LDS view of Creation

[Guest Godless]

Over the last few months I've engaged in discussion with a few posters over the evolution/ID debate. It seems that there is a very diverse range of LDS beliefs on the matter. I've read BYU's Evolution Packet, which includes statements by past First Presidencies in regard to the origin of man. I'm also aware of the fact that several of the professors in BYU's science department are very critical of Creationism/ID. I'm interested in learning what common threads you share in your beliefs about our origins. Out of my own curiosity and independent research, I've been able to learn a few things already.

1. Mormons don't believe in ex nihilo Creationism.

2. Nor do they believe in a literal translation of the 7 days mentioned in Genesis 1 (see Abraham 3:4 for scriptural basis).

3. There is a strong doctrinal and scriptural basis for the belief that Adam and Eve existed as the first humans.

What other scriptures or points of doctrine are there to support your view of our origins (whatever that view may be)? I'm sure many of you are aware of my stance on the matter. I'm not here to debate who's right and who's wrong. I just want to learn more about what you believe so that both sides can have some sort of understanding if/when these debates come up in the future.

[Wingnut]

Over the last few months I've engaged in discussion with a few posters over the evolution/ID debate. It seems that there is a very diverse range of LDS beliefs on the matter. I've read BYU's Evolution Packet, which includes statements by past First Presidencies in regard to the origin of man. I'm also aware of the fact that several of the professors in BYU's science department are very critical of Creationism/ID. I'm interested in learning what common threads you share in your beliefs about our origins. Out of my own curiosity and independent research, I've been able to learn a few things already.

1. Mormons don't believe in ex nihilo Creationism.

2. Nor do they believe in a literal translation of the 7 days mentioned in Genesis 1 (see Abraham 3:4 for scriptural basis).

3. There is a strong doctrinal and scriptural basis for the belief that Adam and Eve existed as the first humans.

What other scriptures or points of doctrine are there to support your view of our origins (whatever that view may be)? I'm sure many of you are aware of my stance on the matter. I'm not here to debate who's right and who's wrong. I just want to learn more about what you believe so that both sides can have some sort of understanding if/when these debates come up in the future.

Some Mormons do believe in the literal 6 days of creation, others don't. I think it comes down to the definition of "day." Was it a 24 hours period like we think of a day, or was it "I'm done, we'll call it a day"?

On a more humorous note, please see my signature for my view of evolution.

[Guest Godless]

Some Mormons do believe in the literal 6 days of creation, others don't. I think it comes down to the definition of "day." Was it a 24 hours period like we think of a day, or was it "I'm done, we'll call it a day"?

On a more humorous note, please see my signature for my view of evolution.

Lol, that's cute.

I realize that some members believe in the literal translation, which is why I referenced Abraham. That verse specifically states that God's time and ours are very different. I probably should have said "Mormon scripture states..." rather than "Mormons believe...". I realize that there's still room for differences in interpretation and application of Abraham to Genesis 1.

[LittleWyvern]

As for me, I'm on the more scientific side of beliefs on this subject. This stems from my very Renaissance era style thinking that in order to understand God, one must study both the scriptures and the laws of nature. I find great harmony and even sometimes great testimony in science.

[Maxel]

One unique thing about Mormonism is that the Church has no official stance on the details of the creation of the Earth. As you've stated, we do not accept or deny any scientific theories about Earth's creation (except such philosophical concepts as ex nihilo). I've always prided myself in how scientific Mormonism actually is, both in its approach to spiritual matters and the scientific world around us.

Personally, I believe that in regard to the time it took to create the Earth, there are two distinct possibilities.

1.) The 'days' referred to in the creation account is 'after the manner of the Lord'- meaning that one day is equal to 10,000 years. (Abraham 3:4)

2.) The 'days' referred to in the creation account refers to a specific 'period of time' and not just our current 24-hour day. If this is the case, I believe that each 'day' was separated by the type of work that God did on those days- separating light from darkness, creating the heavens and the earth, etc. In such an understanding, it leaves room for each 'day' to actually have different lengths of time.

As for Adam and Eve being the first humans, I know it's not blasphemy to believe that their physical bodies were created through evolution, but the spirit of humans did not enter until the bodies were ready for habitation. It's not the common belief, but it's not heresy in our church.

I've run across a couple different explanations regarding Adam and Eve that I think sound plausible.

1.) Just as there are natural laws of physics, there exist natural laws of biology. That means that when God introduces life onto a planet (in terms of single-celled organisms) it will always evolve in a certain way, which includes human bodies being created, ready for spiritual habitation. This fits well with the theory of evolution.

2.) Adam and Eve were the prototype of 'first men', and also the most authoritative among them. Adam stood at the head because of his righteousness before God.

3.) Adam and Eve were truly made out of the elements of the Earth, directly influenced by God's power. This explanation favors intelligent design and is more in line with literal renditions of the creation account.

Hope that helps!

[boyando]

A friend of mine got a copy of "Expelled" (a documentary on how intelligent design {ID} is not being allowed on college campus's) for Christmas. Rented and watched, I found myself re-thinking and questioning what I think about ID.

Here are my thoughts;

1-Our Father in Heaven, is smart enough to know (as in all knowing) that if we are given the whole truth about the creation, science would have too admit His existence. As in, if there is a design, there must be a designer, who would be God.

2-If Our Father in Heaven, hung around all the time were we could see him, or if science proved his existence, we would all live the commandments that he gave us, not because we wanted too, but because we would feel like we had too.

Our Father in Heaven is not a task master, watching over his slaves. That is one of the most wonderful gifts we are given.

3-We of the LDS faith, are obligated too study the truth in all sciences, so we can understand the workings of our Father in Heaven. The glory of God is intelligence.

4-The theory of evolution, went form theory to "fact" in many peoples mind, without anymore proof. The bones that we find in the earth, do show a record of progression, but do not show why or how they progressed.

I'm not ignoring the theory of natural selection, I'm just saying it does not explain why the first "lighting created cells" divided. Or why cells divide today.

The list of holes in the evolution theory goes on and on, so many scientist take it on faith that these answers will be found at a later date (same as we Mormons believe). One could easily decide, as I have, that the science of evolution is more of a religion, than a science. Having a god of numbers,time and chance, only means that you have more to except on faith, than I do.

I think it was in Star Trek three (which is purely make believe) were a planet was completely regenerated with plants and animals, by scientist, in one day. How easy is it to suspend fact, and use our imagination to believe it could be possible. And yet.............

These are some of my thoughts

boyando

Edited February 5, 2009 by boyando

[Guest Godless]

I've run across a couple different explanations regarding Adam and Eve that I think sound plausible.

1.) Just as there are natural laws of physics, there exist natural laws of biology. That means that when God introduces life onto a planet (in terms of single-celled organisms) it will always evolve in a certain way, which includes human bodies being created, ready for spiritual habitation. This fits well with the theory of evolution.

2.) Adam and Eve were the prototype of 'first men', and also the most authoritative among them. Adam stood at the head because of his righteousness before God.

3.) Adam and Eve were truly made out of the elements of the Earth, directly influenced by God's power. This explanation favors intelligent design and is more in line with literal renditions of the creation account.

Hope that helps!

In the 1909 First Presidency message (referenced in BYU's Evolution Packet), there is reference to a doctrine found in D&C 77. Your mention of spiritual habitation made me think of it. I think it ties in nicely with what you're saying. What do you think?

...that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.

[Maxel]

I was unaware of the implications of that scripture on this issue- I appreciate you citing that!

To me, that scripture would point to the fact that the theory of evolution- as we understand the possible applications of it to explain for the evolution from apes to humans, etc.- is false in regards to the Creation account.

[tubaloth]

What other scriptures or points of doctrine are there to support your view of our origins (whatever that view may be)?

A couple of scriptures

(2 Nephi 2:22-23.)

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.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Point 1 is that with out the fall there was no children (no reproduction) happening. At first read this seems like it is only talking about just Adam and Eve’s children. But reading verse 22 we realize that everything would have remand the same (“All things”) not just Adam and Eve. Meaning there was no death if there is no birth. Everything would have remand in the same “state” forever! It is the fall the brought both death and birth to this world.

(Abraham 5:3.)

3 And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would rest from all their works which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and sanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth.

This isn’t the best scripture to show this, but the point #2 is that there was a spiritual creation before there was any physical creation. This teaches us that God doesn’t need any type of evolution; he already knew how to create man the way he wanted.

Unless there is also some spiritual evolution?

[Traveler]

Over the last few months I've engaged in discussion with a few posters over the evolution/ID debate. It seems that there is a very diverse range of LDS beliefs on the matter. I've read BYU's Evolution Packet, which includes statements by past First Presidencies in regard to the origin of man. I'm also aware of the fact that several of the professors in BYU's science department are very critical of Creationism/ID. I'm interested in learning what common threads you share in your beliefs about our origins. Out of my own curiosity and independent research, I've been able to learn a few things already.

1. Mormons don't believe in ex nihilo Creationism.

2. Nor do they believe in a literal translation of the 7 days mentioned in Genesis 1 (see Abraham 3:4 for scriptural basis).

3. There is a strong doctrinal and scriptural basis for the belief that Adam and Eve existed as the first humans.

What other scriptures or points of doctrine are there to support your view of our origins (whatever that view may be)? I'm sure many of you are aware of my stance on the matter. I'm not here to debate who's right and who's wrong. I just want to learn more about what you believe so that both sides can have some sort of understanding if/when these debates come up in the future.

1. ex nihilo Creationism is an ancient and unenlightened interpretation of scripture. It gives the wrong impression of G-d, his nature and his methods. It also ignores modern science and does not help understand anything but rather encourages superstition, ignorance and the idea that because something is believed the believer is more moral regardless of what they do.

2. A belief that creation is a literal translation of 7 days is complete ignorance and utter misunderstanding ancient scripture and based on the modern English version of scripture. The English word “Day” is not really a literal translation of the ancient Hebrew. A direct translation of the ancient Hebrew that is of similar or more literal interpretation would be “period of time”. Also there is no indication in ancient text that each “time period” or day was of the exact same duration - this is an unfounded assumption based on human speculation.

3. Again there are assumptions concerning the ancient meaning of first in regards to Adam and Eve being the first humans. When the ancient scriptures talked about first (like the first born in Egypt) this did not mean the oldest of a family but it meant the most noble (which could include more than one in a family or none from some families). In addition there have been long debates among the LDS that have not been resolved nor has there been revelation to indicate if there were pre-Adamites of human type such as Neandertals and Cro-Magnons that existed on earth prior to or during the life span of Adam. What we do know is that every human today is a descendent of Adam and Eve and are subjects to one G-d (Jesus Christ) because of the fall of Adam and Eve. We also know that there was a most interesting change on earth that took place 6,000 to 15,000 years ago during which almost all of the domestication of plants and animals used today by modern man took place. Also there is significant scientific data indicating that much of pre-historic earth existed with a very different force of gravity than what we now experience.

Bottom line is that from the standpoint of either science or religion there are still significant pieces of the puzzle missing and as far as I know the LDS religion is the only religion I know of that openly recognizes that we do not have full knowledge of such things but that as man continues to progress in knowledge that G-d will provide better and more complete understanding.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

.....

4-The theory of evolution, went form theory to "fact" in many peoples mind, without anymore proof. The bones that we find in the earth, do show a record of progression, but do not show why or how they progressed.

I'm not ignoring the theory of natural selection, I'm just saying it does not explain why the first "lighting created cells" divided. Or why cells divide today.

The list of holes in the evolution theory goes on and on, so many scientist take it on faith that these answers will be found at a later date (same as we Mormons believe). One could easily decide, as I have, that the science of evolution is more of a religion, than a science. Having a god of numbers,time and chance, only means that you have more to except on faith, than I do.

boyando

As a scientist and a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I am not sure that you have a good grasp of science or scientific theory.

For example all mathematics is based on number theory of which there are several. There is the integer number theory, the rational number theory, the real number theory and the complex (or imaginary) number theory. One could say that there is an ongoing list of “holes” in number theory in the same manner that you say there are holes in evolution theory. The problem that I see with you thinking is that you are jumping to a conclusion that because of what you call a “hole” in a theory you think that the theory is disproved or rendered inclusive. That is the wrong point of view – what it means is that there is still something about the principle that we scientist (humans) do not have full understanding. What is important to note is that there is no other theories that can be demonstrated to any credible degree that number theory or evolutionary theory is capable of demonstrating.

The point is that if you are anyone else is interested in offering any alternate theories to evolution you better come prepared to demonstrate that your theory has less “holes” than evolution. What you need is hard consistent data that can be duplicated by anyone willing to perform experiments or examine data. By definition science is demonstrable and reproducible. If something is not demonstrable and reproducible it cannot be taught as science. So if you are going to teach science you must be prepared to demonstrate and reproduce your theory.

I will tell you now that you will have a most difficult time demonstrating and reproducing anything associated to the theory of intelligent design. The concept of ex nihilo Creationism including any kind of intelligent design that includes ex nihilo Creationism is not demonstrable or reproducible at any scientific level. Criticizing science is not justification for another theory – you must be able to justify any theory on its own against all the data available and this intelligent design with ex nihilo Creationism has never done nor has anyone been even remotely successful at attempting it.

The Traveler

Edited February 6, 2009 by Traveler

[BenRaines]

Thank you for your last two posts Traveler.

Ben Raines

[BenRaines]

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

It appears to me from this scripture that life came out of the water. It says "the moving creature that hath life, and fowl". Looks like The Gods commanded life to come from the water.

Ben Raines

[Guest Godless]

3. Again there are assumptions concerning the ancient meaning of first in regards to Adam and Eve being the first humans. When the ancient scriptures talked about first (like the first born in Egypt) this did not mean the oldest of a family but it meant the most noble (which could include more than one in a family or none from some families). In addition there have been long debates among the LDS that have not been resolved nor has there been revelation to indicate if there were pre-Adamites of human type such as Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons that existed on earth prior to or during the life span of Adam. What we do know is that every human today is a descendant of Adam and Eve and are subjects to one G-d (Jesus Christ) because of the fall of Adam and Eve.

Thank you, Traveler, for your very insightful post. I found this portion particularly interesting. The idea that Adam and Eve did exist, but that there were hominids who preceded them is a rare, but intriguing concept. It runs similar to a very interesting explanation I once heard of a rational basis for a metaphorical translation of Genesis 1. The premise is that Adam and Eve represent early homo sapiens and that the Fall is a metaphor for our emergence as a species into consciousness and self-awareness. Some of the most basic elements of what we call human nature emerged thousands of years ago as our cognitive skills grew and developed. We started to display traits that are uniquely human, just as the story of the Fall illustrates that we knew not right and wrong prior to the original sin. Again, probably not a popular stance among LDS, but it's one of my favorite interpretations of Genesis 1.

We also know that there was a most interesting change on earth that took place 6,000 to 15,000 years ago during which almost all of the domestication of plants and animals used today by modern man took place.

What change are you referring to? And are you sure it was that recent? I'm no anthropologist, but it seems to me that we should have abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle long before that. The evolution of domesticated animals would seem to support that notion. I could be wrong though. Again, I'm not an expert on the subject.

Also there is significant scientific data indicating that much of pre-historic earth existed with a very different force of gravity than what we now experience.

I haven't heard that theory, but it sounds very interesting. Do you have a source where I could learn more about that?

[FernRL]

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.

[LittleWyvern]

Actually, I would hope for a comment here from someone who knows: What, scientifically speaking, causes planets to rotate on their axes?

From what I've learned on the matter, scientists think that early in the earth's formation (when it was still a hot, semi-molten blob) another smaller, semi-molten blob slammed into the early earth at an angle (makes sense: gravity). Since both were semi-molten, they eventually fused together and formed a larger earth. This impact was slightly off-center, so it caused the earth to both spin at a certain speed and spin at an axis relative to the sun. Scientists also believe that some matter of the small earth was shot out into space by this collision, which eventually reformed (again, gravity) to form the moon (this would explain why moon rocks have an almost identical composition to earth rocks). All planets have a characteristic speed and axis, which suggests this happened in unique conditions (size of smaller blob, speed of smaller blob, whether there was more than one smaller blob, etc.) in the formation of each planet.

I wish I could cite sources on this, but this was just learning things in school, so I don't remember what exactly the textbook was called. Maybe I'll look for something when I'm not too busy.

Also, when you think about this, the earth spinning at just the right speed and at just the right angle makes conditions for life perfect.

EDIT: I can imagine the conversation...

"Well... how are we going to get this thing spinning at this speed and at this axis?"

"Uh... throw a big rock at it?"

Edited February 6, 2009 by LittleWyvern

[bmy-]

IMO,

Life exists independent of God(s). I'll even take it a step further and say that non-life became life through natural processes however rare they may be. I personally view our 'souls' as parasites (or symbiotes if you prefer). I don't see any other way to reconcile my beliefs with science.

Edited February 7, 2009 by bmy-

[Traveler]

.....

What change are you referring to? And are you sure it was that recent? I'm no anthropologist, but it seems to me that we should have abandoned the hunter-gatherer lifestyle long before that. The evolution of domesticated animals would seem to support that notion. I could be wrong though. Again, I'm not an expert on the subject.

The changes are the sudden appearance of fruit, vegetables, grains, cattle, chickens, horses, and many others. No one has solved the mystery of how or what may have triggered such advancements.

Interesting that the dog was domesticated much earlier.

I haven't heard that theory, but it sounds very interesting. Do you have a source where I could learn more about that?

The idea that dinosaurs were two big is not real new but not often discussed. PhD. Robert T Bakker’s (the scientist modeled in the book Jurassic Park) book “Dinosaur Heresies” points out that the large dinosaurs were far too large for their structure design. Also the insect were also too large. It had been thought that the large dinosaurs lived in swamps and were supported by water but in recent discoveries some large dinosaurs have been discovered in arid areas. The maximum size of an animal today is about the size of a wooly mammoth.

The problem with sizing has to do with structure. As an animal increases in size the volume increases cubic but the structural support only increase by the square. A dinosaur 4 times the size of an elephant would require a cross section leg 16 times the size of an elephant for the same support of the mass.

The Traveler

[Maxel]

The problem with sizing has to do with structure. As an animal increases in size the volume increases cubic but the structural support only increase by the square. A dinosaur 4 times the size of an elephant would require a cross section leg 16 times the size of an elephant for the same support of the mass.

Question I've always had- would it be possible for a dinosaur to be supported with bones that were somehow much denser and stronger than ours? For example (and I'm not suggesting this but grasping at straws), if they had skeletons made out of steel?

IMO,

Life exists independent of God(s). I'll even take it a step further and say that non-life became life through natural processes however rare they may be. I personally view our 'souls' as parasites (or symbiotes if you prefer). I don't see any other way to reconcile my beliefs with science.

I agree with the first part, but do you really see our souls as parasites of the body? I can't bring myself to accept the negative connotation that gives to the soul. Also, in our current bodies, the soul is what gives the body purpose and drive- a soul without a body can still operate somewhat, but a telestial body without a soul would be utterly wasted with no purpose at all.

[Traveler]

Question I've always had- would it be possible for a dinosaur to be supported with bones that were somehow much denser and stronger than ours? For example (and I'm not suggesting this but grasping at straws), if they had skeletons made out of steel?

Anything is possible - however steel has some interesting problem because its strength to weight ratio – carbon based stuff is much better. For example a carbon fiber bicycle is more efficient than a steel bicycle. The second problem is that the dinosaurs were not the only thing supersized. There were insects with 3 foot wing spans and ferns the size of large trees. The third problem would be that nothing that lives now could have any relationship to the life forms structure base of that era.

Why the difference between then and now is unsolved. BTW just for fun – another great problem for scientist is how the earth has both a circular orbit around the sun and possesses an abundance of “heavy metal” elements that could not have been “created” in our solar system; according to their abundance and ratio to decay material could not have been created very far away – but the creation at a close enough distance would have removed all the light elements that exist in our atmosphere.

Something very unusual to our understanding had to have taken place.

The Traveler

[bmy-]

I agree with the first part, but do you really see our souls as parasites of the body? I can't bring myself to accept the negative connotation that gives to the soul. Also, in our current bodies, the soul is what gives the body purpose and drive- a soul without a body can still operate somewhat, but a telestial body without a soul would be utterly wasted with no purpose at all.

'Parasite' has a negative connotation attached.. which is why I mentioned symbiosis. It's not a bad thing.. I try to picture it as a hermit crab using the shell of a dead gastropod.

The hermit crab without a shell can operate somewhat.. but that shell without a body has no purpose at all. You could take it further and say that the shells (new?) purpose is to provide the hermit crab the chance to grow.

I hope that makes sense.

[FernRL]

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?

[hordak]

Most people I know who don't believe in evolution do so because they there read the beginning of Genesis in a literal sense. The irony in this is that when one reads a little further ,to the world flood, evolution is the best explanation for it being literally a world flood.

[prospectmom]

Isn't it climate events and loss of food supply which caused the dinosaurs demise? Komodo Dragons as well as some others who were from that era were just lucky ... needed less food were in the right place>>> just guessing on my part

[Maxel]

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?

The difference:

Komodo Dragon = Dragon

Dinosaurs = Dinosaur

Dragons are 100 times more coolerest than dinosaurs, so of course they lived longer- they just hid their true winged, fire-breathing forms from humanity.

I hope that very logical and scientific explanation helps!

On a side note, than you for explaining bmy, I understand what you're saying now.