FernRL

At one time I was really serious about looking at the earth's age like that, but this time I was being a little facetious. It just goes along with something I had heard before: "You can prove anything using the Bible." Add a few modern scriptures and.... Well, I think a lot of this doesn't really matter, as long as we know that whatever is proven by science doesn't mean the Gospel isn't true, that there is no God, etc.

Ok, fine. I'll be a little more serious. I think the earth could be billions of years old, or merely thousands of years (since life was formed here [again], in a possibly recycled planet.) I don't think it really matters. I do believe that we are all totally descended from Adam, who was banished from the Garden of Eden distinctly within the last 10,000 years. Therefore, I don't believe that the dating methods are totally accurate which show ancestral modern humans dotting the earth with civilizations as much as 40,000 years ago. I believe that carbon dating becomes inaccurate when the amount of carbon-14 taken in by living plants and animals was much less than it is now. I suspect that at the time of Noah there was an increase in cosmic rays which increased the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, increased the likelihood of rain (resulting in The Flood with its rainbow afterward,) and decreased life spans (from the 900-some odd years of the Antediluvian patriarchs.) I just searched for more information about carbon-14 dating and found this: Doesn?t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? - Answers in Genesis Which article, in some ways, supports my general idea.

I believe the earth is at least millions of years old, if not billions. I also think I could "prove" it using the scriptures. The short version goes kind of like this: 1. Someone needs to be at least 8 years old to be baptized. 2. The earth was "baptized" during the great Flood. 3. A day to the Lord is like a thousand years to man. 4. Figure out how many days are in 8 years. 5. Times that by 1,000 years. 6. Result: The earth is at least millions of years old.

I think it works both ways. In the 1800's a scientist was hiking over the countryside, and looked around and said to himself "It is rather obvious that these rocks are more than a few thousand years old, therefore, the Bible is not true, there is no God, etc." Then wherever science and religion have met there has often been either a cold-war situation or an "in-your-face" confrontation. Geologists deliberately concocted the concept of "Geologic Time" to religiously refute any type of young earth philosophy. It doesn't matter that, in actuality, an earthquake can be over and done with in less than a minute and even long ones don't take an hour. It doesn't matter that a volcano can rise in a Mexican cornfield overnight, or that in one season, a flood can lower a creek bed by about 20 feet. I'm talking about real geological changes that don't conform to the accepted "Geologic Time" concept. If scientists were really interested in accuracy and being open-minded they would drop that silly notion and emphasize "Geologic size" instead--then it would be easy to show that one little volcano in a cornfield makes no difference at all on the face of the whole earth, or even a major earthquake in Alaska, certainly not a 20 foot drop in the creek bed of Levan Canyon, a new lake being formed by a mudslide, and another canyon having it's mouth shifted a few miles one direction. That is reality.

My mom always said "give a man enough rope and he will hang himself." I think scientists who should be very open-minded and able to question all previous studies and conclusions, fail to be able to do that when pressed against the wall by well-meaning non-scientists who doubt the same studies and conclusion. When challenged by people who know less about it, even the most committed scientist can resort to merely defending what has been done without looking at it with fresh interest. We need to back off and suspend disbelief in scientific things until they evolve their own thinking to come up with different conclusions where they may be wrong now.

I can accept it if science has not yet been able to explain how different species evolve with different numbers of chromosomes. I just wish they would even consider the number of chromosomes to be important--that it should be taught in biology classes, for example.

That is interesting, but it does not answer my question. What I have read from a scientific point of view to refute ID is something along the lines of "a mouse has virtually the same DNA as a human" with no mention of the fact that a mouse has 20 Chromosomes and a Human has 46. When a horse and a donkey are mated to produce a mule the mule is usually sterile due to the different number of Chromosomes in the horse and the donkey. Obviously if the horse and donkey both evolved from some parent species the number of chromosomes they had would have had to change also. My question is: What is scientifically known about such changes?

Just a thought, or two: Evolution could be equivalent to "the law of Eternal Progression," by some definition, but an Evolutionary Scientist would probably not think so. Sometimes too much emphasis is put on The General Theory of Evolution without talking enough about some of the specifics. I would like to see more emphasis put on the number of chromosomes various species have, and possibly how that change(d)(s) over the ages. I agree with Gaspah regarding the importance of the creation story in its link to keeping the Sabbath Day holy. I also think that it is hardly important to be Pharisaical about it, but to realize that there is a value for both man and beast to rest every 7 days or so, and that it is good to meet together and worship with others on the same appointed day each week.

It sounds like it boils down to one thought: God can create man from the dust of the earth, by way of a whole chain of evolution. It is Abiogenesis to the scientists, and to the creationists, it is simply God creating man.

In my previous post I included a link to "Who's really pushing 'bad Science'?" One thing covered in the article was the question of how we define evolution, or the distinctions between evolution, biological evolution, and the General Theory of Evolution (GTE). The author made a very good case for the need to specify what we are talking about when we use any of those terms, such that I think reading at least the first part of that article is essential to any further discussion.

Because Godless mentioned NOMA I searched for it and found this article, which, though rather lengthy, and I have not read more than half of it, I found to be interesting in some major points. Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?

Ok, that is clear. The only other thing is: that I doubt most scientists agree. I read in Discover magazine (a year or two, or maybe longer, ago) where some scientists were saying that Evolution actually proves there is no God. I have thought that was certainly going overboard, but even so, I have read many things that seem like scientists are saying that because they can show that evolution is factual, that there is no need to believe in a god, creator, or intelligent designer--that it all works, or could work, without divine intervention.

Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear: What I was saying is: Evolution does NOT depend on God to work, which is precisely why it can appeal to science, which can neither prove or disprove the existence of God.

As far as I can tell, it is not an either/or situation between belief in God and acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. I believe God created the evolutionary process. Science cannot disprove the existence of God. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is more than one fact--it is a collection of facts with assumptions and opinions and conclusions tying all of these together. But Evolution only offers an explanation that does not depend on the existence of God to work.

Another question I have: Where dinosaurs are said to have become extinct millions of years ago, but there is the Komodo Dragon today--what is the distinction between it and dinosaurs?

Starting at the beginning: In Moses 2:1-2 (in the Pearl of Great Price) it reads: 1. ...the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am … yea, in the beginning I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest. 2. And the earth was without form and void;… Here there is a footnote referencing Jeremiah 4:23, which says the same as verse 2, but with a footnote that says: OR empty and desolate. This is also how I understand the wording in Genesis 1:2 when I read it in the Martin Luther (German) Bible. So, this supports our belief in something other than ex nihilo creation. The earth was already in existence, and the “creation of it” meant “to put life, ‘creatures’, on the empty and desolate planet.” It also shows that God gave the information to Moses, and he didn’t just make it up from his own imagination. In the account of the creation in Moses, the term “day” is used like in Genesis, but in Abraham’s account the word “time” is substituted for “day,” which does not even have to mean “a thousand years.” There could also be a time differential between how long it took the earth to rotate on its axis then, from today’s 24 hours. (Although, it is time for a disclaimer here: I am not a scientist, nor have I even got a college degree.) Actually, I would hope for a comment here from someone who knows: What, scientifically speaking, causes planets to rotate on their axes? Next, we have the testimony of Nephi’s brother Jacob: In Jacob 4:6-9, he tells how they obtained the spirit of prophesy and their faith became unshaken, so much that they could “command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.” But that they know it was not their own power, but the power of God, “For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word.” So, really, God does not need great periods of time to accomplish His work. I also believe in evolution—to an extent. Just how far I would go in that belief, I can’t tell. Dr. Armin J. Hill (1912-1988), Dean of the College of Science and Engineering at BYU, taught me in my second semester Book of Mormon class, and one thing he said has stuck with me: “Man is more closely related to the Gods than to the animals.” I do believe that the Great Flood was world-wide, such that any creature which could not survive in the water or on top of some floating log, leaf, or coconut, would not survive unless it was in Noah’s ark. I also believe that the ark could not hold all the species of such animals that are alive today, even if they were very young animals when they were taken aboard the ark. There is a little difference between the scientific definition of “species” and the common use of the phrase “kind of animal.” There is only one species of Man alive today, two species of elephants, and many species of monkeys, apes, rodents, sparrows, and other birds, etc. I believe many of these species evolved from much fewer “kinds” of animals aboard the ark. I believe that God created evolution when he commanded the animals to reproduce after their own kind. Some animals seem to have a different understanding of what that means than other animals. Dogs and Wolves don’t seem to make as much distinction, as birds with slightly different coloration in their plumage. Hence the saying “birds of a feather flock together.” So, I think it is this extreme difference in sexual preference that drives some species to differentiate faster than other species. I think there is some problem with science, however, when they get an “agenda” that causes them to try to prove something just to prove religion, particularly Biblical creationism, wrong. I think some of the foundational assumptions that led to the great theories like evolution, need to be re-examined. What mostly seems wrong to me is the timing of the existence of civilizations in both the Eastern and Western hemispheres. I know that carbon-dating, for example, is based on the half-life of radio-active carbon, but it is also based on the assumption that there has been no change through the ages in the amount of radio-active carbon that is taken into living plants and animals.

Jesus lived a sinless life, so we say He was/is perfect, and the only worthy one able to offer himself as the atoning sacrifice for our sins. He said to the disciples in Jerusalem they should be perfect "as your Father in Heaven is perfect." And to the disciples on this continent after His resurrection He included Himself in that statement. This has often been pointed out to indicate that no one can really become perfect in this life. I have also heard that doing good things for the blessing is better than not doing good things at all, but doing good things because of our love for God is best. In other words, we all need to "grow" in the gospel. I did not graduate from college because it was too hard. I did not do all my assignments in classes because that was too hard. So, of course it was too hard to graduate from college! It is not hard for me to keep the Word of Wisdom because I never picked up any of the bad habits that are associated with it. It was hard for me to give up chocolate when my doctor said I should have no caffeine "even chocolate." Three months after he said that, I still automatically reached for a brownie at a party, only to realize while eating it what I had done. But after truly giving up the chocolate, I found I could "run and not be weary and walk and not faint." And I felt five years younger. I found it hard, but not impossible to pay tithing after I had let it lapse for a few months. I was at BYU in the late 60's, and had a part-time job. Somehow, it seemed like my bills had piled up on me so that I had nothing left from my paycheck as soon as I got it. My only skirt was getting threadbare, and there was nothing in the refrigerator but a bottle of pickle juice and corsages from the dance the night before. I prayed to know what to do, and the voice of the Spirit whispered to me the words of Malachi 3:10--"Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse...and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." I determined within myself that I would pay my back tithing with the next money I received, even though what I owed was more than twice what my usual payday checks came to. Then the mail arrived, and there was my tax return. I paid my tithing and had $10 left over to buy some groceries. I had also always been curious, and somewhat dismissive about it even being possible for the Lord to bless me so greatly that "there shall not be room enough to receive it." "I have room!" I said to myself. Well, the Lord blessed me with an idea of how to increase my paycheck. Most people would advertise on the bulletin board at work if they needed someone to work their shift at the cafeteria. The idea I had was to advertise the times I could work for someone if they needed me. I got call after call, and one day as I was getting ready to go in to work for someone else, my supervisor called to see if I could fill in for someone who was sick. Naturally, I had to turn him down because I was already working.... And I realized at that point that I was being blessed beyond my capacity to receive.

Actually the first part--The Small Plates of Nephi, 1st Nephi through Omni--were also included as written without Mormon's abridgment. :) But I really do like your talk.

In the dictionary I use, (Webster's Universal College Dictionary, 1997,) "discrimination" is defined as: "1. an act or instance of discriminating. 2...." and "discriminating" is defined as: "1. analytical. 2. discerning, perspicacious. 3. having excellent taste or judgment. 4. biased, discriminatory." Which, in turn means: " characterized by or showing prejudice or partiality...." So, when I said "discrimination," I meant all methods of analyzing or discerning, but I admit that I am also biased where my husband and family are concerned. I was also talking about marriage, either in the traditional way or as SSM. When you responded regarding one of my posts regarding marriage with information about civil unions, I thought that meant the same laws applied, so, sorry if I was confused there. I still think tax laws "discriminate" in some cases, in favor of married people over singles, and that particular issue of discrimination has value to society at large. So, I personally approve of it. I also think that the taxation issue is one reason gay people would prefer being married as opposed to just being in a "domestic union." I also believe that married opposite-gender couples should be given preferential treatment when it comes to adoptions, which I believe would greatly benefit the children involved. Also, as far as I can tell, legal discrimination is accepted except when specifically disallowed by law--as in: on the basis of race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, etc. And age, marital status, and possibly other considerations may be legally prohibited in some cases, but not in every application. I personally like every gay or lesbian person I know that I know. One of my cousins is a lesbian, and I know several gay men. My cousin hates men universally as far as I can tell, and I certainly don't approve of that, but I like her as a person. Every gay man I know has treated me with respect and kindness, and has been exemplary of many of the qualities I always looked for in a husband. Fortunately, for me, I found a husband who has those same qualities but is heterosexual as well. I also think gays and lesbians should have equal opportunity to receive psychological help for their problems. Does that mean I am prejudiced against them or biased in favor of them? I can't really tell.

Sorry if I confused the issue. I was just saying that Marriage is discriminatory by nature. That is why we don't marry someone at random. It sounds like California law is also discriminatory, too, with considerations like residency, age, family relationship, and number--just not gender. I am saying that not all points of discrimination are bad. Somewhere along the line "discrimination" has become a dirty word, which I think is truly wrong. Somewhere along the way taxation laws were made to favor married people. At that time it was understood that "marriage" was a union between two people of opposite gender who were adults unless they had the consent of their parents. Presumably these laws were made because society recognized that marriage (so defined) was beneficial to society at large. I don't see where this applies to same-sex marriage. Also, out of curiosity... Does California law also disallow marriages of opposite genders where they do not share a residence?

--DeborahCwell said! So, essentially, if the Church "causes" us to be too stressed out and depressed, it is because it unwittingly causes us to be more prideful. Actually I have long thought there is a vast difference between the gospel and the social aspects of Mormonism.

The children I gave birth to in the eighties are some of the taxpayers of today. They are good law-abiding citizens. They have had a great advantage in life due to having a male father as well as a female mother. Marriage has traditionally supported this concept. I expect that is why single people as well as gays are discriminated against in regards to taxation. (That is not entirely true, though, because the marital advantage does not extend to those couples where each partner makes nearly the same amount of money, so that they are better off filing as "married filing separately") To me marriage is all about having the right to discriminate. Why do Gays and Lesbians want to be married to the same sex? Why don't lesbians marry gays if they don't want any discrimination? Non-discriminatory marriage would mean that any number of roommates or friends could band together to abuse the laws related to marriage.

Thanks, Lindsayjane for sharing your personal experiences, often that is more helpful than facts and figures.

In a way, I agree with you, DeborahC, that the biggest influence on our children comes from teachings in the home. And also that we shouldn't legislate morality. Even so, we do believe in a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Therefore we need to take an active role in it. Immorality is allowed, with or without marriage, however. The thing marriage does is give a different commitment than someone can have being single. For marriage not to be defined in the way we usually think of it, means that "married, filing jointly" would mean virtually the same as "single, filing jointly" on our tax returns. There may be other ways in which "married" will not be differentiated from "single" in the welfare system. I don't usually get all paranoid about things that "could happen" in the future, as in some of the issues that are usually addressed in Pro side of this debate, but I also liked this viewpoint: How same-sex marriage threatens liberty

Marriage is one of those few things that pertain both to Religion and Government. I think the reason for tax breaks for married people is because children born within marriage and children who continue to have both parents at home are less of a burden to Government and provide a stronger base for Society in general. I do believe, also, that children, including those adopted have a right to be raised by two parents of the opposite gender. To have a constitutional amendment defining marriage as stated in the California Prop 8, may not immediately solve the problems, but it is a step in the right direction. I really like my cousin who is a lesbian and I have never met a gay man who wasn't very kind and good, but I think marriage is more a privilege than a right. I also think that it would open a whole can of worms if any gender of person could marry any other person and any number of people, especially if they did so just to claim tax exemptions. Society would then have greater burdens resulting from marriage.