Poll: Evolution


DigitalShadow
 Share

What are your thoughts on evolution?  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. What are your thoughts on evolution?

    • I believe that all the diverse species we see today are related and a product of evolution.
    • I believe that evolution allows for species to evolve new traits, but new species cannot emerge.
    • I believe that genetic mutations can cause minor cosmetic changes, but not new and useful traits.
      0
    • I believe that evolution is the tool by which God guided the creation of all species.
    • I believe that evolution is pure scientific dogma and each species was created directly by God.
    • My view is not represented here and I will post it below.


Recommended Posts

St. Augustine of Hippo wrote:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408]

I think Brigham Young had the same opinion.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's a very cynical view. You could be right, but I'm a bit more optimistic

I prefer realistic. Science must cater to it's master, funding. Funding springs from political considerations. Politics are run by politicians and lobbyists and, generally speaking, Satan is running the governments of the earth.

Money is power, far greater than the sword or the pen, and science for many years has had to fight for funding.

with just a little research you can track the effect of funding on our public education system and you can of course see how far we have fallen there, and science was more vulnerable than education by far.

Of course I am not saying science is evil, anymore than religion is. nor is this a reflection on any one scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted Image

“I remember when I was a college student there were great discussions on the question of organic evolution. I took classes in geology and biology and heard the whole story of Darwinism as it was then taught. I wondered about it. I thought much about it. But I did not let it throw me, for I read what the scriptures said about our origins and our relationship to God. Since then I have become acquainted with what to me is a far more important and wonderful kind of evolution. It is the evolution of men and women as the sons and daughters of God, and of our marvelous potential for growth as children of our Creator.”

—President Gordon B. Hinckley, “God Hath Not Given Us the Spirit of Fear,” Ensign, Oct. 1984, 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that all the diverse species we see today are related and a product of evolution, as guided by God. :D

I love science. I love God. Fortunately, God is the dean of the best science academy in the universe. I'm looking forward to Creation 101 at the Spirit World University almost as much as I'm looking forward to Electrons, Quarks, and Tetraneutrons 101...and Dark Matter and Dark Energy 101...and Neuroscience 101...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm looking forward to Creation 101 at the Spirit World University almost as much as I'm looking forward to Electrons, Quarks, and Tetraneutrons 101...and Dark Matter and Dark Energy 101...and Neuroscience 101...

Introduction to spiritual matter, dimensions 5-11, and wave vrs particle!

I have often wondered if outer darkness means you have no one to collapse your probability wave function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello and good morning Snow :)

I am encouraged to see that our friendship is starting to move in a mutually rewarding direction.:)

I am humbled and honored by your presence here and do appreciate the manner you choose to engage and educate many of us.:) I have been truly touched by the last several contributions you have shared on this board, thanks for that:)

I look forward to your future lessons, as well as the precious communication skills you are willing to display for my benefit.

Peace and God bless,

Carl

Still working that sarcasm angle huh? Is it working for you?

You know what Fyodor said about that don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, @ vast scientific consensus.

is this then the new standard of truth? so I guess Al Gore is right?

Science, in its pure sense, is strictly the search for truth.

Religion, in its pure sense, is strictly the search for truth.

So, the more truth we know, the closer these two will be.

Science, in its corrupt form, is a form of religion.

Religion, in a corrupt form, claims to be science.

Science and religion can both be corrupt and misleading, taking people away from truth instead of towards it.

I would say while science has brought us much truth, it now worships the god of money, and its political agenda, its priests wear black robes, and yes, they lie.

these are not my only options. but..

informed with what? truth? lies? relativism? but for the most part the answer is YES.

do men lie for gain? who is in charge of the money? this of course does not mean everyone is a liar, but science has a tendency to produce the results favorable to the desires of the source of funding. those sources also tend to publish the MOST favorable results and to sweep under the table the undesired results. Truth is now sacrificed on the altar of funding. is that a lie? a flaxen cord?

does trusting in God make me delusional? if so then yes, I am.

Well that's a bunch of non-answer. So you think that vast scientific consensus is laughable... bully for you, but it's better than a minority non-scientific opinion about a scientific matter.

... and by the way, it ain't an issue of trusting God. God is silent on the matter. He hasn't weighed in. What you are trusting is someone else's dogmatic belief about what God might think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we are told that EVERYTHING, every living creature was first created spiritually, then physically.

Look at any artist creations. They resemble but each is different. They use the same materials, canvas, paints, brushes, but each is unique. Each a new creation.

Could Jehovah used the form of creation we call evolution? Sure.

WE have been counseled, the learned man will be the fool, the fool will be the wise. WE are also told that Heavenly Father has done things in a way that when the scroll of heaven is rolled back we are going to be amazed at what everything reALLY is. I really don't care how it did it. I just know he did. One thing for sure is that MAN did not evolve. And God took from the dust and created Man. He breathed life into him. Woman was created after taking a rib from Adam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still working that sarcasm angle huh? Is it working for you?

You know what Fyodor said about that don't you?

Hey Snow,

WOW!!! I am impressed, a shout out to a 1800's Russian guy. Are you showing off your enormous brain again?

Still working that arrogant angle huh?? Is that working for you ??

You know what Helen ( she is my dear Grandma ) said about that don't you?

Edited by ceeboo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Introduction to spiritual matter, dimensions 5-11, and wave vrs particle!

I have often wondered if outer darkness means you have no one to collapse your probability wave function.

Yes yes yes! Personally, I think the wave-particle duality is integral to the study of spiritual matter. My theory is that the properties of spirit are closest to the properties of light. And then there's love. Have you ever considered the phenomena of love as a force similar to light? And perhaps the interplay of love, light, and spirit has something to do with the nature of outer darkness. As far as collapsing your probability wave function, I assume you mean cessation of the emission of electromagnetic radiation, which only further ties into my theories of the relationship of light and spirit. ....ok, ok, I'm getting ahead of myself and off topic here. Maybe these fun "spiritual science" speculations are for another forum (or another dimension? :lol:)

BYTOR! :D Ok, I guess I mislabeled those classes. I suppose they're probably in the 301 or 401 realm. I'm sure Heavenly Father has Basic Chem 101 available on the course list, too. I can't imagine what the graduate classes are like! :whoa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Snow,

WOW!!! I am impressed, a shout out to a 1800's Russian guy. Are you showing off your enormous brain again?

Still working that arrogant angle huh?? Is that working for you ??

You know what Helen ( she is my dear Grandma ) said about that don't you?

... thy also say that it's the last refuge of the creatively bankrupt.

It's cute sometimes in the youngsters, but when used repeatedly by the grown-ups, it's just pedestrian.

Edited by Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... thy also say that it's the last refuge of the creatively bankrupt.

It's cute sometimes in the youngsters, but when used repeatedly by the grown-ups, it's just pedestrian.

Hello again Snow,

I would like to offer a sincere apology to you for my last few contentious, sarcastic remarks. I have reread them and I was simply wrong. Sorry for that.:) I also know they offered no value to you nor others involved with this thread. Ceeboo stands corrected and does take responsability for his own posts. ( sorry to all ):)

God bless,

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and by the way, it ain't an issue of trusting God. God is silent on the matter. He hasn't weighed in. What you are trusting is someone else's dogmatic belief about what God might think.

Is God silent on the matter...really?? There are scriptural references that suggest otherwise and views expressed by Prophets as well. True enough, God is silent on the process details, but I think pretty clear with regards to created things...not so much pre-edenic creation perhaps, but he seems to be pretty specific where we are concerned and all other things since Eden and Adam....no? (I am assuming you are LDS...if not...my bad. :cool:

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's a bunch of non-answer. So you think that vast scientific consensus is laughable... bully for you, but it's better than a minority non-scientific opinion about a scientific matter.

... and by the way, it ain't an issue of trusting God. God is silent on the matter. He hasn't weighed in. What you are trusting is someone else's dogmatic belief about what God might think.

no, tend to agree with quite a lot of the vast scientific consensuses out there, I think holding up a vast scientific consensus as proof of truth is laughable, well, its sad really but funny that on an lds board you would point and mock from your large and spacious institutes of learning and hold up the honors and learning of men as a light to be followed. I think its laughable that you use the same phraseology as Al the internet Gore uses to push his global warming agenda. Hitlers propaganda ministers used vast scientific consensus to push eugenics, even while Germany was producing the worlds top scientists. what a wonderful potpourri of truth and lies.

but it's better than a minority non-scientific opinion about a scientific matter.

LOL again, perhaps you should expound on what a "scientific matter" is. and tell me, is walking on water, raising the dead, moving mountains, having the sun stand still, parting rivers and seas, taking citys up into heaven, and tarrying till the second coming fall into that category?

What you are trusting is someone else's dogmatic belief about what God might think.

how utterly arrogant. you presume to the be only keeper of truth eh? conflicting views must have a source of dogmatic adherence to false gods and are proof of intellectual indentured servitude. how ignorant that you could trust so fully in the arm of flesh while accusing me of relying on the knowledge of others to form my opinion on what God has to say.

perhaps we should pass laws against those who think like I do, o thats right, you already have... bully for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SELECTIONS FROM THE

BOOK OF MOSES

CHAPTER 3

(June—October 1830)

God created all things spiritually before they were naturally upon the earth—First man and first flesh created—Woman a help meet for man.

1 Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day I, God, ended my work, and all things which I had made; and I rested on the seventh day from all my work, and all things which I had made were finished, and I, God, saw that they were good;

3 And I, God, blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it I had rested from all my work which I, God, had created and made.

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were created, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a amist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

God weighs in.

(emphases added)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes yes yes! Personally, I think the wave-particle duality is integral to the study of spiritual matter. My theory is that the properties of spirit are closest to the properties of light. And then there's love. Have you ever considered the phenomena of love as a force similar to light? And perhaps the interplay of love, light, and spirit has something to do with the nature of outer darkness. As far as collapsing your probability wave function, I assume you mean cessation of the emission of electromagnetic radiation, which only further ties into my theories of the relationship of light and spirit. ....ok, ok, I'm getting ahead of myself and off topic here. Maybe these fun "spiritual science" speculations are for another forum (or another dimension? :lol:)

BYTOR! :D Ok, I guess I mislabeled those classes. I suppose they're probably in the 301 or 401 realm. I'm sure Heavenly Father has Basic Chem 101 available on the course list, too. I can't imagine what the graduate classes are like! :whoa:

I really enjoy these topics. we should get another thread going. I have to go can but I will post more later but I would guess light is knowledge and intelligence and love is more like gravity,

gravity is the weakest attractive force known, yet because of its reach it is the governing force of the universe, like love. this to me is an example of "I shall make the weak strong and the strong weak"

Edited by threepercent
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did 78 #10 cans for food storage this a.m. pinto beans, rice, wheat, flour, and sugar. we have had the product for a year or so, but this was my first chance to put it in cans.

I did finally get some concord grapes to do grape juice, thanks to a fine neighbor. that will most likely be the last stuff I put up this year. I did 35 quarts of peaches, 21 quarts of pears, 4 gallons of honey, 21 quarts of tomatoes, 30 pints of stew meat, 5 pints of peperoni, 20 half pints of hot peppers, and about 20 half pints of chilies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My view is not represented here and I will post it below.

When I was a kid (era of Stirling McMurrin, Henry Eyring, Harvey Fletcher), it was believed that God worked through natural law. Mainstreaming of the church wants us to believe the same thing that other conservatives (southern?) believe, just because we're hooked up politically. So, God (which is a job title in Mormonism) become an entity that supersedes natural law.

I'm not going to quote that letter that went out saying that you don't have to be against evolution to be a Mormon. My grandfather told me that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, tend to agree with quite a lot of the vast scientific consensuses out there, I think holding up a vast scientific consensus as proof of truth is laughable, well, its sad really but funny that on an lds board you would point and mock from your large and spacious institutes of learning and hold up the honors and learning of men as a light to be followed.

I'll take punctuation for 500 Alex.

What on earth are you rambling about? Scientific consensus is not proof of anything. I've never met anyone who claims that it is.

I think its laughable that you use the same phraseology as Al the internet Gore uses to push his global warming agenda. Hitlers propaganda ministers used vast scientific consensus to push eugenics, even while Germany was producing the worlds top scientists. what a wonderful potpourri of truth and lies.

Ah, the ole Hitler analogy. Whatever.

LOL again, perhaps you should expound on what a "scientific matter" is. and tell me, is walking on water, raising the dead, moving mountains, having the sun stand still, parting rivers and seas, taking citys up into heaven, and tarrying till the second coming fall into that category?

I see the words but I don't know what they mean all strung together in that order. What is your point?

how utterly arrogant. you presume to the be only keeper of truth eh?

Punctuation for a 1000 Alex...

You aren't making a whole lot of sense. You claimed, incorrectly, that you trusted God's opinion on evolutions (supposedly in contrast to the scientific community's opinion - I correctly point out that God has not weighed in the issue, ergo, you can't be siding with God as you do not know God's position... and somehow, in your mind, that makes me "utterly arrogant."

In what possible way is that arrogant?

conflicting views must have a source of dogmatic adherence to false gods and are proof of intellectual indentured servitude. how ignorant that you could trust so fully in the arm of flesh while accusing me of relying on the knowledge of others to form my opinion on what God has to say.

perhaps we should pass laws against those who think like I do, o thats right, you already have... bully for you.

I just don't know what to say. I don't even know what you just said - or why. Perhaps you could get back on point and just tell us what God has said on the matter of evolution and where I can find HIS position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God weighs in.

(emphases added)

To be technically correct - that's not God weighing in. That's Joseph Smith "translating" the Book of Moses; and when Joseph says "first flesh" he obviously is referring to something other than the first flesh since in the previous chapter he specifies that flesh - every winged fowl, and cattle and best and every creeping thing, and whales and fishes of the sea, and every living creature that moveth was already in existence. So "first flesh" may mean something but it does not mean the necessarily mean the first "flesh" ever created.

Perhaps you can tell us what Joseph of God really had in mind when the Book of Moses was translated in chapter three to say "flesh."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to quote that letter that went out saying that you don't have to be against evolution to be a Mormon. My grandfather told me that.

Of course not. As a Mormon, I am committed to the truth, whatever it is and whatever its source.

As it turns out, Utah, a predominantly Mormon state produces more scientists per capita than any other state in the country and has done so for 80 years or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question 3, cosmetic change, brings up a good point. In "Darwin's Black Box" the author argues that genetic change does not cause a usefull change in a species, nor does it lend to a stronger- better able to survive species. He argues his point using humans as one example. When our genetics "mutates" within the species this leads to a situation in which the off spring often struggles to survive, i.e. Down Syndrome, Trisonomy 13, Epstein-Barr, Sickle Cell Anemia, Cyctic Fibrosis, cancers, some forms of ALS (apparently) etc.

He doesn't necessarily change my views overall in regards to evolution, but, scientists will tell us that gene mutation leads to a stronger, more fit species, but present day medical conditions would present a situation where this is not the case.

As a side note, I am pretty sure I have heard President Hinckley say that the Church takes no official stance on evolution.

O43

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question 3, cosmetic change, brings up a good point. In "Darwin's Black Box" the author argues that genetic change does not cause a usefull change in a species, nor does it lend to a stronger- better able to survive species. He argues his point using humans as one example. When our genetics "mutates" within the species this leads to a situation in which the off spring often struggles to survive, i.e. Down Syndrome, Trisonomy 13, Epstein-Barr, Sickle Cell Anemia, Cyctic Fibrosis, cancers, some forms of ALS (apparently) etc.

He doesn't necessarily change my views overall in regards to evolution, but, scientists will tell us that gene mutation leads to a stronger, more fit species, but present day medical conditions would present a situation where this is not the case.

Well, I think to be fair we have to concede that some changes are helpful, but many are not. And those that are not, tend not to reproduce, or survive long enough to reproduce. Our medical science has altered that somewhat, so that many traits that weaken the species' no longer 'weed out' the less hardy. We have chosen this path due to our compassion of all things (or, nearly all things) living.

Nature, left to itself, would eventually eliminate these "less-useful" modifications.

As a side note, I am pretty sure I have heard President Hinckley say that the Church takes no official stance on evolution.

O43

Right you are.

HiJolly

Edited by HiJolly
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share