I don't believe in Evolution because No Death before the Fall is in the scriptures

[snowflake]

14 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Very good question. Unfortunately you are talking about very deep time and it is beyond my area of expertise (which begins approximately 65 mya). There are so many strange forms that are just too unfamiliar to me to even begin to try to create any kind of a cladogram for those organisms. We also need to know about the physical environment to understand the forces that drove the Cambrian explosion and I'm just not familiar enough with it to even give an educated guess.

Thanks for your honest answer Katherine the great. Abiogenesis is one of the problems I simply cannot find an adequate answer when questioning evolution.  At university in the 90's, the Miller-Urey experiment was presented to me as adequate evidence for life from non-life.  Upon further investigation this experiment failed miserably at proving life, sure it can create a racemic amino-acid mixture....but that is about it. Is there a current evidence based theory that you would consider legitimate to explain the incredibly complex abiogenesis question.  The which came first, the DNA or the protein, and what about that ribosome? Did that mico-machine really evolve? Thoughts?   

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

To me, this further indicates that the Atonement prepared from before the foundation of the world anticipated a death that would be brought into the world by Adam through his Fall (in line with Moses and 1 Corinthians).

If the "world" and this "earth" refer only to the 7,000 year "generation" beginning with our scriptural Adam, many such generations could have preceded ours, which would allow that our own Father Adam's paradisaical / terrestrial creation was precipitated by another previous generation's Adam whose fallen world and mortal offspring eventually became terrestrial (a millennium) and parented our Adam and Eve, who resumed the same pattern of terrestrial creation-fall-telestial creation in the next generation of "world." So "no death before the fall" still seems to be a valid doctrine, no matter what processes took place between an Adam's Fall and his arrival in his "world."

The seven "days" of creation are used in scripture to reference the 7000 years, but are also called the "generations" of the earth when it was created. See Gen 2:1-4. In other words each 1000 years would reference a generation.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The seven "days" of creation are used in scripture to reference the 7000 years, but are also called the "generations" of the earth when it was created. See Gen 2:1-4. In other words each 1000 years would reference a generation.

No, the seven seals represent the 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existence. From D&C 77:

 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
  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 Creation and Fall took place before that 7,000 year timeline, and the seven days of Creation represent indeterminate periods of time, and interestingly enough the Lord also calls the entire period a "day": "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens..."

[RevTestament]

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, the seven seals represent the 7,000 years of the earth's temporal existence. From D&C 77:

True, I don't have time to go into it all right now, but suffice it to say yes they do reference the 7000 years.

Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.

5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest.

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.

9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God.

 

Quote

The Creation and Fall took place before that 7,000 year timeline, and the seven days of Creation represent indeterminate periods of time, and interestingly enough the Lord also calls the entire period a "day": "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens..."

You do have a point here, but that seems to be just a figure of speech. The Lord did things "in this day" or "on that day." It's a rather common scriptural device. It's kinda like Luke saying that Caesar made a decree for "the whole world to be taxed." Well, we know he didn't. He didn't tax the Parthian empire, or the Chinese, etc. 

[CV75]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You do have a point here, but that seems to be just a figure of speech. The Lord did things "in this day" or "on that day." It's a rather common scriptural device. It's kinda like Luke saying that Caesar made a decree for "the whole world to be taxed." Well, we know he didn't. He didn't tax the Parthian empire, or the Chinese, etc. 

Yes, the point is that the word "day" in the Biblical account of the Creation is a figure of speech, whether in reference to the six days of activity and the seventh day of rest, or where all seven days are subsumed into "the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Otherwise Genesis 2:4 would read, "the week that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." I'm thinking the Creation was made spiritually, then terrestrially, then telestially.

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thank you.  Excellent material and good science, which I recommend to anyone interested in the subject.  Since I am not a creationist, I have no problem with any of it.

Thanks for that also.  I like one of the anonymous comments there in particular:

However, since we humans use CRISPR, and since any sufficiently advanced species could do so, the notion of intelligent design is not only true in theory, but it is a fact operative in the lab.

If defined broadly enough I'm a Creationist. I believe God did it, using science.

Intelligent Design presupposes that no mortal human does, or ever will have the knowledge to explain the science of evolution. Essentially it is an argument from ignorance. It may well be that we never do figure it all out, but I sure don't want any of them any where near a science lab.

SEE

 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The scriptures do use Adam’s reckoning, which evidently began 6,000 years ago, assuming that is when the Gods appointed unto Adam his reckoning. But They could also have appointed unto Adam his reckoning billions of years before that and introduced Earth’s 7,000-year “work and glory” timeline once he became telestial; neither is clearly revealed.

Some scriptures do. I know some like to interpret scripture as if the humans writing them weren't involved and all the texts are just the dictated words of an omniscient being using consistent and coherent terminology. I don't think such a view works however. The 7000 year period is largely out of an apocalyptic text or texts about the apocalypse. To ignore that context is fundamentally to distort those scriptures.

Quote

If we are going to view scriptural accounts as a form of written history in the same way that we attempt to reconcile science with religion, it is well to view historical and scientific data as only half the input (and what are religious data, but symbols that are more figurative than measurable ones?). Sometimes it’s more practical to compartmentalize science and religion (each a set of independent truths operating in their own sphere); but then again, spiritual purification drives us to see these truths as part of a whole in the same way that spirit and element are connected (D&C 131:7-8).

In what way are you using the word history? I ask, because I think this matters a great deal. John's apocalypse isn't history the way say most of Alma is historical. The problem is that people tend to ignore context both for prophetic texts but also scientific ones.

Quote

I was focusing on “no death before the fall” and how that could still be the case considering our cosmic and geological evidence. As far as the descendants of Adam and Eve from their arrival 6,000 years ago, there must be some of us still around! As far as people living on Earth before that, they also could have been the children of Adam and Eve brought forth during one of many periodic telestial sojourns, after which they returned to Eden until they finally made Earth their permanent home 6,000 years ago.

Again, nothing is revealed on this. The relationship between Adam and the 7000 years of history in John's apocalypse isn't clear. People tie them together due to Unger's dating of Genesis. However that was compiled by uninspired scribed after the exile. The Book of Mormon warns us about the Bible. We just don't have a lot of data here. The two statements by Joseph that are relevant are explaining the symbolism of John's apocalypse and a secondary report about life going on 2.55 billion years according to purported information from the papyri.

Given that we have to be careful. This is not something to build up a theology against pretty overwhelming evidence in science over.

Quote

As far as those people / hominids not looking like us, many factors could contribute to that – anything from genetic processes other than Adam and Eve’s procreation to their bonafide, natural children being subject to curses, environment, and microbes, the last being my latest kick (see Alma 37: 6, 7!). There is also the consideration that the entire planet is one organism with Adam and Eve designated as the governing principal members (in other words, our identity is that of a planet, individually and collectively; perhaps more accurately, the planet and all life is part of our greater identity and being).

Again, I don't think we have a lot of data here. Given the obvious genetic relatedness of humans to all other life, I think it clear that when Adam and Even fell (whatever that means) their bodies were made genetically akin to such life.

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Some scriptures do. I know some like to interpret scripture as if the humans writing them weren't involved and all the texts are just the dictated words of an omniscient being using consistent and coherent terminology. I don't think such a view works however. The 7000 year period is largely out of an apocalyptic text or texts about the apocalypse. To ignore that context is fundamentally to distort those scriptures.

In what way are you using the word history? I ask, because I think this matters a great deal. John's apocalypse isn't history the way say most of Alma is historical. The problem is that people tend to ignore context both for prophetic texts but also scientific ones.

Again, nothing is revealed on this. The relationship between Adam and the 7000 years of history in John's apocalypse isn't clear. People tie them together due to Unger's dating of Genesis. However that was compiled by uninspired scribed after the exile. The Book of Mormon warns us about the Bible. We just don't have a lot of data here. The two statements by Joseph that are relevant are explaining the symbolism of John's apocalypse and a secondary report about life going on 2.55 billion years according to purported information from the papyri.

Given that we have to be careful. This is not something to build up a theology against pretty overwhelming evidence in science over.

Again, I don't think we have a lot of data here. Given the obvious genetic relatedness of humans to all other life, I think it clear that when Adam and Even fell (whatever that means) their bodies were made genetically akin to such life.

 

D&C 77:6-7 hadn’t come across as apocalyptic to me since it references all the 1,000-year periods, but I guess since it has an endpoint, the seventh seal could be construed as such (all the verses that follow). But even if figurative, this would still allow for no death before the Fall, with indeterminate periods of time in which Adam and Eve could have established posterity, including the particular posterity with which we identify. In some cases, figurative things might as well be actual.

In my post, I was using “written history” to describe the end product of good-faith accounting of events as they are understood to have transpired and good-faith understanding of the accounts, as fallible as either the reporter’s or the reader’s understanding might be. Some of is scripture-oriented and some is not.

I’m not sure how much of our theology is supposed to be built upon a scientific foundation. I mean, there seems to be no widely-accepted scientific evidence for God, not to mention His plan, Adam, the Fall, etc. But scientifically, there is no death before life; a state of non-life perhaps, but no death. Likewise, theologically, there is no mortal death before mortal life, and with other estates of life that transition (whether the transition is referred to as a fall or a rise) one into another, there is no death immediately before the transition called “the fall” just as there is no mortal life immediately before the transition called the “rise” into resurrection (individually or generally).

I think the data is important when one makes an appeal to science to prove a theological point, so we need to use a good deal of discipline there. No one is going to appeal to theology to prove a scientific point so we’re safe there. I think attempts to bridge theological and scientific principles require a degree of voluntary suspension of belief in some of the finer points of either, so those who strongly adhere to one approach over the other could find that difficult to do.

[thesometimesaint]

I think we get ourselves into trouble when we make Scripture literal and Science figurative.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I think we get ourselves into trouble when we make Scripture literal and Science figurative.

Scripture is written by fallible human beings. Science is the study of the only book God ever wrote - the universe.  

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

D&C 77:6-7 hadn’t come across as apocalyptic to me since it references all the 1,000-year periods, but I guess since it has an endpoint, the seventh seal could be construed as such (all the verses that follow). But even if figurative, this would still allow for no death before the Fall, with indeterminate periods of time in which Adam and Eve could have established posterity, including the particular posterity with which we identify. In some cases, figurative things might as well be actual.

It's a commentary on John's Apocalypse. How could it not be apocalyptic?

The point is that it is explaining the scrolls that are unsealed giving symbolic explanation of each period. The 7000 years are the history in terms of the apocalypse. It's not history the way we think of it anymore than Daniel is.

Quote

I’m not sure how much of our theology is supposed to be built upon a scientific foundation. I mean, there seems to be no widely-accepted scientific evidence for God, not to mention His plan, Adam, the Fall, etc. But scientifically, there is no death before life; a state of non-life perhaps, but no death. Likewise, theologically, there is no mortal death before mortal life, and with other estates of life that transition (whether the transition is referred to as a fall or a rise) one into another, there is no death immediately before the transition called “the fall” just as there is no mortal life immediately before the transition called the “rise” into resurrection (individually or generally).

There's no real scientific evidence against God either. I'm not sure what you mean by "death before life." Life is notoriously difficult to define and really isn't a natural kind. (Is a virus alive? What about a prion? What about a single cell?) To reify death and life in this way is already to not be speaking about science yet to take the terms as implying scientific implications. There's a lot more difficult here than I think you are letting on.

Quote

I think the data is important when one makes an appeal to science to prove a theological point, so we need to use a good deal of discipline there. No one is going to appeal to theology to prove a scientific point so we’re safe there. I think attempts to bridge theological and scientific principles require a degree of voluntary suspension of belief in some of the finer points of either, so those who strongly adhere to one approach over the other could find that difficult to do.

Truth is truth. Some things are scientifically established so strongly whereas people's particular theologies typically aren't. Yet people privilege their theologies without looking at the grounds for how they read scripture or what justifies such readings.

As I said the two main arguments for no death before the fall are the 7 Seals and 2 Nephi 2 - but in both cases those are questionable readings of those passages. People clearly believe them, but by and large they believe them because prominent 20th century GAs believed them not because the exegesis itself is actually terribly strong. Nor are there clear revelations on the subject.

It's completely understandable why people, especially in the era of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine believed such things. I'd hope upon closer examination the overwhelming evidence for humans prior to 7000 years ago living in a fairly sustained way before and after with no interruption affects how they read scripture. There were human cities going back tens of thousands of years.

Edited August 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

If defined broadly enough I'm a Creationist. I believe God did it, using science.

Intelligent Design presupposes that no mortal human does, or ever will have the knowledge to explain the science of evolution. Essentially it is an argument from ignorance. It may well be that we never do figure it all out, but I sure don't want any of them any where near a science lab.

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

Intelligent design is the argument that a watch presupposes a watchmaker-designer.  And Richard Dawkins accepts intelligent design in the only meaningful sense: 

Richard Dawkins, “Now Praise Intelligent Design: Take Back Intelligent Design,” April 2012, at A Celebration of Reason - 2012 Global Atheist Convention 13-15th April - Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre, Presented by the Atheist Foundation of Australia.   – Dawkins praises “intelligent design” as modern technology, “a crowning glory of our species.”   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wXEjQ1kdU .

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It might be helpful if you knew what LDS doctrine is, as well as what science is, but I have seen no evidence that you understand either of those things, Sam.  If you read and study widely during the next couple years, you can probably overcome some of those deficits, but it won't happen overnite.  Patience, humility, and effort are called for.

I understand general authorities are not perfect, and I don't see General Conference as infallible, but I see it as a guide. When we go to your church what do you find? Scriptures, Ensign, manuals, hymn books. You don't find David O Mckay and the rise of Modern Mormonism.   LDS missionaries are only allowed to read the Scriptures, The Preach My Gospel Manual, The Ensign, not the Journal of Discourses. 

Please tell me something published by the Church that I am not understanding? 

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We are all humans, Sam, and the fact that you haven't been able to get past that elementary fact is part of the problem.  That and your false notions about the august nature of modern but not older LDS conferences is an additional hurdle which you are unable to overcome.  Then you compound that error by making your own misunderstandings about comments made by the Brethren at conferences the measure of all other possibly related points of doctrine.  Many of the fallacies you employ in doing so are hasty generalizations and strawman conclusions not in any way justified by the actual comments made by the Brethren.  

So you agree that authorities in General Conference taught No Death, No Human Death,  Great Flood, Jonah and Fish, historical book of mormon? If General Conference talks are given by inspiration how can the same mistakes happen multiple times for many years?  How would General Conference be useful? Why would we even need a church that teaches doctrine?

I don't believe everything I read in the Journal of Discourses because the church says, "The content of the Journal of Discourses was transcribed, sometimes inaccurately, and published between 1854 and 1886 in England. The compilation contains some statements of doctrine as well as other materials of interest to Latter-day Saints who lived far from the center of the Church, including speeches given for a variety of occasions, funeral addresses, reports from returning missionaries, prayers, and the proceedings of a trial. The Journal of Discourses was produced under the guidance of those who transcribed the materials, including George D. Watt, David W. Evans, and George W. Gibbs. Skilled in the use of shorthand, George D. Watt had transcribed many conferences and sermons for the Deseret News. He received little pay for his work. Since the Deseret News was not generally available outside of the United States, Watt proposed to Brigham Young the idea of publishing these materials on a subscription basis. Such a plan would make the materials available to more Saints and allow Watt to earn a living with his work. President Brigham Young supported the plan, and a letter from the First Presidency was included in the first volume encouraging Church members to cooperate in the “purchase and sale” of the journal. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions. Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been documented. The Journal of Discourses includes interesting and insightful teachings by early Church leaders; however, by itself it is not an authoritative source of Church doctrine." 

https://www.lds.org/topics/journal-of-discourses?lang=eng

[CV75]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's a commentary on John's Apocalypse. How could it not be apocalyptic?

The point is that it is explaining the scrolls that are unsealed giving symbolic explanation of each period. The 7000 years are the history in terms of the apocalypse. It's not history the way we think of it anymore than Daniel is.

There's no real scientific evidence against God either. I'm not sure what you mean by "death before life." Life is notoriously difficult to define and really isn't a natural kind. (Is a virus alive? What about a prion? What about a single cell?) To reify death and life in this way is already to not be speaking about science yet to take the terms as implying scientific implications. There's a lot more difficult here than I think you are letting on.

Truth is truth. Some things are scientifically established so strongly whereas people's particular theologies typically aren't. Yet people privilege their theologies without looking at the grounds for how they read scripture or what justifies such readings.

As I said the two main arguments for no death before the fall are the 7 Seals and 2 Nephi 2 - but in both cases those are questionable readings of those passages. People clearly believe them, but by and large they believe them because prominent 20th century GAs believed them not because the exegesis itself is actually terribly strong. Nor are there clear revelations on the subject.

It's completely understandable why people, especially in the era of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine believed such things. I'd hope upon closer examination the overwhelming evidence for humans prior to 7000 years ago living in a fairly sustained way before and after with no interruption affects how they read scripture. There were human cities going back tens of thousands of years.

In one sense it is apocalyptic and in another it isn’t. I think I was fair in recognizing both in my response. 1/7 of the book is apocalyptic in its subject matter; the majority of the Section is apocalyptic in what it describes. The seven seals follow Adam’s reckoning and written history of the earth’s continuance or temporal existence according to the Old and New Testaments. I used this to show that the appointment of Adam’s reckoning upon the Fall could have occurred a indeterminately long time before the first seal and the rest of the 7,000 year prophecy/plan.

Typically, an organism’s death follows, and does not precede, its recognized lifespan according to agreed-upon scientific criteria. But along with the questions you point out, some organisms don’t die but simply age and divide, so in those scientific conversations there would need to be some scientific agreement what constitutes death of an individual cell; the same question goes for uniting gametes. But in any case, their death (or aging or dividing or uniting) does not precede their inception, no matter how inanimate or non-living we may consider the subject to be, and no matter what the observer determines the starting point(s) to be. I think this principle is an example of common ground between theology and science.

Limiting the application of this to Earth, I think “no death before the fall” has nothing to do with the billions of years of any kind of life that can be scientifically observed, including human life as traced back (name your figure in thousands or millions, depending on what you want to classify as human) years before the first seal. To me it simply means that before Adam fell there was no life on Earth to die, and going so far as to say that there was even no Earth. There wasn’t a death of any kind on any scale in this estate before there was this estate, and this estate came into being with the Fall.

Likewise, I think “no death before the fall” has nothing to do with scriptural history beginning 6,000 years ago or the concept that Adam and Eve lived billions of years in Eden after their Fall. The three observations are not mutually exclusive.

[thesometimesaint]

18 hours ago, snowflake said:

Thanks for your honest answer Katherine the great. Abiogenesis is one of the problems I simply cannot find an adequate answer when questioning evolution.  At university in the 90's, the Miller-Urey experiment was presented to me as adequate evidence for life from non-life.  Upon further investigation this experiment failed miserably at proving life, sure it can create a racemic amino-acid mixture....but that is about it. Is there a current evidence based theory that you would consider legitimate to explain the incredibly complex abiogenesis question.  The which came first, the DNA or the protein, and what about that ribosome? Did that mico-machine really evolve? Thoughts?   

While there is still lots to figure out here is what we do know. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is an explanation of how life first appeared on our planet. Evolution is an explanation of how that life changed once it got here. The Miller-Urey experiment did not show how life first appeared on this planet. What it did show is that simple chemicals can be used to make simple organic compounds. A long ways from proteins let alone life as we know it.

For a better understanding of abiogenesis SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[snowflake]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

While there is still lots to figure out here is what we do know. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Abiogenesis is an explanation of how life first appeared on our planet. Evolution is an explanation of how that life changed once it got here. The Miller-Urey experiment did not show how life first appeared on this planet. What it did show is that simple chemicals can be used to make simple organic compounds. A long ways from proteins let alone life as we know it.

For a better understanding of abiogenesis SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Your link criticizes the creationist's statistical approach to showing ho improbable abiogenesis truly is.  The statement "abiogenesis is not evolution" is always thrown around by the biology community as if it is an adequate explanation to the problem of simple biological compounds randomly becoming incredibly complex, self replicating and somehow functional.  I am simply looking for the most recent evidence based science showing how life can come from non-life.  We have had Pasteur's accepted law of biogenesis for over a hundred years, this clearly denies abiogenesis. 

Are you denying biogenesis in favor for abiogenesis? The theory of life from non-life at this point requires quite a bit of faith, since science does not support it. 

[clarkgoble]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Likewise, I think “no death before the fall” has nothing to do with scriptural history beginning 6,000 years ago or the concept that Adam and Eve lived billions of years in Eden after their Fall. The three observations are not mutually exclusive.

Well I'd agree, although most NDBF proponents mix them because if they don't the evidence for NDBF is severely lacking. Fundamentally it's the question of why believe NDBF that is key.

Edited August 30, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

So you agree that authorities in General Conference taught No Death, No Human Death,  Great Flood, Jonah and Fish, historical book of mormon? If General Conference talks are given by inspiration how can the same mistakes happen multiple times for many years?  How would General Conference be useful? Why would we even need a church that teaches doctrine?

Honest question, but do you apply that also to rejected doctrines like Adam/God or Blacks were fencesitters in the pre-existence?

Errors happen but over time are corrected. Further typicaly NDBF type things are incidental to the point the GA is typically preaching. 

To your final question, it's one I raise to anti-Mormons quite regularly. If it was 95% accurate, would we say it wasn't useful? Of course not. So to say that because something is taught wrong implies something is useless is really to say only 100% accuracy in everything is useless. Which is a ridiculous point to make since of course we don't require that in any other human pursuit. Replication studies in science suggest that at best papers are less than 20% accurate in most fields. And that's arguably the best of human knowledge pursuit. To demand 100% accuracy in Conference talks seems an unfair criterion.

[clarkgoble]

Whether or not abiogenesis actually is improbable seems difficult to determine without knowing how it happens. Intelligent Design proponents don't exactly have a great track record in making probabilistic claims due to tending to exclude paths and neglect the way path movement is asymmetrical. i.e. there can sometime be a ratchet like effect in which changes aren't reversible. The anti-ID explainers go through these problems so I'll not spend much time on them. The main point is that if you create a naive probability without really knowing the ways something could actually happen it's not a terribly useful argument. i.e. probabilities from ignorance are ignorant.

As such it's best to just say we don't know. To claim that God had to be involved (which is the argument ID proponents are making) ultimately is a god of the gaps argument. Although I'll credit them with getting reasonably sophisticated of late in hiding the gaps.

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I'd agree, although most NDBF proponents mix them because if they don't the evidence for NDBF is severely lacking. Fundamentally it's the question of why believe NDBF that is key.

So I guess that makes me a proponent under particular conditions!

From the scriptures can it be shown that any living soul in Eden or in the garden died (spiritually or physically; eternally or temporally; figuratively or literally) before Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit? Or that any living soul was not cursed after?

I've sometimes wondered about the four rivers coming out of Eden, and what kind of life they were supporting, or were they just performing geological functions...

Edited August 30, 2017 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Intelligent design is the argument that a watch presupposes a watchmaker-designer.  And Richard Dawkins accepts intelligent design in the only meaningful sense: 

Richard Dawkins, “Now Praise Intelligent Design: Take Back Intelligent Design,” April 2012, at A Celebration of Reason - 2012 Global Atheist Convention 13-15th April - Melbourne Convention Exhibition Centre, Presented by the Atheist Foundation of Australia.   – Dawkins praises “intelligent design” as modern technology, “a crowning glory of our species.”   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_wXEjQ1kdU .

 

The Watchmaker Analogy is a fallacy.

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

[ttribe]

On 8/26/2017 at 0:49 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Lastly, I know our world appears to be old and the fossil record tells a story of millions of years of Evolution, but Elder Eyring taught, "The truth that matters most is verified only by revelation from God. Our human reason and the use of our physical senses will not be enough...The Lord taught His Apostle Thomas, who wanted physical evidence of the Savior’s Resurrection by touching His wounds, that revelation is safer evidence"      

Okay, I really need some help here - How does anyone try to explain a fossil record like Earth's when it so clearly conflicts with the notion that there is no such thing as evolution?  How do you deal with the dinosaurs?  How do you deal with obvious changes in species over the billions of years?  For that matter, how do you deal with the decay of a carbon isotope used to date these things?  It's one thing to seek out spiritual evidence but, in this case, it requires the dismissal of an enormous amount of testable and verifiable evidence.

[clarkgoble]

9 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Okay, I really need some help here - How does anyone try to explain a fossil record like Earth's when it so clearly conflicts with the notion that there is no such thing as evolution?  How do you deal with the dinosaurs?  How do you deal with obvious changes in species over the billions of years?  For that matter, how do you deal with the decay of a carbon isotope used to date these things?  It's one thing to seek out spiritual evidence but, in this case, it requires the dismissal of an enormous amount of testable and verifiable evidence.

Intelligent Design of the stronger sort accepts the entire history of evolution but just thinks God was the driver rather than chance/environment. Intelligent Design of the weaker sort is sort of a dodge that accepts most creationism but tries to maintain respectability because Intelligent Design, while wrong, isn't completely out of left field. Creationists by and large just deny all the evidence particularly radioactive decay. They don't attempt to deny it in a coherent fashion to explain the measurements. They just effectively deny the evidence of strata, of development, of DNA, and of dating of all sorts. It's very much a "head in the sand" mentality. The more honest sort will just say they don't understand the evidence but prefer to trust the Bible (or really the way they read the Bible). The more disingenuous types just make up stuff that makes no sense with even a modicum of examination. So you have those silly Evangelical Creationist materials that seems more influenced by the Flintstones than by reasons with dinosaurs and humans mixing. My favorite is the painting of Jesus riding a dinosaur.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Intelligent Design of the stronger sort accepts the entire history of evolution but just thinks God was the driver rather than chance/environment. Intelligent Design of the weaker sort is sort of a dodge that accepts most creationism but tries to maintain respectability because Intelligent Design, while wrong, isn't completely out of left field. Creationists by and large just deny all the evidence particularly radioactive decay. They don't attempt to deny it in a coherent fashion to explain the measurements. They just effectively deny the evidence of strata, of development, of DNA, and of dating of all sorts. It's very much a "head in the sand" mentality. The more honest sort will just say they don't understand the evidence but prefer to trust the Bible (or really the way they read the Bible). The more disingenuous types just make up stuff that makes no sense with even a modicum of examination. So you have those silly Evangelical Creationist materials that seems more influenced by the Flintstones than by reasons with dinosaurs and humans mixing. My favorite is the painting of Jesus riding a dinosaur.

  Had to go look that one up! Here are some lovely examples:

[thesometimesaint]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Your link criticizes the creationist's statistical approach to showing ho improbable abiogenesis truly is.  The statement "abiogenesis is not evolution" is always thrown around by the biology community as if it is an adequate explanation to the problem of simple biological compounds randomly becoming incredibly complex, self replicating and somehow functional.  I am simply looking for the most recent evidence based science showing how life can come from non-life.  We have had Pasteur's accepted law of biogenesis for over a hundred years, this clearly denies abiogenesis. 

Are you denying biogenesis in favor for abiogenesis? The theory of life from non-life at this point requires quite a bit of faith, since science does not support it. 

Your idea of Abiogenesis is almost as accurate as Astrology is to Astronomy. They are not the same thing.

Abiogenesis is not random. Fatty acids don't form to just random substances.

SEE http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life

The most recent evidence for abiogenesis that I know of is.

SEE