Robert F. Smith Posted October 6, 2017 Author Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, snowflake said: If they would just read their Bibles they could easily come to the conclusion that evolution is wrong. Yeh, I realize that evangelicals say that (and make Charles Darwin out to be the bad guy), but where in the Bible does it say that evolution is wrong?
snowflake Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Yeh, I realize that evangelicals say that (and make Charles Darwin out to be the bad guy), but where in the Bible does it say that evolution is wrong? Nowhere in the Bible does it say evolution is wrong. Genesis chapter 1 explains the days God created the creatures, they were fully formed and functional. Nowhere in the Bible does God use death and natural selection and genetic mutation to create anything.
bluebell Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 9 minutes ago, snowflake said: Not sure how they come to the conclusion that Darwinism theory and Genesis agree with one another or are compatible. Now if you throw out no death before the fall, no global flood, and monkey with the definition of the word "day", there is a way to do the mental gymnastics required to believe in both. There are tons of biologists who don't believe in evolution. Evolution news.org....the writers support "intelligent design" over Darwinism. They don't believe that the bible is infallible; that's how you believe that Christ created the world and that evolution exists. You can believe in evolution and intelligent design though, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Are there any Evangelical biologists who believe in ID but don't believe in evolution?
Robert F. Smith Posted October 6, 2017 Author Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, snowflake said: .................................................... I absolutely think Darwinism is a huge obstacle/lie that has reached the status of religion. And yet there have been evangelicals of the American Scientific Affiliation who accepted evolution already in the 1940s and 50s, and ever since: Rachel E. Gross, “How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution,” Science, Dec 30, 2015, online at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/12/how_an_evangelical_creationist_came_to_accept_evolution.html . Tim Stafford, “Evangelical Evolutionists Meet in New York,” Christianity Today, Mar 30, 2012, online at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/marchweb-only/biologos-new-york.html . Re Biologos Foundation. “Theistic Evolution,” Answers in Genesis, online at https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/ . Wikipedia, “Acceptance of evolution by religious groups,” online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups . Re American Scientific Affiliation. 1
snowflake Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: They don't believe that the bible is infallible; that's how you believe that Christ created the world and that evolution exists. You can believe in evolution and intelligent design though, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Are there any Evangelical biologists who believe in ID but don't believe in evolution? I would imagine there are Evangelical biologists who believe in evolution, and I would argue that they are wrong about it. Now if you believe the bible is infallible you can make up whatever you want, change the rule book, or whatever....just believe in the parts you like that is fine. Bluebell do you believe the account in Genesis 1 is compatible with Darwinism?
snowflake Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: And yet there have been evangelicals of the American Scientific Affiliation who accepted evolution already in the 1940s and 50s, and ever since: Rachel E. Gross, “How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution,” Science, Dec 30, 2015, online at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/12/how_an_evangelical_creationist_came_to_accept_evolution.html . Tim Stafford, “Evangelical Evolutionists Meet in New York,” Christianity Today, Mar 30, 2012, online at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/marchweb-only/biologos-new-york.html . Re Biologos Foundation. “Theistic Evolution,” Answers in Genesis, online at https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/ . Wikipedia, “Acceptance of evolution by religious groups,” online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups . Re American Scientific Affiliation. Thanks for the info Robert, Bluebell just asked for a list of these. One of the insurmountable problems of accepting evolution, is that in Genesis there is no death before the fall. In Darwinism, death is absolutely crucial to the process of evolution, and death exists for however many billions of years before humans show up.
bluebell Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, snowflake said: I would imagine there are Evangelical biologists who believe in evolution, and I would argue that they are wrong about it. Now if you believe the bible is infallible you can make up whatever you want, change the rule book, or whatever....just believe in the parts you like that is fine. Bluebell do you believe the account in Genesis 1 is compatible with Darwinism? I don't know. I don't feel like I have enough knowledge (of biology or the creation) to know how God created things. I don't think the genesis account is an accurate explanation of that part of history though. The earth was not created in 6 24 hour periods, that's obvious. I don't believe that God literally took a rib from adam to make a woman, for example. Nor do i believe that satan pretended to be a talking snake to tempt Eve. 1
bluebell Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: And yet there have been evangelicals of the American Scientific Affiliation who accepted evolution already in the 1940s and 50s, and ever since: Rachel E. Gross, “How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution,” Science, Dec 30, 2015, online at http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/12/how_an_evangelical_creationist_came_to_accept_evolution.html . Tim Stafford, “Evangelical Evolutionists Meet in New York,” Christianity Today, Mar 30, 2012, online at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/marchweb-only/biologos-new-york.html . Re Biologos Foundation. “Theistic Evolution,” Answers in Genesis, online at https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/ . Wikipedia, “Acceptance of evolution by religious groups,” online at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_of_evolution_by_religious_groups . Re American Scientific Affiliation. So it seems like everyone who has ever actually studied the subject comes to the conclusion that evolution is a reality.
hope_for_things Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Well, yeah...where'd you think Mormons got it from? Its a tradition, copying something we see in broader Christianity, but I have to give us Mormons credit for how effectively we implement these strategies, we're good!
RevTestament Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 1 hour ago, snowflake said: What do extra nipples have to do with evolution? All mammals have nipples. If God created man without relation to other animals, why would some men and women get more than two nipples down the "milk line" of their abdomens? Are you saying God creates some men and women to be more like a pig than others or are we related to other mammals for a reason? There are other examples such as vestigial tails. Some human babies are born with vestigial tails. Now why would God give them tails if man was created without respect to other mammals? Did God forget that He created man separately? I believe extra unused muscles, vestigial tails, and supernumerary nipples are some of the best evidence for evolution of man, because they are very hard to deny. We have ear muscles we no longer use, because for the most part our ears are fixed, but the presence of the muscles shows we used to turn our ears to focus in on sounds. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: https://evolutionnews.org/2012/02/has_darwinism_p/ Darwinism theory is on the ropes, the mechanism is woefully inadequate to explain the massive diversity we see today. Natural selection does not create new genetic information and genetic mutation only flips zeros to ones and ones to zeroes, it simply cannot create new chunks of code which is necessary for creating new organisms. Sorry, but the story of the ark doesn't account for the massive diversity we see either. I'd like to see anyone cram even two of every land animal and bird onto some boat - much less completely failing to explain how the massive diversity of plant life survived some global flood of 40 days duration. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: If they would just read their Bibles they could easily come to the conclusion that evolution is wrong. How can you have a morning and an evening before the sun is created unless Genesis is not talking about present earth days? Oh yeah, it's not. It says these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when it was created. Have you ever thought God is just creating a basis for the Sabbath day covenant? The Bible actually can be read to support genetics and evolution since it says God created the animals so that each produce after its own kind. We now know that is due to the laws of genetics. If the "beginning" is read as the beginning of the universe, your seven days turn into billions of years unless God created all the light we see from other galaxies midstream so that it would show up on the earth in only 6000 years instead of the billions of years it would otherwise take so you have God breaking natural law to make your model feasible. Otherwise those stars have been around for billions of years and we do see light here on earth that is billions of years old, and the earth is surely billions of our years old too. If you insist on days always being our present earth days, how do you interpret the coming of the Messiah in 490 days per Daniel 9? Days does not always mean present earth days.
snowflake Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 34 minutes ago, bluebell said: So it seems like everyone who has ever actually studied the subject comes to the conclusion that evolution is a reality. Wow...... everyone? 36 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't know. I don't feel like I have enough knowledge (of biology or the creation) to know how God created things. I don't think the genesis account is an accurate explanation of that part of history though. The earth was not created in 6 24 hour periods, that's obvious. I don't believe that God literally took a rib from adam to make a woman, for example. Nor do i believe that satan pretended to be a talking snake to tempt Eve. Love the honesty thanks Bluebell, and I can respect your response. If you believe that Christ died on the cross for your sin and mine (I'm assuming you do) and was raised from the grave to live again....and to save us ....why would the things listed above be difficult for you to "believe"? I used to pick and choose the parts of the Bible I believed in too. Now you coming from the LDS background, you've been taught not to completely trust the Bible, so it is perfectly fine to pick and chose as you like. I read the Bible much more literally, more from the "sola sciptura" line of thought and simply find it impossible to combine Evolution with Genesis. If you study the actual mechanism proposed by Darwinism, the Darwinists will admit that natural selection is a dead end, it does not create new genetic material, so they moved on to "genetic mutation". This mechanism as well is totally insufficient for creating new genetic chunks of information.
Darren10 Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: How come "extra" supernumerary nipples show up in people? Is it genetic? How come they are in human genes? Hehehehehe, you said, “nipples”.
pogi Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 2 hours ago, snowflake said: genetic mutation only flips zeros to ones and ones to zeroes, it simply cannot create new chunks of code which is necessary for creating new organisms. That is not really what genetic mutations do. There are no ones and zeros, this is not digital code. Biological code comes in the form of 4 nucleotide bases, Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), Thymine (T). All forms of life on earth are based on different combinations of those 4 nucleotides. There are many different kinds of genetic mutations which can happen which can actually create "new chunks of code", such as in insertion, duplication, and repeat expansion mutations. Here is a basic explanation of the many different kinds of genetic mutation which can happen. 2
snowflake Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 56 minutes ago, RevTestament said: If God created man without relation to other animals, why would some men and women get more than two nipples down the "milk line" of their abdomens? Are you saying God creates some men and women to be more like a pig than others or are we related to other mammals for a reason? There are other examples such as vestigial tails. Some human babies are born with vestigial tails. Now why would God give them tails if man was created without respect to other mammals? Did God forget that He created man separately? I believe extra unused muscles, vestigial tails, and supernumerary nipples are some of the best evidence for evolution of man, because they are very hard to deny. We have ear muscles we no longer use, because for the most part our ears are fixed, but the presence of the muscles shows we used to turn our ears to focus in on sounds. Sorry, but the story of the ark doesn't account for the massive diversity we see either. I'd like to see anyone cram even two of every land animal and bird onto some boat - much less completely failing to explain how the massive diversity of plant life survived some global flood of 40 days duration. How can you have a morning and an evening before the sun is created unless Genesis is not talking about present earth days? Oh yeah, it's not. It says these are the generations of the heavens and the earth when it was created. Have you ever thought God is just creating a basis for the Sabbath day covenant? The Bible actually can be read to support genetics and evolution since it says God created the animals so that each produce after its own kind. We now know that is due to the laws of genetics. If the "beginning" is read as the beginning of the universe, your seven days turn into billions of years unless God created all the light we see from other galaxies midstream so that it would show up on the earth in only 6000 years instead of the billions of years it would otherwise take so you have God breaking natural law to make your model feasible. Otherwise those stars have been around for billions of years and we do see light here on earth that is billions of years old, and the earth is surely billions of our years old too. If you insist on days always being our present earth days, how do you interpret the coming of the Messiah in 490 days per Daniel 9? Days does not always mean present earth days. Ok there is a lot to get to here.....not sure where to start. There are answers to all of these questions. The ark was plenty big enough to fit all the "kinds" of animals on it. It was massive! I can tell you are not familiar with the flood episode and would encourage you to re-read Genesis 6-8. The flood was not 40 days. Vestigial tails, nipples and unused muscles is evidence for evolution? How? please explain. In Genesis 1 God creates light on day one and he "divided" the light from the darkness on day one. The sun, moon and stars were created later on day 4. Interesting how plants were created on day 3 before the sun.
Darren10 Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 As far as evolution goes, it does not morally matter one bit if one believes in it or not. One can believe in evolution and still be a fully faithful Bible, and extra biblical scriptural Mormon believer and one could reject evolution and still be in the same believing thological category. I do not see th Biblical writings preserved for millenia to learn how God created the earth and all things as much as why He created the Earth and all things. Using the Bible to argue against Darwinism and evolution in general is folly. Using it to learn of God and why we all exist is of immense importance. Use the Bible for what it was intended to be used for. I am not saying one cannot cite the Bible regarding science, in fact, I encourage it as it leads to fascinating ideas about earth and the cosmos but do not use it as a rubric to fully accept or reject man’s science. By all means use it to accept or reject man’s morality but not science. 1
Darren10 Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 On 10/5/2017 at 2:46 PM, Robert F. Smith said: "Genesis: Paradise Lost," in 3D, Nov 13, 2017, tickets available at genesismovie.com . preview available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP6mt20jWIg . Evangelical recent creationists are now coming forth with a movie on the Genesis creation, something the Mormons have been doing in their temples for decades. It'll be interesting to see whether they get it right. I do not tihink the Evangelicals will ever “get it right” for they do not have living prophets nor the Book of Moses. Book Review: Temple Themes in the Book of Moses, by Jeffrey M. Bradshaw
snowflake Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 7 minutes ago, pogi said: That is not really what genetic mutations do. There are no ones and zeros, this is not digital code. Biological code comes in the form of 4 nucleotide bases, Adenine (A), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C), Thymine (T). All forms of life on earth are based on different combinations of those 4 nucleotides. There are many different kinds of genetic mutations which can happen which can actually create "new chunks of code", such as in insertion, duplication, and repeat expansion mutations. Here is a basic explanation of the many different kinds of genetic mutation which can happen. Wrong...DNA is absolutely a digital code of instructions, not a binary code but a quaternary code. If you are familiar with computer code whenever these types of "mutations" occur they never create anything beneficial...much less a new computer program (in the form of new species) which is the claim of Darwinism. These "random" tiny errors or mutations somehow lead to beneficial genetic information. There is even a mechanism "DNA polymerase" that checks the DNA for errors and corrects them to prevent mutations.
Popular Post bluebell Posted October 6, 2017 Popular Post Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Wow...... everyone? That's what i was trying to figure out. I asked the question if there were any Evangelical biologists who denied evolution. I don't know of any LDS biologists or other Christian biologists that do. Doesn't that imply 'everyone'? Quote If you believe that Christ died on the cross for your sin and mine (I'm assuming you do) and was raised from the grave to live again....and to save us ....why would the things listed above be difficult for you to "believe"? I used to pick and choose the parts of the Bible I believed in too. Now you coming from the LDS background, you've been taught not to completely trust the Bible, so it is perfectly fine to pick and chose as you like. I read the Bible much more literally, more from the "sola sciptura" line of thought and simply find it impossible to combine Evolution with Genesis. If you study the actual mechanism proposed by Darwinism, the Darwinists will admit that natural selection is a dead end, it does not create new genetic material, so they moved on to "genetic mutation". This mechanism as well is totally insufficient for creating new genetic chunks of information. Because I understand that the bible is not a history book. And I understand that the bible has been proven to be wrong about a few things. And I understand that the bible is loaded with symbolism and metaphor. And I understand that one of Christ's favorite ways to teach us was through parables (fiction). And, i know that there are two creation accounts in genesis and they contradict each other (in Gen. 1, animals are created first, in Gen. 2, Adam is. In Gen. 1, adam and eve are created at the same time, in Gen. 2, Adam sleeps, and loses a rib, when Eve is created.) All of those reasons are why it's difficult for me to believe that creation story is completely literal. Edited October 6, 2017 by bluebell 5
pogi Posted October 6, 2017 Posted October 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Wrong...DNA is absolutely a digital code of instructions, not a binary code but a quaternary code. Right, I know that it is quaternary, I showed you what the 4 nucleotides are. You made it sound like it was binary with "ones and zeros". You also stated that the only mutation that can take place is swapping ones for zeros and vice-versa, that is not true. There can indeed be new chunks of code created, contrary to what you stated. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: If you are familiar with computer code whenever these types of "mutations" occur they never create anything beneficial...much less a new computer program (in the form of new species) which is the claim of Darwinism. I believe in evolution, but I don't believe in Darwinism or the theory of evolution as presently constituted. I believe in divinely guided evolution. There is good evidence that mutations might not be so random after all...I believe there is a coder. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: These "random" tiny errors or mutations somehow lead to beneficial genetic information. There is even a mechanism "DNA polymerase" that checks the DNA for errors and corrects them to prevent mutations. In my view, they are not all "errors". DNA polymerase obviously is not always reliable, if it was there would be no such thing as down syndrome and other genetic disorders. Edited October 6, 2017 by pogi 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 6, 2017 Author Posted October 6, 2017 4 hours ago, bluebell said: So it seems like everyone who has ever actually studied the subject comes to the conclusion that evolution is a reality. Well, a lot of people have. That doesn't mean that biological evolution is true, or that it fits LDS theology. After all, Brother Brigham insisted that Adam & Eve were born the same as all humans -- thru regular reproduction, although on another planet. Pres. Joseph F. Smith seemed to agree. In other words, rather than creation or evolution, it may be that Mormon theology opts for transmission from elsewhere. Just because all living things on planet Earth share the common DNA blueprint does not mean that everything (including us) evolved. 2
RevTestament Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, pogi said: Right, I know that it is quaternary, I showed you what the 4 nucleotides are. You made it sound like it was binary with "ones and zeros". You also stated that the only mutation that can take place is swapping ones for zeros and vice-versa, that is not true. There can indeed be new chunks of code created, contrary to what you stated. I believe in evolution, but I don't believe in Darwinism or the theory of evolution as presently constituted. I believe in divinely guided evolution. There is good evidence that mutations might not be so random after all...I believe there is a coder. I am very almost positively inclined to agree. I believe God can and does occasionally step into the process - He "taps" the DNA to alter the outcome. Just like He can with a weather system to direct it where He will or any other phenomenon really. Why? If only man realized the power and majesty of God... The fossil record shows large jumps which it is difficult for mutations alone to account for. If God created man, it makes every sense to me that He altered the course of existing genetic code to result in a predetermined outcome... man in His own image. 2
strappinglad Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 Might I suggest that if God wanted to He could have produced all life in 6 seconds. I mean , if He was able to create the sun, moon, and stars ( billions of them ) in one day , what's a few million species ? Personally I believe that God is the ultimate conservationist. He will reuse , recycle, and recover as much of His creation as possible. Evidence of civilizations existing well over 10,000 years ago is being found in many places. This 6000 year old iteration could be just the latest in what may have been many , each one succumbing to mass destruction.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 7, 2017 Author Posted October 7, 2017 5 hours ago, snowflake said: ........................................... One of the insurmountable problems of accepting evolution, is that in Genesis there is no death before the fall. It is true that there is no death in the Garden of Eden (which is a specific locale planted east of Eden "Plain"), but that does not tell us what is going on, or was going on over the entire Earth. The Creation & Garden stories in Genesis 1 & 2 are not historical narratives, but scholars agree that they are temple stories -- a liturgical sequence in which everyone (including God) follows a holy script. Indeed, just that creation story was read annually at the New Year festival in temples in Babylon and Asshur -- the Akitu Festival, with the reading of Enuma elish. http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/genesis-1-and-a-babylonian-creation-story . 5 hours ago, snowflake said: In Darwinism, death is absolutely crucial to the process of evolution, and death exists for however many billions of years before humans show up. Death, including the death of hominids, presents no problem, and it is a separate issue from Darwinian evolution. That death may have gone on for billions of years, does not mean that a Garden of Eden could not be formed for a brief period in more recent times for the purpose of performing an essential ritual, which closes with Adam & Eve being banished from that Garden -- thus beginning a series of dispensations as part of the crucial Plan of Salvation. 2
Calm Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, bluebell said: So it seems like everyone who has ever actually studied the subject comes to the conclusion that evolution is a reality. There is a good chance that if they studied the subject and disagreed, they would change their major and not become biologists because of the discrimination they would experience in their career. Edited October 7, 2017 by Calm 3
Robert F. Smith Posted October 7, 2017 Author Posted October 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, strappinglad said: Might I suggest that if God wanted to He could have produced all life in 6 seconds. I mean , if He was able to create the sun, moon, and stars ( billions of them ) in one day , what's a few million species ? Personally I believe that God is the ultimate conservationist. He will reuse , recycle, and recover as much of His creation as possible. Evidence of civilizations existing well over 10,000 years ago is being found in many places. This 6000 year old iteration could be just the latest in what may have been many , each one succumbing to mass destruction. Or taking billions of years to organize planetary systems is the normal course of creation, and God is assisted by countless angels in doing so -- all done in a natural way, following His mastery of the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.
Recommended Posts