Revolution

Well, strictly in a scientific sense, supposed prophets and holy books don't have any weight as far as how life began any more than a Jule Verne book does. There are Muslims who believe in their truth as revealed by their prophet just as strongly as you do. In science you can't let religion give you any suggestion, as I could found a religion today and five hundred years later it could very well be a prominent religious group. Its not Evolution missing the mark, its the people who wrote the bible some years ago who did. As far as rational thought and awareness, indeed they are acquired by evolution. The statement that animals don't and we do is, like many others, based on ignorance of the theory. A lightening bolt striking sludge? If thats your idea of the proposed idea for Abiogenisis, I really don't have anything to say. Also, as I said, if you look at the formation of the planet and use where we are now as a sort of goal or endpoint that must be achieved, of course it seems impossible. The same can be said of you and I. Of all the possible combinations of DNA that go into a child, you and I came to be. If you look at it in the sense of one specific DNA makeup being the goal, it once more seems impossible, but thats entirely the wrong way to think of things. If you look at all the possible children that weren't born, or indeed the number of failed planets and stars, one planet supporting life is nothing. If you're going to bring the supernatural into science, everything goes out the door. Thinking logically, as there has never been any evidence whatsoever for a supernatural god, logically its not to be considered. How is it any more feasible that the christian god created humans and planted all this evidence of Evolution just to throw us, than the idea that I indeed created the universe? You cannot prove or disprove either, but that does NOT make them equal in terms of feasibility. It is impossible to disprove that plants grow because of ghosts of gnomes magically influencing them. That fact does not make the magical gnome theory as feasible as the scientifically accepted idea.

While the Theory of Evolution as for the origin of man certainly isn't a law of science, evolution is shown in the AIDS virus as well as throughout the world during certain natural disasters. As far as the origin of life is concerned, if you bring the idea of it not being 100% fact into the argument, the alternative, creationism, is so incredibly ridiculous as to be quite laughable indeed. There is no such volume of evidence for creationism as there is evolution. If indeed creation is the alternative, going by the argument that matter cannot just be, and there of course must be some sort of beginning, evolution is infinitely more feasible than creation. It is, in addition to having to basis whatsoever in science, true that in order to have intelligence capable of creating the universe, there must have been something to create this intelligence. It is much more of a leap of faith, that is to say fantasy, to say there can't have been matter since the beginning of time, but its perfectly plausible to assume that some supreme intelligence just 'is.' And naturally you cannot say Evolution is a fact, just as one can't disprove there is a god, or that I am Napoleon, or that this salt shaker here is the creator of the universe. You cannot prove the speed of light or any other 'theory' simple because of the nature of many of them. Mind you the discussion in this case is concerning observable reality as you bring up the scientific validity of Evolution. That is just ridiculous. I really don't have a response for that, if you truly believe Evolution to either be a fairy tale or possess no scientific significance, you either have no knowledge of Evolution outside of the myth of the theory boiling down to random chance or are simply ignoring volumes of evidence and literature, in which case there really isn't any point in debate is there? Well, let me say there are some misconceptions as to the statements of Pasteur as well as point out he was born in 1822. Since then I would propose to you that we have made some at least modest advances, wouldn't you say? Either way, he did accept Evolution and that fact that the Earth is at the very least millions of years old, which is of course more than the creationist ten thousands or so, but indeed less that the actual age of the planet. Outside of that, its correct to say that Abiogenesis is not entirely figured out so to speak. However, doing even the most preliminary reading, it is hardly as simple as no life one day, life the next. On a strictly personal note, I myself find Abiogenesis so much more fantastically amazing and beautiful than "six days and it was good." Thats actually false. Such an idea is not considered to be valid, again, in plain, its just wrong. Once more, any reading from actual up to date scientific resources will show that new traits have been observed. Remember, DNA is comprised of no more than a few letters, as there are no more than a few musical notes or on a much larger scale, twenty-six letters in the alphabet. However, these can, as the quote goes, give rise to more melodies than could ever be written or more books than could ever be imagined. As far as mutations only being harmful, there are considerably more neutral mutations than either positive or negative, most of the human genome is in fact useless information. Trait altering mutations are rare, with some being helpful, an adaptation, and some being negative depending on the environment. Such is a common argument, but fundamentally arising from a misunderstanding of the sciences. Of course its natural that when we look at a computer or a magnificent building its impossible to imagine such wonder if it were not for a designer. The fact is life is much more complex, and the fact that it wasn't by design is somewhat hard to grasp. People naturally feel secure in finding patterns to the way things are, however unlikely. Thinking this is all for the incredible probability of so many elements and conditions coming together without a plan is difficult to accept. I rather enjoy this analogy. Imagine you drive a golf ball some two hundred or so meters. A relatively small object, the ball, lands on a group of even smaller objects, a few blades of grass. Now, out of the millions upon millions of blades of grass that tiny ball could have landed on, it landed in this handful here. Imagine all the forces at play. Your drive, the club, the weight of the ball, its size, wind, the weather, all of physics. You could try to repeat that exact shot for your entire life and never make it again, the odds are so great against it, but it did happen that one time and it wasn't hard. Now the forces at play in the golf course we can understand easily. The amazing, truly unimaginable number of forces at play in the universe, the conditions needed for life, the amazing process of events that bring us to you and I sitting here debating the merits of a scientific theory on the internet. If you look at the beginning and the end, the end being the world as it is today, and look at our present situation as a goal or objective to arrive at from the beginnings of the universe, it seems impossible. Indeed, had you picked ten blades of grass you wish to land your ball on and make your drive with that goal in mind, you'll likely never achieve your goal. Such is not the correct way to view the origin of life. The universe didn't start off trying to get to where we are, where we are is but one of truly infinite possible outcomes. Of course this means we aren't the centre of the universe, and this is quite a scary proposition. Again you've found another incredibly common creationist argument against Evolution. Unfortunately, this argument is a misconception based on, again, fundamentally misunderstanding how Evolution works and is sadly for creationists, simply not so. Again. This idea is categorically based on ignorance of the process of Evolution. If you set out to find the arguments for creation for one reason or another you will be able to find misinformation of any sort. Of course the reason here is obviously religion. I understand wanting to believe in what you've been raised to, but ignoring and knowingly twisting facts to make such a case I think is disrespectful to the truth as well as your religion. Surely you would rather base your religious views on ideas you that you don't have to lie to yourself concerning in order to render said views non-contradictory to your religion. There are religious people that accept reality and don't see a conflict, and I don't think there needs to be. Either way, you can have your own religion but there is only one reality, one set of facts. The story of a the flood as it is in the Bible is pure fiction. One man building a boat roughly half the size of Titanic (Bible's dimensions, not the size needed to house the proposed passengers) out of wood mind you, and I'll ignore the structural integrity of the boat for want of space, if you have a question let me know, is absurd. Then, this same man rounds up some ten billion species unto said boat, properly takes care of them all nutritionally and so on, for some extended duration. A great flood of water covers the entire Earth for some time, then the water just leaves. Having all the plant and animal life needed as a source of energy for the tremendous task of repopulating the Earth utterly destroyed, this man lands his boat and proceeds to redistribute all ten billion species about the globe, and keeps them from eating each other as of course, there is the concept of a carnivore even in the Bible, while at the same time finding some way to meet the energy needs to the herbivorous keeping in mind the floods outcome relating to plant life. Sure thing. Anyway, thats rather long for a single post and there is bound to be a volume of spelling as well as grammatical errors. Pay no attention to the lack of English proficiency behind the curtain.

:thumbsup:

You're correct in that there isn't any tangible evidence, but does that discount the widely accept theory? Certainly there isn't any evidence whatsoever for even the idea of an existence of god.* "I see no logic in evolution that excludes G-d - the master of the universe - from utilizing the observable laws of the universe that he created. We know from scripture that all things provide insight and understanding of G-d. It is not up to us to define how G-d operates - it is up to us to learn how he operates. The Traveler" You can't honesty say its logical to discount scientific theories that don't leave room for a god? Surely everyone can have their own opinion on gods, but not on facts. *If you were merely stating a fact as opposed to making an argument against the "ideas" of how life began, ignore that.

What you're saying then, is that you accept the fact of Evolution, and are in the process of working god into the origin of life?

I can see your point. As far as I've always though, when two organisms could reproduce offspring that could in turn reproduce, you have a species. As far as the human issue, there are more or less sterile organisms in any population. Ha, :) don't worry. I'd like to think I know my terms. Actually I think we both agree but we're misunderstanding each other a bit. From your response, I think my response of "the environment favors certain adaptations. They survive, they reproduce," takes place after the description of events you've just given, if that makes sense. So, you have a mutation. Its beneficial. You survive, you reproduce and perhaps pass that mutation along. Natural Selection. I suppose we're both on the same page? Seems reasonable enough. Assuming the account of Noah is indeed literal and took place as you account for it in your description, that being a localized flood of say, the Euphrates, it wouldn't really have a terribly evident impact as far as Evolution, would it? No more than the average severe flood anyway, wouldn't you say? Well, for the sake of argument, life on Earth.

Go down that road? I answered the question, made a statement, and asked another question. Everyone else posting here seems to be level headed, and I would like to think I won't start frustrating people soon. Just looking for the truth like everyone else.

Well, thank you all for your responses. Judging from the people here, you seem a good amount more reasonable than some of the other religious people out there. A surprising amount of people really do think the Earth is a few thousand years old and reject overwhelmingly evidence. A few quick points. Not really, it is so when it can no longer reproduce with the parent species. The seemingly impossible odds of finding another similarly mutated mate are actually much more reasonable when you understand how such mutated organisms survive to sexual maturity. Indeed, the whole idea of natural selection makes it quite likely that there are similarly mutated specimens in the local area, this is the concept of evolution itself, that the environment favors certain adaptations. They survive, they reproduce. And you don't really believe the story about the flood do you? "Not really evolution, not really creationism, option #3... Life from Life life is eternal, the origins debate is pointless - there is no origin. Everything that now exists has always existed, changing from one form to another, but eternal. Laws of thermodynamics - conservation principles. You do not get something from nothing. Something has always existed. Life has always existed." Not according to either the Bible or science.

So by saying in the image of your father, your cannon doesn't specify how that came about, as in it doesn't contradict or support creation stories in the traditional sense or the Theory of Evolution?

Hello, I'm doing a good amount of online research on various prominent religions in the world today, and I find this site is a perfectly adequate source for the Mormons, being frequented by active adherents. Anyway, I was wondering what is the general consensus within the the community and the church itself as far as the plausibility of the various creation stories out there as opposed to the Theory of Evolution? I've found, obviously, that the Theory of Evolution is rejected by the majority of religious people, and I assume to see a similar trend within the LDS community. Anyway, personally as well as far as doctrine goes, how do LDS view the Theory of Evolution?