Intrigued

Is that a 'yes', but? If he had a vestigial structure (tailbone).. unless God made his common ancestors 'to match him' then it's pretty clear he shares a common ancestor. If he did make the common ancestors to match him.. that's pretty cruel imo. Crack open a biology textbook. Genesis is pretty clear (if it happened the way Genesis says) that they literally ate a fruit. There's no dividing line between figurative and literal in Genesis.. but if the 'eating fruit' part is figurative.. who is to say that the 'from the dust of the earth' part isn't also? My perception is that any possible God and/or being would also be subject to natural laws and he would have evolved to be the way he is. Vestigial structures and all. Was the Garden only in Missouri or was the rest of the world free from death as well? I'm curious as I've never heard either way. I understand that scientific theories will be tweaked in the future.. but evolution is past the point of going through a major overhaul any time soon. Why can't the two fit together? Why can't (with our divine nature) our understanding be the same as Gods understanding? Is there a rule in place against this? I guess my point is that I feel you, Rudick, and the creationist crowd are downplaying the intelligence of our race. We were intelligent enough to develop weapons that could destroy this planet.. but we're not intelligent enough to figure out how we got here?

Did Adam have a tail bone? Also, I was speaking of a hypothetical scenario in which an LDS authoritative figure said that evolution was an undeniable fact of life.

It would have to be implied it was 'unlike the rest of the world' if he was anatomically different. So it is your stance that Adam did not have any of the.. 'useless' items I listed, as he was perfect. Are you saying that Satans influence is the reason that some humans can wiggle their ears and that some humans are born with 'tails' (quite demon-ish )? It sounds silly to me. Vestigial structures have nothing to do with Satans corruption.. they're simply 'left overs' from evolution. They do not retain their original functionality.. absolutely nothing to do with 'Satans influence'. They are a major evidence for evolution.. and Adam would have had these vestigial structures because evolution is (for the most part) true. If vestigial structures did not exist pre-fall.. then evolution would be entirely false (and this should show in the fossil record). "The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable substance. The whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation. -James E. Talmage" The claim Lee made is demonstrably false (see: fossil record). Also, if there was no death pre-fall.. how then.. could there be villages of pre-adamites? Were they perfect also? Didn't Adam and Eve eat a fruit.. which would damage the tree (what is death but unfixable damage?)? It seems to me that if injury could be caused.. death could also be caused, but I'm afraid that's an entirely different subject. LDS are no stranger to replacing old revelation with new revelation. Snoozer and Rudick, if new revelation was revealed that conflicts with past revelation (and your own personal convictions) would you then leave the dark side?

There has been a decline in morality in America? Every generation says the same things.. 'kids nowadays don't respect their elders' and whatnot.

So are you saying that unlike the rest of the world.. Adam did not have a vestigial tail, now nonfunctional ear muscles, the plica semilunaris, and many other 'useless' traits? Cause that's a hefty claim and I'd like to see some scriptural based evidence.. especially from Rudick. The main reason I mention the above is because of his near zealous religious views.. and that they are difficult to reconcile without admitting evolution to be fact.

I'm curious to which one that might be.. they're all related in a way Rudick I want to ask you to share your thoughts on a question I have. I don't want a half-effort response or a regurgitated bible camp answer.. I want your opinion.. Why is the human body an 'imperfect creation'? We have things like the blind spot in the eye, palmaris muscle that only 11% of the population has, mammary tissues in males capable of producing milk, female vas deferens, and other useless junk.. where do they come from? Will they serve some unique purpose in the celestial world or does God just have a sense of humor?

I am. I said it was subjective.. because for example.. you should not be able to say that I did not nourish the seed long enough, etc. It's a no-lose promise for Alma.. if it works he was obviously correct. If the experiment fails, however, the person doing the experiment must be the one who failed. That's not a 'real' experiment at all. That's my point. great quote

But that is exactly what I am talking about. There are a few reasons the seed would not grow.. and not to sound rude.. most of them are subjective. Alma stated that you simply needed a desire to believe and the only mention of time was basically 'until it works'. For the apologist it's far to simple to say 'you did not try long enough', 'you did not have an earnest desire', or 'you did something wrong'? Are any of those statements unbiased.. at all? You ended the experiment prematurelyIf you did not cast it asideIf you did not plant it in your heart (earnest desire?)You did not nourish itIf it is not a good seed (what does this mean, anyways?)It seems to me that what it effectively says is 'if you did not get the same results as I did you must have done something wrong'. It ends up being a complex maze of excuses.. and what kind of God would play hide and seek like that? To do good to your fellow man.

To be quite honest.. I am simply arguing the side of the atheist here. I suppose I'm an atheist in the sense that I do not hold a positive belief in any omnipotent ruler whatsoever. I don't rule out the idea of a 'creator' though, but I'd definitely tend to view it in more of a sci-fi type setting. I guess it really depends on what day of the week it is.. Tuesdays I may feel one way and Fridays it's usually another Can I ask you why you believe that those feelings come from God? The LDS stance is that human beings are divine.. it is not God that makes you that way. It is your birthright as a literal son or daughter of God, right? I don't understand why you believe that emotions come from God.. it seems more likely to me that they come from you. Are you perhaps talking about a 'higher sense'? I feel pretty good when I help someone too.. but I never considered it divine. You're absolutely right.. as far as we can tell (and the last I checked) .. us humans are the only creatures who are aware that we are aware. I think it has to more to do with the level of intelligence that we operate at. If for example octopi (octopuses?) had evolved instead in the place of humans.. I think that they would operate much the same we do. Maybe we'll know one day. I just look around and see so much.. intelligence in the animal world. But for us humans.. with our higher level thinking that we exhibit as a species.. we do care about our families well beings after we pass on. In that sense our choices do matter.. but ultimately you are right.. they do not. The illusion of 'making your life matter' is just another coping mechanism.. but I don't think that's an issue at all. We're all looking for direction and structure.. we crave it. A random, chaotic, and meaningless universe isn't fun to think about at all for most people.. so they simply ignore it because it doesn't fit in with their world view at the time. That doesn't make it any less true or false though. Well I can speak from experience.. on things like teacher evaluations and other useless tests.. I rarely participate. If anything I just jot down 'exceeds expectations' unless it was a truly horrible professor. The difference is.. not trying on a useless test doesn't change my life. Not trying at life would make it very uncomfortable to live and that's a large deterrent. You are right though. I've met very few atheists who are '100% atheist'. They may not believe in God but it's foolish to discount the idea of a God at all. Most atheists I know simply say that 'It's not likely that there is a God' or even more commonly 'which God? Zeus? Ra? Allah?'

As stated before.. Revelations was hardly the latest book written.

I prefer Pepsi products

Social constructs make it matter. As I stated in the post above.. the pack/tribal mentality drives us because we are animals and evolved those instincts. You, your friend, myself, and everyone else are all free to act out and do whatever we want.. but make no mistake that there are consequences to your actions. In a debate.. it's up to you to 'prove' that life has a meaning. All he had to ask was for you to prove it and that would have pretty much shut down the entire conversation. Otherwise the 'life exists without a divine meaning' argument looks pretty strong.

Thanks for your response. I'll break things down and offer my opinion. I think it is obvious that there is a difference between 'earning' something and lying to get it. Obtaining your goals through hard work feels good.. for atheists and theists alike. There is absolutely zero difference in the two. Where do you think that feeling comes from? It certainly doesn't come from any possible Gods. On the topic of how atheists 'live their life like it matters' means exactly what it says.. they don't believe in a divine purpose in life.. yet life itself is precious, so they do their best not to waste their one shot at it. It's completely false to state that if a person believes that there is nothingness after death then nothing will matter to that person. There are many things that matter to nonbelievers.. leaving behind a better world so that people do not have to suffer, raising children and grandchildren, bettering themselves, etc homo sapiens do it I'm of the opinion that survival is the reason behind the idea of good and evil anyways. Good acts help the pack, evil acts hurt the pack. It goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs.. even in the animal kingdom. Ever seen an albino squirrel shunned because he's different? There are tons of cases of animals running off a pack member for whatever reason.. animals are far more 'human' than people give them credit for. One of my dogs snapped at my cousin (toddler) one time and my other dog forced it into the cage and wouldn't let it out until my cousin left. They determine good and evil based on their culture as you mentioned. I think it's important to recognize that the idea of good or evil could indeed transcend cultural influence.. without the need for a higher power. There are obvious evolutionary advantages to the pack mentality. Humans are 'pack animals' after all. The atheists have loved ones and careers comments was directed at the 'what makes atheists tick' statement in the OP.

It sounds to me that your friend is simply expressing his belief in relative morality. That is.. what is good to one culture may be evil to another. This can even be seen in our own cities.. among the LDS there is a firm no drug policy (they are 'evil') and yet among some circles drugs are encouraged and considered to even be enlightening. The ideas of 'good and evil' are necessary structures for social life. Even among animals.. failure to follow a 'code' of sorts results in exile. What makes an atheist tick? The same thing that makes you tick. Atheists have goals, loved ones, careers, highs and lows, etc. I've got to say that most atheists I know really live their life 'like it matters', they believe they only live once.. so they make the most of it. If you think about it.. is there any motivation outside of survival and pleasuring ones self? Religious people do good so that they may get something better one day.. Christianity in general is hardly selfless.

I suppose my problem here is that.. there are many people in this world who have the desire to believe and they put out the effort.. yet they come to a different conclusion than the LDS faithful do. To clarify the part about the 'desire to believe' and 'unbelief' being the same thing.. what I meant to say more clearly was that even if one has an earnest desire to believe.. and the experiment is a failure.. then what is the response to that? The common ones seem to be "give it more time", "get baptized anyways", or "your desire was not sincere".

Do you have any idea what the answer is to the question, though? It's one of the mysteries of the world imo.

Yet when someone gets different results with the method outlined in Alma.. what is the response, then? That's hardly an unbiased approach.. the passage even says 'if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief'. It is saying is that 'if it does not work, it is because you did not believe'.. but before that it says that you simply need the desire to believe.. so which is it? It sounds alot like your stereotypical 'once saved always saved' crowd who say that if you leave the Church it's obvious that you were never a true believer.

This isn't the case in this situation. The popular opinion isn't always right, true.. but in this case -- it clearly is. This thread is dead, it was fun.. goodnight guys.

Typical witch hunt if you ask me. Take a look back on page 8 (post #77) and you can see how many people thanked Suzies original comment. Then take a look to see how many people thanked rosabella and your comments. The discrepancy is pretty impressive. It appears that the masses side with Suzie.

I think you're definitely missing the point. I'm going to ask you a question and I would like you to answer with a yes or no, if it's not to difficult. Did the man you are speaking about fabricate a story during General Conference? Yes or no, please. It's pretty clear that Suzie is not saying their statements should be taken with a grain of salt.. and is simply saying that they are human beings like you and I.

Joseph Smith prophesied, it did not come true. He then said that 'not all revelations are from God' after he asked God why it failed. Unless of course you also want to impugn the reputation of David Whitmer (one of the three witnesses) and say that Whitmer was part of some conspiracy that I'm unaware of. So which is it? Was Whitmer (one of the three witnesses) trying to discredit Joseph Smith even though he stated that [his failed prophecy] it did not make Smith any less of a Prophet? Or was Whitmer simply reporting what Smith had said? I said nothing even remotely anti-LDS. You're jumping at shadows. Does my signature offend you or something? Try not to read to much into it.. it simply means that I do not believe in any omnipotent God.

Debate keeps the mind sharp and is often a way to see things in a different light.. or from a different angle, etc.

Doctrine and Covenants 84 "5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house." It didn't get done. As Whitmer said.. it did not make him any less of a prophet. It reinforced the idea that he was human. Heck, for all I know it could have been a lesson in humility for him.

First off buddy -- relax. Where on earth did I even hint that your soul is at risk or whatever? So when prophecies of the past fail, you simply say 'well show me a recent one', and that's hardly fair. If I showed you one would you not then simply ask for one more (and so on)? I'm not casting doubt by any means. I'm just taking Joseph Smiths stance (a man who you have a 'testimony' of) when he said that not all revelations are from God. Are you really sure that you want to cast doubt on Whitmers reputation as an honest man? After all.. he was a witness to the golden plates. Besides, Whitmer has said that Joseph Smiths failed prophecy does not make him any less of a Prophet. Also, what was your response in regards to the temple in Missouri point I raised?

It's much simpler to assume that it is bad luck. Why make it more complex than it has to be? If it helps you cope.. continue to think that they were special in some way. God is no respecter of people, if I recall.