LDS view of Creation


Guest Godless
 Share

Recommended Posts

1. ID rejects evolution. The two theories are not compatible and each rejects the other.

2. Abiogenists is the study of how life may of or can be generated. Evolution is the explanation of how life can change through generations. The two are different fields of study. Currently man is incapable of generating a life form but we can impact evolution through genetic engineering - however, it is my personal belief that science and experimentation will at some future time render the secrets necessary for man to cross the threshold and generate new life.

The Traveler

first, let me say i am a creationist, in a lds sense, that believes that the world was built by us following natural law. I also believe we can do more than we currently understand via the priesthood, that also follows natural laws. just to get that out of the way.

so here is my next question... you just sated that ID and evolution reject each other, then in the next statement, you say ID is currently underway, in progress, proven, and may i add has been via selective breeding for a long time. and I agree with your assessment that time is the only thing needed for us to breach Abiogenises as well.

this is ID to me. we are doing it. and if evolution is a natural law, then it is a natural law everywhere, and it if its a natural law everywhere, then all you need is other instances of Abiogenises to spark evolution on other planets. we accomplished ID in 4.5 ish billion years, and the universe is 13.someting byo. so we got lots of time to have the two produce a species that is indistinguishable from gods to us. ergo, evolution predicts ID and gods, so they cannot be exclusive in my book.

so, some of the other problems i have with evolution is "common ancestor"

i believe in micro evolution, but not macro, at least not yet.

if abiogenises is separate from evolution, thats fine, but it opens the door to a complex cell being the "father" of all life, in that all the dna (info) needed is contained in the original cell and so life does not have to become more "complex" in order to evolve. but if its a prion, then life does have to mutate into more complex forms.

I have never had anyone explain this to me in adequate form, and i am asking these questions because i homeschool and want to be able to teach evolution as accurately as possible. my eldest son is 6, and we watch discovery all the time together, and its going to start generating questions I cannot answer.

so, thanks for the continued help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

first, let me say i am a creationist, in a lds sense, that believes that the world was built by us following natural law. I also believe we can do more than we currently understand via the priesthood, that also follows natural laws. just to get that out of the way.

so here is my next question... you just sated that ID and evolution reject each other, then in the next statement, you say ID is currently underway, in progress, proven, and may i add has been via selective breeding for a long time. and I agree with your assessment that time is the only thing needed for us to breach Abiogenises as well.

this is ID to me. we are doing it. and if evolution is a natural law, then it is a natural law everywhere, and it if its a natural law everywhere, then all you need is other instances of Abiogenises to spark evolution on other planets. we accomplished ID in 4.5 ish billion years, and the universe is 13.someting byo. so we got lots of time to have the two produce a species that is indistinguishable from gods to us. ergo, evolution predicts ID and gods, so they cannot be exclusive in my book.

so, some of the other problems i have with evolution is "common ancestor"

i believe in micro evolution, but not macro, at least not yet.

if abiogenises is separate from evolution, thats fine, but it opens the door to a complex cell being the "father" of all life, in that all the dna (info) needed is contained in the original cell and so life does not have to become more "complex" in order to evolve. but if its a prion, then life does have to mutate into more complex forms.

I have never had anyone explain this to me in adequate form, and i am asking these questions because i homeschool and want to be able to teach evolution as accurately as possible. my eldest son is 6, and we watch discovery all the time together, and its going to start generating questions I cannot answer.

so, thanks for the continued help.

Just as some social groups have hijacked the term “gay” and created a specific meaning; select religious groups have hijacked the term “intelligent design” and attached it to their particular brand of creationism. This ID does not just mean that G-d is a consideration in genesis of life but that G-d created from nothing in the span of 6 days start to finish and there is no macro evolution.

Thus just because you are happy it is not wise to tell all your friends you are gay and so just because you believe G-d is the creator does not mean that you believe ID as defined by the fundamental Christian movement. You confuse everyone when you say you are a creationist in an LDS way and that you also believe ID. You are thinking that the term sound like something you may believe but you should be careful because for most of the world the terms represent something very different than what you actually believe. To avoid confusion I would recommend that you not use the terms creationist and ID. You could say you believe G-d is the creator but that you also believe it possible that G-d utilized principles of genetic engineering and evolution over millions and billions of years to accomplish what he has done throughout our universe. If you say it that way the proponents of ID may not consider you one of them

Abiogenists is the scientific term that denotes the study of all the various ways possible for initiating a simple life form. But there is a problem because as much as we have studied and as much as we have tried as of yet there is no life form that has been so generated. So for now it is in essence a log of all our efforts that have not worked.

I personally have no problems with evolution; at least I know of no evolutionary principles that have no possibility or probability of being somewhat accurate. Evolution may not have all the answers but I believe that to advance science and the art of such things such as the re-growing of human parts either damaged or genetically flawed; will come from those studying principles of evolution and not from proponents of “Creationism” and “Intelligent Design”.

Therefore if you want your children to be educated and prepared (socially or religiously) for living in a society with regeneration capabilities I would suggest you teach your children evolution and tell them G-d is the universes most brilliant scientist and the master of all such things and if he knew of a better way than the best that we currently understand he would not likely to have used our primitive ideas so we ought to keep an open mind as we consider and improve upon the things that we do know.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I present an idea as to why so many scientists believe that evolution proves there is no G-d? I believe the reason is because so many religious thinkers have told them exactly that. When Darwin wrote his now famous book “Origin of Species” he suggested a wild speculation. What if man evolved from monkeys?

The religious community responded harshly (and I might add without thinking about the possible repercussions) that G-d created man from dust and not from any pre-existing life and as G-d lives Darwin’s wild speculation is not possible. Well from that scientist began to discover more and more that indicated a possibility that man had evolved from a pre-existing life. It has been the religious community and not the scientific that has declared and believed that evolution disproves G-d. Many scientists that did not know where else to turn thus concluded they were atheists. They could not find any evidence that supported the religious claim so they had no honest choice but to reject the G-d of the religinious

Thus many scientists looked at the evidence and began to think that maybe the religionists are right. Maybe anything that proves evolution disproves G-d. And so both sides, without thinking, came to the conclusion that evolution disproves G-d.

I believe this is the same mistake the religious believers that the earth was the center of the universe. They thought that if the earth was not the center of the universe that somehow that would disprove there was a G-d. So rather than consider the possibility that the sun was the center of our solar system they forced Galileo to publicly retract his book of tides that assumed the earth revolved around the sun. Did they defend the faith? Not really – they only defended a false notion about G-d and the universe that we all look back at now and wonder how they could make such a foolish mistake. Why would they not consider that G-d could have created the solar system with the sun in the center?

Indeed, why not consider that G-d creates life as life is currently created – from life that already exist? What a revolutionary thought – that G-d does not have to modify his methods just because we are able to observe and understand a little. But then the question is how was the very first life created? Well if we ever are able to create a similar life, why not consider the possibility that G-d did it in that same manner that some scientist got to work? As long as that door is open we won’t force so many honest scientists to become atheists. And if it is important enough and G-d really wants us to know the truth of it; he could tells just like he told Moses about the 10 commandments.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand my position. I know how to make wine. that does not mean that Christ did not make water into wine. I know how to administer first aid, and even how to stitch someone up, that does not mean that Christ didn't heal a sword cloven ear.

I can be a doctor, and still acknowledge the power of the priesthood to do things outside of my learning.

for some reason, when we speak about evolution, this goes right out the window. I think thats stupid. I believe there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I think we are currently involved in ID, and like I said, evolution predicts gods. so to exclude those from the realm of possibility just astounds me.

kinda like what your previous post says.

I dont expect to understand right now exactly how Christ turned water into wine, but i can do it via other channels. I can learn to bake bread and how to fish without negating that miracle.

I can debate the merits of ID without thinking that is how it was done.

evolution can be a true law, and it may still not be how it happened. I have not figgured all that out yet, and when i do i promise to let you know. but in the mean time, I would like to be able to learn, line upon line, precept upon precept.

Science and religion, if they are pure, and the same. they are just two different approaches to learning law.

I dont want to negeate either tool for my personal learning. not all religion is true, neither is all science. true religion makes mistakes, so does true science, newton was correct right up until e=mc2.

im ok with all that. I have to discern truth for myself. There is a lot about modern ID and Creationist views that is utter bull. there is a lot about evolution that is utter bull.

im just trying to sort it out as best I can, because I really love knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand my position. I know how to make wine. that does not mean that Christ did not make water into wine. I know how to administer first aid, and even how to stitch someone up, that does not mean that Christ didn't heal a sword cloven ear.

I can be a doctor, and still acknowledge the power of the priesthood to do things outside of my learning.

for some reason, when we speak about evolution, this goes right out the window. I think thats stupid. I believe there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I think we are currently involved in ID, and like I said, evolution predicts gods. so to exclude those from the realm of possibility just astounds me.

kinda like what your previous post says.

I dont expect to understand right now exactly how Christ turned water into wine, but i can do it via other channels. I can learn to bake bread and how to fish without negating that miracle.

I can debate the merits of ID without thinking that is how it was done.

evolution can be a true law, and it may still not be how it happened. I have not figgured all that out yet, and when i do i promise to let you know. but in the mean time, I would like to be able to learn, line upon line, precept upon precept.

Science and religion, if they are pure, and the same. they are just two different approaches to learning law.

I dont want to negeate either tool for my personal learning. not all religion is true, neither is all science. true religion makes mistakes, so does true science, newton was correct right up until e=mc2.

im ok with all that. I have to discern truth for myself. There is a lot about modern ID and Creationist views that is utter bull. there is a lot about evolution that is utter bull.

im just trying to sort it out as best I can, because I really love knowledge.

A few things if you do not mind:

I think you misunderstand my position. I know how to make wine. that does not mean that Christ did not make water into wine. I know how to administer first aid, and even how to stitch someone up, that does not mean that Christ didn't heal a sword cloven ear.

. The truth is that up to now our science does not know how to heal - all our efforts are directed towards assisting the body's ability to heal itself. First aid, stitches and all other forms of medical offerings are just means to facilitate the body healing itself. Since a body can heal itself perhaps the method that the body uses could be accomplished by other means?

The point I would like to make is that knowing how to do something does not mean that we no longer need G-d to accomplish it. I believe the great lesson we should learn from G-d is not what wonderful things can be done, accomplished and created but the reason and purpose that must guide us in determining the wonderful things we do and accomplish for the greatest benefit of good.

. Most advocates of Creationism or ID reject evolution or the possibility that man could participate in creation regardless of G-d’s assistance direction in the matter. They just do not believe G-d has either the intelligence or power to do such a thing with lowly man. They reject that very idea that G-d could create a creator.

there is a lot about evolution that is utter bull.

Would you be so kind to consider an open decision on this forum with me about one or two of the utter bull things you have encountered concerning evolution? I promise to not call you any names and to end the discussion and apologize to you if you feel I am belittling you. I am very curious about what the ridiculous principles of bull concerning evolution I have somehow missed and overlooked in my personal considerations.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sure, I would love to. I would be more interested in the discussion if you would entertain adding doctrinal study in as well, to try to reconcile the two. because I suspect that that is where the truth is.

I liked your point concerning the body healing itself. thats a good angle.

I do telecommunications, I have worked on some of the most advanced systems out there. they dont hold a candle to prayer, and as prayer is to us, so our telecommunications is to smoke signals.

this is partially how I view evolution, its kinda a smoke signal.

my bigest beef I have stated, Evolution predicts both ID and Gods.

my next beef is uniformitarism.

and because they are related, using time to say "these things are possible over time."

seems like a good place to stop for now. would you agree that these things are foundational to the theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also aware of the fact that several of the professors in BYU's science department are very critical of Creationism/ID.

That would be interesting. Specifically which professors do not believe that God created like/the universe and where did you read their views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be interesting. Specifically which professors do not believe that God created like/the universe and where did you read their views?

My Bio 100 professor holds this view: God created us spiritually. As far as this Earth, God created the laws of nature and the starting conditions that would accomplish everything that He wanted to do, and let it run. Adam and Eve were the first that were given the light and spirit of Christ.

This very nearly, if not exactly, echos my views. It is because of this that I believe that we can more appreciate God not just by reading the scriptures, but by discovering and observing the laws of nature (which God created).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

My Bio 100 professor holds this view: God created us spiritually. As far as this Earth, God created the laws of nature and the starting conditions that would accomplish everything that He wanted to do, and let it run. Adam and Eve were the first that were given the light and spirit of Christ.

This very nearly, if not exactly, echos my views. It is because of this that I believe that we can more appreciate God not just by reading the scriptures, but by discovering and observing the laws of nature (which God created).

I have heard from word-of-mouth that many of BYU's biology/anthro professors hold similar views to this. It caused some grief for my sister when she took biology her freshman year, as she holds my parents' anti-Darwinist views. From what I understand though, BYU does NOT teach anything that directly undermines Church views on Creation. As I've never attended BYU, I don't know much about the curriculum there. I do know that they have a packet available that explains the Church's stance, which is an agreeable alternative to teaching ID in the classroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand though, BYU does NOT teach anything that directly undermines Church views on Creation.

This church's official stance on the Creation is this: there is no official stance. The packet you refer to is just a collection of quotes by GAs from a very long time ago (and so are obviously anti-evolution) that don't reflect the church's views today. I'm not sure why they have it.

Besides, the philosophy of BYU, as far as I can see it, is thus: truth is truth, no matter the source. For this reason, I think that I can pray to know if some principle of science is true just as much as I can pray to know if the Book of Mormon is true. God is the author of all truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so how can evolution be "proven" when it is not even defined?

When we observe myosis in a single living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind its DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human. It is not just a theory but an observable event. Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation which results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways as two new life forms that are children to the original. The second is integration; this is when the new cells form symbiosis relationships with each other which will define a higher single live form from multi cells.

From a single cell of a single kind or type in the beginning of a human will come enormous numbers of different KINDS of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human being. This process is evolution pure and simple and it exists and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture. To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well my personal belief is that evolution happened as Darwin says, but I believe that was God's will (God does work in mysterious ways, with more intelligence than we could ever understand), and he knew what the end result would be before he ever started, God created the heavens and the earth. Where my view differs from non-religious people is while I believe life evolved up to monkeys, it was God's will in a separate blessing to give that 'vessel' the human spirit, humanity was not chance, and whilst the rest of evolution is certainly observable as chance, God already knew the path evolution would take. I don't believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis, I believe the only reason for the '7 days' in Genesis was to emphasize how gravely important it is to keep the Sabbath day holy, I believe that is the lesson that God would like us to take away from that scripture as the argument for the origins of man and evolution brings absolutely no benefit to our lives no matter which view you have on the subject, whether you believe either extreme of the spectrum, the literal 7-day creation of the earth or that humanity was created by pure chance without the influence of God, neither gives you any lessons on life, nor teaches you how to live like a child of God.

I think that if God thought that the answer to this question was important to our lives, He surely would've given a Prophet current or past a message to pass on to us.

Edited by gaspah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How important is the Sabbath? How important is it to know the correct time and Sabbath? I would like to make a statement about time (days). If we could enter a special space ship with no limits on its speed and fly around the universe we would observe the following:

Assume that the space ship accelerates at the same rate as an object falling near earth. So we take off in any direction into space while our ship continues to accelerate – faster and faster until we surpassed the speed of light and we still continued to accelerate. Since the universe is a 4 dimensional sphere we will reach what is the half way point at which we will begin to decelerate until we reach the point from which we left. But we altered our course slightly so we would end up back at earth. For all of us on the special space ship the time to complete our journey around the universe would be about a week or seven earth days. To those that stayed on the earth the journey would have lasted several hundreds of thousands of years.

If we were to ask G-d how long did the journey really take? What would be the true answer – a week (7days) or hundreds of thousands of years? If G-d were to answer according to his clock, I have a feeling that the time would be yet again different.

Are we really commanded to have a Sabbath ever 7th day? Well what would we do if we took a trip around the earth traveling to the west until we returned to the same town from which we left? For fun let us assume that the trip took exactly 7 days. What would be the true Sabbath that we should keep? The 7th day from what we actually experience the Sabbath when we traveled or the Sabbath that was always kept by those that did not take the trip?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C Section 139: Relativistic time shifts and the sabbath... :P

Honestly, I think we'd just use whatever Sunday is at our current location on Earth, or, if we're in space, probably just every 7th 24hour block based on whatever multiple of the speed of light we're going. Time is relative, so I think we'd base it on how fast time is going in our local area. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This church's official stance on the Creation is this: there is no official stance. The packet you refer to is just a collection of quotes by GAs from a very long time ago (and so are obviously anti-evolution) that don't reflect the church's views today. I'm not sure why they have it.

Besides, the philosophy of BYU, as far as I can see it, is thus: truth is truth, no matter the source. For this reason, I think that I can pray to know if some principle of science is true just as much as I can pray to know if the Book of Mormon is true. God is the author of all truth.

Even if we have the exact knowledge on what did happen, it still cannot be taught for many in the church are not ready and spiritual immature to receive further enlightenment. I found this out several times as I converse with others on the many gems in the both the Book of Abraham and Genesis [book of Moses]. You simply cannot teach them what is instructed to us personally. ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we observe myosis in a single living cell we will observe what scientist call differentiation as the cell begins to unwind its DNA and separate the cell into two parts. As this process continues the cell will eventually divide. When the division has taken place there will be two cells as different from each other as from the original cell. This is evolution and it takes place millions of times each day in every human. It is not just a theory but an observable event. Once the division is complete there are two possibilities, disassociation which results in the two new cells completely separating and going their separate ways as two new life forms that are children to the original. The second is integration; this is when the new cells form symbiosis relationships with each other which will define a higher single live form from multi cells.

From a single cell of a single kind or type in the beginning of a human will come enormous numbers of different KINDS of cells for bones, eyes, heart, lungs, skin and every other part of a human being. This process is evolution pure and simple and it exists and can be observed by anyone willing to see it for themselves. It is evolutionary adaptation through regeneration of life. There is no evidence that there ever has been any other method for genesis of life that exists so abundantly. Every known living thing springs from this architecture. To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation.

The Traveler

great! but this didnt answer my question, and really no matter what you answer I will not be happy with it unless you stated that evolutions public definition is not even close to a scientific definition, and that very few scientific definitions will agree. for example

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

so even though you are talking about Biological evolution and not stellar evolution, you are still talking about cellular myosis vrs heritable changes in a population that require some sort of selection to take place. (not that i disagree)

so you also basic said the same thing as Dr. Futuyma, that really "evolution is merely change."

lets say that again: evolution is merely change.

its hard to argue with change, and change is readily observable, and change is also readily observable over large measures of time, so thats hard to argue against as well.

and here is a problem, evolution is merely change, but it claims more than change.

the next big claim it makes is on time. Im not talking about the relativity short time you posted, but vast amounts of time for their outcomes to take place, and thats stupid. Science has shown that millions of years go by with virtually no "change" then in a geological (i use this term because this is where the record is) blink of an eye, an entire change in the earths biodiversity. so time itself is not a mechanism.

the next thing equated with evolution is "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"

selection is easy to define, as it is the trait that continues.

"fittest" is impossible to define.

but how do we define natural? I see the process as being the pressures or vacuums of the environment.

Darwin called artificial selection things like selective breeding, well, how about ants that keep herds of aphids? is that natural or artificial?

anywho, I am getting sick of typing. the main point is that evolution morphs into whatever it needs to at the moment to say its true, and that if it is going to claim to be "truth" then it needs to be defined. Evolution has turned to the federal courts to protect itself, not to science, nor to answering questions. Evolution is guilty of the same things it claims are reasons creation science or cataclysm theory or ID are not scientific. its statements like this:To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation.

only with your personal definition of evolution.

I am not promoting any of those btw. I am just saying evolution has huge holes in it. like it cant be defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great! but this didnt answer my question, and really no matter what you answer I will not be happy with it unless you stated that evolutions public definition is not even close to a scientific definition, and that very few scientific definitions will agree. for example

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

so even though you are talking about Biological evolution and not stellar evolution, you are still talking about cellular myosis vrs heritable changes in a population that require some sort of selection to take place. (not that i disagree)

so you also basic said the same thing as Dr. Futuyma, that really "evolution is merely change."

lets say that again: evolution is merely change.

its hard to argue with change, and change is readily observable, and change is also readily observable over large measures of time, so thats hard to argue against as well.

and here is a problem, evolution is merely change, but it claims more than change.

the next big claim it makes is on time. Im not talking about the relativity short time you posted, but vast amounts of time for their outcomes to take place, and thats stupid. Science has shown that millions of years go by with virtually no "change" then in a geological (i use this term because this is where the record is) blink of an eye, an entire change in the earths biodiversity. so time itself is not a mechanism.

the next thing equated with evolution is "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"

selection is easy to define, as it is the trait that continues.

"fittest" is impossible to define.

but how do we define natural? I see the process as being the pressures or vacuums of the environment.

Darwin called artificial selection things like selective breeding, well, how about ants that keep herds of aphids? is that natural or artificial?

anywho, I am getting sick of typing. the main point is that evolution morphs into whatever it needs to at the moment to say its true, and that if it is going to claim to be "truth" then it needs to be defined. Evolution has turned to the federal courts to protect itself, not to science, nor to answering questions. Evolution is guilty of the same things it claims are reasons creation science or cataclysm theory or ID are not scientific. its statements like this:To deny evolution is to deny new life and creation.

only with your personal definition of evolution.

I am not promoting any of those btw. I am just saying evolution has huge holes in it. like it cant be defined.

Nothing against Futuyma's remark but has anyone in the science community seen anything evolve from an Ape to human? No. As anyone seen a collapse star or a dieing star that supposed to be the next blackhole? No. What creditability is there in this field when we keep speculating and assuming that purportedly to be a academic truism? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If everything had to be rigidly and 100% proven as fact (in contrast to science's "this is the best explanation we have, and such-and-such is why), then mathematics would be the only thing we'd ever teach.

I think this answers both of your questions. There is evidence for evolution, evidence for black hole formation, evidence for uniformitarianism, etc, but you're expecting some sort of mathematical proof for it that doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing against Futuyma's remark but has anyone in the science community seen anything evolve from an Ape to human? No.

No scientist worth *anything* believes men come from apes. (unless they're mocking religionists)

As anyone seen a collapse star or a dieing star that supposed to be the next blackhole? No.

But there are scientists that are really looking forward to observing that very thing. And we may have cases where we *are* seeing that very thing, and haven't realized it yet.

What creditability is there in this field when we keep speculating and assuming that purportedly to be a academic truism? :confused:

Speculation is part of the process of the mind seeking answers. It's a good thing. We do the same in the Church. We may have an absolute witness that the Book of Mormon is true. We take that and begin to make inferences, and then test those to see if they hold true in practice. Same as science, just the tools of investigation are different.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share