at least demonstrable in the biochemical lab).  Makes logical sense.  However, neither can be demonstrated.  That is why Eldredge & Gould came up with the clever theory of punctuated equilibria -- to explain the absence of evidence which should be there.  Transitions were presumably just too fast to leave enough evidence.  Otherwise evolutionary biological theory is acceptable in every way.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean we don't have a record of everything because fossilization is rare, I'd agree, but don't think it matters since what counts are the competing possible explanations. If you mean we don't have more than enough evidence to suggest that this was just changes in DNA I disagree. Gould's theory was just a slight variation of the normal view of evolution and still is evolution. However even Gould's theory is somewhat controversial. I personally suspect it does apply in some cases. I don't think the rate of evolution is somehow constant since it depends so much on environment. But maybe I'm just not understanding what position you're arguing for.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you mean we don't have a record of everything because fossilization is rare, I'd agree, but don't think it matters since what counts are the competing possible explanations. If you mean we don't have more than enough evidence to suggest that this was just changes in DNA I disagree. Gould's theory was just a slight variation of the normal view of evolution and still is evolution. However even Gould's theory is somewhat controversial. I personally suspect it does apply in some cases. I don't think the rate of evolution is somehow constant since it depends so much on environment. But maybe I'm just not understanding what position you're arguing for.

Punctuated equilibria is brilliant, and it saves evolutionary theory from complete destruction.  It allows logic to maintain the basic outlines and pattern of evolution.  Given the enormous amounts of time in which various species existed, plenty of fossils have been laid down.  The only explanation for the absence of transitional forms is that they occurred in very short periods of extraordinary environmental challenge, and therefore not enough of them were laid down to be found by paleontologists.  It is a statistical matter.

As to the appearance of life, which cannot be demonstrated in the lab, most scholars now imagine that it came via meteorite (spores and such) from elsewhere.  That theory is called transmission.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

16 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Let's look at what three different apostles said after Joseph Smith:

"Evolutionary theories assume that hundreds of millions of years were involved, first in the creation of the earth as a habitable globe, and again in the evolution of spontaneously generated, single celled forms of life into the complex and multitudinous forms of life now found on its face. We have rather specific scriptural indications that the creative period was of relatively short duration."

Apostle McConkie
Mormon Doctrine

"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both."

Apostle George Albert Smith
Conference Report, Oct. 1925

"If evolution is true, the church is false.  If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?"

"Again I repeat, no man can consistently accept the doctrine of the evolutionist and also believe in the divine mission of our Redeemer. The two thoughts are in absolute conflict. You cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation 

You are trying to have it both ways -- but if you read what JSF said -- "you cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."  

I guess all three of these apostles were just speaking as men? 

 

 

They were always speaking as men when what they said does not support the current narrative.  This is where science and discovery lead the church.  What is fashionable today and doctrine today will be put under the bus tomorrow once science shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the doctrine was merely mortal speculation.  

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Let's look at what three different apostles said after Joseph Smith:

"Evolutionary theories assume that hundreds of millions of years were involved, first in the creation of the earth as a habitable globe, and again in the evolution of spontaneously generated, single celled forms of life into the complex and multitudinous forms of life now found on its face. We have rather specific scriptural indications that the creative period was of relatively short duration."

Apostle McConkie
Mormon Doctrine

"Of course, I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both."

Apostle George Albert Smith
Conference Report, Oct. 1925

"If evolution is true, the church is false.  If life began on the earth, as advocated by Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel (who has been caught openhanded perpetrating a fraud), and others of this school, whether by chance or by some designing hand, then the doctrines of the Church are false. Then there was no Garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, and no fall. If there was no fall; if death did not come into the world as the scriptures declared that it did-and to be consistent, if you are an evolutionist, this view you must assume-then there was no need for a redemption, and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, and he did not die for the transgression of Adam, nor for the sins of the world. Then there has been no resurrection from the dead! Consistently, logically, there is no other view, no alternative that can be taken. Now, my brethren and sisters, are you prepared to take this view?"

"Again I repeat, no man can consistently accept the doctrine of the evolutionist and also believe in the divine mission of our Redeemer. The two thoughts are in absolute conflict. You cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith
Doctrines of Salvation 

You are trying to have it both ways -- but if you read what JSF said -- "you cannot harmonize them and serve two masters."  

I guess all three of these apostles were just speaking as men?

Yes, and men are frequently wrong on any number of issues. All that any member of the Church is required to believe concerning evolution is that God did it.

Edited May 28, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Punctuated equilibria is brilliant, and it saves evolutionary theory from complete destruction.  It allows logic to maintain the basic outlines and pattern of evolution.  Given the enormous amounts of time in which various species existed, plenty of fossils have been laid down.  The only explanation for the absence of transitional forms is that they occurred in very short periods of extraordinary environmental challenge, and therefore not enough of them were laid down to be found by paleontologists.  It is a statistical matter.

As to the appearance of life, which cannot be demonstrated in the lab, most scholars now imagine that it came via meteorite (spores and such) from elsewhere.  That theory is called transmission.

There needs to be a reason for a change for a species to change. Otherwise they do not change. Changes, for example, in environment are big cause for it. Punctuated equilibrium explains those changes  Fossilization is a rare event. While in those fossils we do have, transitional ones are quite common.

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

At best that just puts evolution back even further. Abiogenesis is the current best explanation we have for how life first appeared on this planet. Evolution doesn't concern itself with how life first appeared here. Evoluion is the explanation of how it changed once it got here. SEE

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

They were always speaking as men when what they said does not support the current narrative.  This is where science and discovery lead the church.  What is fashionable today and doctrine today will be put under the bus tomorrow once science shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the doctrine was merely mortal speculation.  

They would be speaking as men regardless of what they are speaking about they ARE humans regardless of anything

We cannot get outside of being human- how do you suggest we do that???

Some humans are inspired others are not- it is agreeing on who is and who is not that determines one's religion.  If you think scientists are always right, you are a fundamentalist who holds scientists to be "prophets"- no difference at all.

That's a very naive view of science and religion- quite passe actually.  It is a fundamentalist view actually

Have you read Kuhn?   Science itself evolves and so does religion as times change.

Science changes, doctrine changes as new revelations come.  That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.  We do not believe that revelation was given "once for all"- and that is precisely why we need prophets today- to give us changing truth for us to evaluate and either agree with or disagree.

What do you think an open canon is for??  And spirituality is not about how WHAT the WORLD is, it is about HOW we RELATE to the world and the meaning we harvest from it for our lives.   It is about our subjective attitudes that help us put together a coherent meaning for our personal lives.

It is about values and what is important.  It is not about how the world works- it is about US and how we deal with the big tragedies and issues of life.  Even atheists understand this now- that religion is important even without a belief in God.   So you can be either a theist or atheist and still be "religious" on this view. 

Edited May 28, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There needs to be a reason for a change for a species to change. Otherwise they do not change.

How could anyone possibly have evidence for that proposition?

There could be "causes" perhaps for change, as opposed to reasons, but "causes" are notoriously difficult to define.  And the idea that without a cause for change, that species do not change is impossible to prove.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

They would be speaking as men regardless of what they are speaking about they ARE humans regardless of anything

We cannot get outside of being human- how do you suggest we do that???

Some humans are inspired others are not- it is agreeing on who is and who is not that determines one's religion.  If you think scientists are always right, you are a fundamentalist who holds scientists to be "prophets"- no difference at all.

That's a very naive view of science and religion- quite passe actually.  It is a fundamentalist view actually

Have you read Kuhn?   Science itself evolves and so does religion as times change.

Science changes, doctrine changes as new revelations come.  That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.  We do not believe that revelation was given "once for all"- and that is precisely why we need prophets today- to give us changing truth for us to evaluate and either agree with or disagree.

What do you think an open canon is for??  And spirituality is not about how WHAT the WORLD is, it is about HOW we RELATE to the world and the meaning we harvest from it for our lives.   It is about our subjective attitudes that help us put together a coherent meaning for our personal lives.

It is about values and what is important.  It is not about how the world works- it is about US and how we deal with the big tragedies and issues of life.  Even atheists understand this now- that religion is important even without a belief in God.   So you can be either a theist or atheist and still be "religious" on this view. 

I'm not saying they can get outside of being human.  They always speak as humans.