God's Two Options

[Guest Godless]

Not sure *I'm* the one who needs to open his mind. I believed in the THEORY of evolution for years. Then someone showed me that the Bible was an historical record, not just a book of fairy tales.

I see that you've not seen Ben Stein's Expelled, because he shows Hitler's use of Darwinism to justify his slaughters.

Disprove for me the historicity of the Bible, and I'll revert to atheism and believing in Darwin's fantasy. The Bible clearly states that the world/universe was SPOKEN into existence by God ... not just in Genesis, but throughout the Books.

See Biblical - Evolution. So You Think Evolution is Biblical?

I still stand amazed that this needs to be defended on THIS forum.

But, I've already surrendered, given up. YOU WIN, remember? You have no Faith. You have "Science".

You don't need God....

I wish you the best!

Okay, let's take this in a different direction since evolution in and of itself seems to be more or less undisputed here (which I'm pleasantly suprised to see, I must say). What gave you your faith in the Bible as a historical record and not just a religious text? What is it that convinced you that the Bible trumps scientific knowledge? And more importantly, what is it that makes you think that the two are mutually exclusive?

[skylercollins]

Not sure *I'm* the one who needs to open his mind. I believed in the THEORY of evolution for years. Then someone showed me that the Bible was an historical record, not just a book of fairy tales.

I see that you've not seen Ben Stein's Expelled, because he shows Hitler's use of Darwinism to justify his slaughters.

Disprove for me the historicity of the Bible, and I'll revert to atheism and believing in Darwin's fantasy. The Bible clearly states that the world/universe was SPOKEN into existence by God ... not just in Genesis, but throughout the Books.

See Biblical - Evolution. So You Think Evolution is Biblical?

I still stand amazed that this needs to be defended on THIS forum.

But, I've already surrendered, given up. YOU WIN, remember? You have no Faith. You have "Science".

You don't need God....

I wish you the best!

Can you explain what exactly it means for God to speak and for something to happen? I'm talking about technicals, how does that process unfold exactly? Don't you know, other than "he speaks, and it happens"?

Cause a lot of people "speak" and then stuff "happens"? But that doesn't explain how it happens. For example, the LDS Prophet says "There will be a temple built in such and such city" and then it happens. But the how is certainly more complicated than that.

There's no reason that all of the currently understood and developing processes by which the Earth and it's inhabitants came into existence weren't the how of God's creation. The Bible and other standard works give us the who, what, why, and the simple, easy to understand how, but not the real how. That's up to science to discover:

The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study astronomy, we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God is the dispenser of all truth.

How gladly would we understand every principle pertaining to science and art, and become thoroughly acquainted with every intricate operation of nature, and with all the chemical changes that are constantly going on around us! How delightful this would be, and what a boundless field of truth and power is open for us to explore!

Science reveals the beauty and harmony of the world material; it unveils to us ten thousand mysteries in the kingdom of nature, and shows that all forms of life through fire and analogous decay are returned again to its bosom. It unfolds to us the mysteries of cloud and rains, dew and frost, growth and decay, and reveals the operation of those silent irresistible forces which give vitality to the world. It reveals to us the more wonderful operations of distant orbs and their relations to the forces of nature. It also reveals another grand principle, that the laws of nature are immutable and unchangeable as are all the works of God.

The Church, the custodian of the gospel on earth, looks with full favor upon the attempts of men to search out the facts and laws of nature. It believes that men of science, seekers after truth, are often assisted by the Spirit of the Lord in such researches. It holds further that every scientific discovery may be incorporated into the gospel, and that, therefore there can be no conflict between true religion and correct science. The Church teaches that the laws of nature are but the immutable laws of the Creator of the universe.

I believe I'm in good company when it comes to accepting organic evolution and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The only seeming contradictions are in our interpretation.

As a side note, I'm sure you enjoy a lot of pleasures in life that were created because someone, scientifically, asked how. Also ask yourself why anyone who denies organic evolution would go to a regular modern doctor, when in need, who understands human biology and medicine that has been so advanced because of the increased understanding of the human body because someone asked how, unless they're just a hypocrite. Nature, including your physical self, is full of natural processes. The Bible doesn't teach brain surgery or rocket science, yet they exist and have blessed the human race. The principles for each of those are founded in biology (with it's organic evolution) and physics.

The wise observer will recognize what scientific advancement really is, an unfolding of the processes of the Almighty.

Edited November 30, 2008 by skylercollins

[foodstr2]

True science is not in conflict with the Bible. My assertion is that the theory of evolution is not true science. It was formulated by a man who did not have all the facts that we now have regarding the complexity of life, of even a single cell (which Stein illustrates in Expelled).

What's astounding today is that the scientific community won't even PERMIT the discussion of intelligent design (the whole theme of Expelled).

The Bible is the history of Man's fall and God's scheme of redemption. It's couched in historical places, many of which still exist. It was written by real people who actually lived and it was faithfully transcribed through the centuries.

If I remember right, it was in the late 50's or early 60's when a copy of the book of Isaiah was found that was a thousand years older than the the most recent copy then in a museum. When the two were compared, scholars found 6 minor translation differences, and later one of the translators said that two of the changes should have been left alone.

A short, easy read regarding the reliability of the New Testament documents is F.F. Bruce's, The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable? There is also tons of info on the 'net regarding Christian evidences.

The theory that the Bible is not historical was put to bed in the 50's/60's. Israel was a nation, The Babylonians existed, as did the Assyrians and the Medo-Persians and all the other nations with whom the Israelites interacted or were taken captive by.

Noah can't be "proved", but there is a strong argument for his existence in this: Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. He claimed to be God. What God says is true. And Jesus referenced Noah. He also said that God CREATED the world/universe.

But people don't read, let alone study, their Bibles. And they tend to jump to conclusions when they DO read them. For example:

Who were Adam's and Eve's first children? Genesis (Moses) doesn't say. Cain and Abel are brought up to show what sacrifice to God is about and to show the first murder. But, if you read carefully, it doesn't say who their first children were, nor how many they might have had before Cain and Abel. (Thinking that through also explains "where Cain got his wife" and probably what "there were giants in the earth in those days" means.)

Oh, and Jesus also told us that "Moses wrote", so he also was a historical figure.

[foodstr2]

Nowhere in Scripture that I can find, Skyler, is creation described as a long, drawn out process. The theory of evolution seeks to make "how we got here" something the human mind can wrap itself around.

It takes away from the power and majesty of God. When one accepts that God could do, and DID do, all this in 6 days, one is forced to one's knees in honor and admiration and awe of such a mighty God. That's called worship.

Modern man doesn't like to worship ... nor to submit.

I admit *my* mind is too small to understand the HOW of creation. If I could understand it, I'd be equal to God, and I'm certainly not! But just because I can't understand the how, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Hebrew word for Day (yom) means a 24-hour period ... and Jesus endorsed creation. I choose to believe the One who was raised from the dead by the power of God.

Hopefully you read my previous post regarding science.

Best regards,

Bruce

[skylercollins]

True science is not in conflict with the Bible. My assertion is that the theory of evolution is not true science. It was formulated by a man who did not have all the facts that we now have regarding the complexity of life, of even a single cell (which Stein illustrates in Expelled).

What's astounding today is that the scientific community won't even PERMIT the discussion of intelligent design (the whole theme of Expelled).

The Bible is the history of Man's fall and God's scheme of redemption. It's couched in historical places, many of which still exist. It was written by real people who actually lived and it was faithfully transcribed through the centuries.

If I remember right, it was in the late 50's or early 60's when a copy of the book of Isaiah was found that was a thousand years older than the the most recent copy then in a museum. When the two were compared, scholars found 6 minor translation differences, and later one of the translators said that two of the changes should have been left alone.

A short, easy read regarding the reliability of the New Testament documents is F.F. Bruce's, The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable? There is also tons of info on the 'net regarding Christian evidences.

The theory that the Bible is not historical was put to bed in the 50's/60's. Israel was a nation, The Babylonians existed, as did the Assyrians and the Medo-Persians and all the other nations with whom the Israelites interacted or were taken captive by.

Noah can't be "proved", but there is a strong argument for his existence in this: Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. He claimed to be God. What God says is true. And Jesus referenced Noah. He also said that God CREATED the world/universe.

But people don't read, let alone study, their Bibles. And they tend to jump to conclusions when they DO read them. For example:

Who were Adam's and Eve's first children? Genesis (Moses) doesn't say. Cain and Abel are brought up to show what sacrifice to God is about and to show the first murder. But, if you read carefully, it doesn't say who their first children were, nor how many they might have had before Cain and Abel. (Thinking that through also explains "where Cain got his wife" and probably what "there were giants in the earth in those days" means.)

Oh, and Jesus also told us that "Moses wrote", so he also was a historical figure.

My dispute is not with the historicity of the Bible. I agree with you on that. My dispute is your insistence that organic evolution is false. I don't believe anything in the Bible contradicts what science has determined as the age of the Earth and the population of it's life forms. What the Bible seeks to accomplish and what science seeks to accomplish are completely separate things. They're in separate realms, and I believe the Bible is better at doing what it's meant to do, and science is better at doing what it's meant to do.

At some point, most likely in you're lifetime, you're going to have to reconcile your beliefs with the facts of science. As quoted above, truth cannot contradict truth. So if your beliefs are true, they will reconcile with the findings of science. Thus far, mine have. In fact, my beliefs have been strengthened having the mysteries of the God's creation opened up in the way science has.

[skylercollins]

Nowhere in Scripture that I can find, Skyler, is creation described as a long, drawn out process. The theory of evolution seeks to make "how we got here" something the human mind can wrap itself around.

It takes away from the power and majesty of God. When one accepts that God could do, and DID do, all this in 6 days, one is forced to one's knees in honor and admiration and awe of such a mighty God. That's called worship.

Modern man doesn't like to worship ... nor to submit.

I admit *my* mind is too small to understand the HOW of creation. If I could understand it, I'd be equal to God, and I'm certainly not! But just because I can't understand the how, doesn't mean it didn't happen. The Hebrew word for Day (yom) means a 24-hour period ... and Jesus endorsed creation. I choose to believe the One who was raised from the dead by the power of God.

Hopefully you read my previous post regarding science.

Best regards,

Bruce

I disagree that it takes anything away from the majesty of God. What it does is expand our minds to know the ways in which God works. And that brings me closer to knowing Him and wanting to be like Him.

I'm not saying that's what everyone else gets out of it, but it's what I get out of it, and I am more blessed for it. As is the world.

[Guest Godless]

True science is not in conflict with the Bible. My assertion is that the theory of evolution is not true science. It was formulated by a man who did not have all the facts that we now have regarding the complexity of life, of even a single cell (which Stein illustrates in Expelled).

What's astounding today is that the scientific community won't even PERMIT the discussion of intelligent design (the whole theme of Expelled).

As I said earlier in this thread, modern science has confirmed and enhanced Darwin's original theory of natural selection. If this were not the case, then Darwinism would have been tossed out the window years ago. ID has had it's chance to be discussed, it has been discussed, and it has been found lacking of real scientific substance.

[pam]

Okay this is probably totally out of my league for a discussion. But I have to say I'm totally with foodstr' assessment of everything.

When I was going to high school and was forced to learn about the theory of evolution I learned man evolved from apes. Okay well fine and dandy.

But that disagreed with what I was taught all my life and what I truly believe in. That man was created in God's image. Was God at one time the shape of an ape and he evolved as well? Because to me that would be the only way the theory of evolution could work. To me that's a crock. Sorry. It just is to me.

As was explained earlier by foodstr, the creation was an amazing thing. Something that I will never truly understand. At least not in this lifetime. Do we have all the answers? All the particulars as to how God was able to accomplish this? No we don't. There is no science that could prove this. At least none that I'm aware of. But yet I know and believe that God created the earth in 6 days.

I know and believe that we were created in God's image. Which I don't believe was ever in the shape of an ape.

You can try and show me all the "science" to disprove how I feel and what I believe but it won't do any good.

We have had this discussion numerous times and we have had to defend our position of creationism over and over. I enjoy the differences of opinion but this is an LDS site.

[skylercollins]

When I was going to high school and was forced to learn about the theory of evolution I learned man evolved from apes. Okay well fine and dandy.

But that disagreed with what I was taught all my life and what I truly believe in. That man was created in God's image. Was God at one time the shape of an ape and he evolved as well? Because to me that would be the only way the theory of evolution could work. To me that's a crock. Sorry. It just is to me.

Pam, organic evolution is only concerned with the physical, mortal, aspects of our creation, not the spiritual and immortal. Spiritually, we are the offspring of God, physically, we are the offspring of our parents. It's important to separate those realms. If God guided (I say guided, to us it's random, to him, perhaps not so much) organic evolution to create man how it's believed man evolved (from lower life forms), then who are we to say he didn't? The point is, the scriptures are silent on the how, both of our spiritual and physical creations. Unfortunately, as everyone currently alive is confined to this physical universe, all we can discover here is the how of our physical creation, and not the how of our spiritual creation. I have hope we'll learn that in the next life.

As was explained earlier by foodstr, the creation was an amazing thing. Something that I will never truly understand. At least not in this lifetime. Do we have all the answers? All the particulars as to how God was able to accomplish this? No we don't. There is no science that could prove this. At least none that I'm aware of. But yet I know and believe that God created the earth in 6 days.

I know and believe that we were created in God's image. Which I don't believe was ever in the shape of an ape.

You can try and show me all the "science" to disprove how I feel and what I believe but it won't do any good.

We have had this discussion numerous times and we have had to defend our position of creationism over and over. I enjoy the differences of opinion but this is an LDS site.

Through all of this it's important to stay on the side of truth and light, and not try to bring what you want to be truth to your side. In other words, I shouldn't try to get God on my side, I should be concerned that I'm on His.

[a-train]

I'm not familiar with the scaffold objection. As for irreducible complexity, I'll grant that the theory is scientific and was very deserving of the careful consideration that it received. However, it has long been disproven through peer review.

The scaffold objection is simply the idea that redundant complexity can occur and then the redundancy can be eliminated by natural selection. Like a building with a scaffold around it, once the scaffold is no longer needed, it is removed.

If applied to Behe's mousetrap, it would mean that the mousetrap started out as something actually more complex which once it began catching mice, it got rid of the redundancy and became nothing but a mousetrap. All the extras that got thrown out acted as a scaffold in the meantime. The survival of the mechanism was thus at one time based on something else before the catching of mice became the ultimate function.

What bothers me about this objection is that it would seem to suggest devolution rather than evolution. Although I understand the scientific assertions.

John H. McDonald, of the University of Delaware, made this great page dedicated to the evolution of the mousetrap. It's great!

Darwinism seeks to explain the complex variety of life on Earth, not its origins. In that regard, it is considered a rock-solid theory. Origins theory is called abiogenesis and it is much less solid than Darwinism. There are lots of theories out there, and as far as I know there isn't yet one that is preferred over the others. If there's one thing I love about science, it's the freedom to say "I don't know" while never giving up on finding the answer. I don't blame theists for wanting to have all of the answers, but just know that there is nothing wrong with doubt and uncertainty. The world we live in is full of mysteries, and it is that fact that has led us to countless scientific discoveries. In a world based on faith, where's the adventure of seeking out the unknown?

Darwin himself believed that the first cell was brought into existance "in a warm little pond". And yes, the scientific community holds no consensus on the orgin of life. What should be understood is that no matter what the future holds for the science of this matter, the believers in God will always be able to say: "and that is just fine, it must be how God commenced the work of creation."

-a-train

[WANDERER]

In highschool I wrote a paper supporting creation science. I didn't learn about evolution except to stay away from it...which is what you get from a fundy education. It totally lacked foresight in the light of current events and the mapping of genomes.

Modern shades of it are constantly uncovering points of interest:Slugs that photosynthesise...heriditary mRNA. I find it fascinating.

Gordon B Hinckley:

People ask me every now and again if I believe in evolution. I tell them I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago.

Spiritual evolution (progression) is implied when he uses the words organic evolution.

[skylercollins]

Gordon B Hinckley:

People ask me every now and again if I believe in evolution. I tell them I am not concerned with organic evolution. I do not worry about it. I passed through that argument long ago.

Spiritual evolution (progression) is implied when he uses the words organic evolution.

I thought a Prophet's main concern was spiritual evolution...