Joseph Smith and the Orgin & Progress of Life

[Hemidakota]

By Professor Ron Millett

EXCERPT: This year commemorates the 200 th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of the origins and progress of life is considered by many to be proved, irrefutable and universally accepted. A key part of modern variations of this theory is that life is believed to have its origin in the world's oceans as amino acids were randomly created and these dead chemicals somehow became alive. 1

Joseph Smith taught that matter consists of physical and spiritual elements that have existed eternally. He also taught that there also is something called intelligence , which is able to act for itself in controlling matter and also exists eternally.

ARTICLE LINK: Meridian Magazine:: Ideas and Society: Joseph Smith and the Origin and Progress of Life

[Maya]

Aaah Hemi you beat me to it! Well I had a feeling someone had that up already, I was a bit late. I think this was so interesting! Need to think a bit more!

[Hemidakota]

What to gain from this article, even you have the same opportunity to experience the same.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Maya]

I think this was an ipodserie by Backyard professor, that talks about the same: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Yes you did nto need to create lif as it already excisted, but you needed to create ... to put the athoms(what ever) intelignces in the right order to get a flower, a tree, a stone, an animal, a human.... shape to life... and God created us to his shape to his like... a man and a woman. Nothing is by chanse all has meaning! What a wondefur and powerful plan! Love it!:)

[Traveler]

I think this was an ipodserie by Backyard professor, that talks about the same: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Yes you did nto need to create lif as it already excisted, but you needed to create ... to put the athoms(what ever) intelignces in the right order to get a flower, a tree, a stone, an animal, a human.... shape to life... and God created us to his shape to his like... a man and a woman. Nothing is by chanse all has meaning! What a wondefur and powerful plan! Love it!:)

Quantum mechanics is better understood when considering that matter and its properties are organized and capable of intelligence.

It is also interesting to me that Joseph put forth the idea that the universe is organized based on suns (and other star types) that are sustained by divine power. Although Joseph did not state it specifically black holes are an evolutionary sun and the engines of galaxies. And I might add that black holes are the most efficient engines known to exist. In the book of Enoch the L-rd tells Enoch that all matter (in our universe subject to the fall as revealed by Joseph Smith) will degenerate to a corrupt state which G-d will cleanse and restore to a purified state in stars.

The Traveler

[Maya]

"And I might add that black holes are the most efficient engines known to exist."

I would like to know more anbout this and black holes meaning, what are they giood for... engines.... for unierse? Keeping it moving? I have to say I am pretty much ignorent og these black holes. Do they suck in them planets? What are they?

[Hemidakota]

Black holes are nothing more than conduits for matter exchanges...see what a Neuron does in the brain with passing matter back and forth.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Hemidakota

[DigitalShadow]

That article does a horrendous job of representing any scientific viewpoint.

The media has been abuzz with the reports of a 47-million-year-old monkey-like fossil that researchers say could revolutionize the understanding of human evolution. In fact, The New York Times recently reported that the find “is the first stop in a coordinated, branded media event, orchestrated by the scientists and the History Channel, including a film detailing the secretive two-year study of the fossil, a book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News and an elaborate Web site. This is a response.

While it is an important scientific find, it does not really "revolutionize" anything. The media, the History Channel, and a few scientists looking to become famous have been hyping it as a changing everything because they want to make money. Most of the scientific community see it for what it is, an interesting part of our history that gives more insight to the early evolutionary tree of primates.

This year commemorates the 200 th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory of the origins and progress of life is considered by many to be proved, irrefutable and universally accepted. A key part of modern variations of this theory is that life is believed to have its origin in the world's oceans as amino acids were randomly created and these dead chemicals somehow became alive.

Darwin never had a theory of the origins of life, only the theory that natural selection caused the change of organisms over time and even with that he only had a very rough understanding of how it happened. Darwin didn't even have a mechanism for these changes since there was no concept of DNA or genes at the time. The spontaneous origin of life is also interesting, but completely unrelated to the theory of evolution which only deals with how organisms change over time. However, if you would honestly like to learn about some of the recent research on the spontaneous origin of life rather than a mocking summary, I suggest this article: How RNA Got Started / Science News

Even though many of Darwin 's followers emphasized a spontaneous generation of life via purely non-intelligent processes and “were anxious to banish from science all supernatural explanations for the origin of life,” Charles Darwin himself may have not believed the same. In the On the Origin of Species , he says: “ I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed by the Creator .”

This quote is assumed by many of Darwin 's followers as a bone thrown by Darwin to liberal Christians to placate them and that by doing so Darwin was “misrepresenting his own views on life's origin.” The last phrase “into which life was first breathed by the Creator” was removed altogether in the third edition, after the phrase “by the Creator” had been added in the second edition.

In 1870, Darwin 's most dedicated proponent, Thomas Huxley, spoke in a widely published address “ Acknowledging that Darwinian science implied a naturalistic origin of life, Huxley posited that living organisms had arisen on the primitive Earth in a series of stages from nonliving matter. This concept he labeled ‘abiogenesis' ….Judging by his private correspondence, Darwin seems largely to have concurred with Huxley's version of a naturalistic origin of life.”

While I suppose these sections are interesting from a historical point of view, they really have absolutely no bearing on modern science or the modern theory of evolution. If the article truly wanted to compare religious theories against evolutionary theories, focusing on Darwin is silly and misleading. I am no more a "follower of Darwin" for finding evolution to be a well supported scientific principle than I am a "follower of Newton" for finding calculus to be a useful tool. While Darwin may have gotten the ball rolling, he only had a primitive understanding at best of what he was theorizing. No scientist today believes Darwin had the complete picture and single-mindedly follows the "teachings" of Darwin as this article seems to ridiculously imply. In the 100+ years since his original research scientists have fleshed out the theory and has independently found supporting evidence across many different fields of research. If you want to completely dismiss this wealth of scientific knowledge, you are welcome to, but claiming it call came from Darwin is simply wrong.

Edited May 28, 2009 by DigitalShadow

[Guest Godless]

While I suppose these sections are interesting from a historical point of view, they really have absolutely no bearing on modern science or the modern theory of evolution. If the article truly wanted to compare religious theories against evolutionary theories, focusing on Darwin is silly and misleading. I am no more a "follower of Darwin" for finding evolution to be a well supported scientific principle than I am a "follower of Newton" for finding calculus to be a useful tool. While Darwin may have gotten the ball rolling, he only had a primitive understanding at best of what he was theorizing. No scientist today believes Darwin had the complete picture and single-mindedly follows the "teachings" of Darwin as this article seems to ridiculously imply. In the 100+ years since his original research scientists have fleshed out the theory and has independently found supporting evidence across many fields different of research. If you want to completely dismiss this wealth of scientific knowledge, you are welcome to, but claiming it call came from Darwin is simply wrong.

Agreed. One important thing to keep in mind is that Darwin knew absolutely nothing about DNA, genetic properties, or molecular biology. Nor did he have access to the ever-expanding fossil record that modern scientists are able to use to put the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle together. Darwin's work was an important catalyst to the rise of evolutionary theory, but most of the research, methods, and discoveries that have been used to develop the theory came long after Darwin.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Shadow.

That article does a horrendous job of representing any scientific viewpoint.

Yeah, I'm with you on this one. I'm a doctoral student in entomology, and I work with evolution on a regular basis. Bro. Millett clearly has very little understanding of the history and the science of biology. I'm sure he would be very upset if I wrote an article about how computer scientists like him are just blind followers of George Stibitz (the guy who "invented" the modern computer), and professed that his understanding of computers is fundamentally flawed.

Not that I can really blame him: biology education in the US (and in Utah, in particular) is pathetic.

-----

Darwin never had a theory of the origins of life...

Well, he did come up with the "warm pool" idea, but that doesn't count as a scientific theory.

-----

The spontaneous origin of life is also interesting, but completely unrelated to the theory of evolution which only deals with how organisms change over time.

Too many people confuse these issues. I debate at EvC Forum, where countless threads have been filled with attempts to explain that "evolution" is not a term that embodies everything in opposition to the Christian mythos, and is not synonymous with "atheism" or "the Big Bang Theroy," but is a specific theory intended to describe a limited set of phenomena associated with the processes of life.

I cannot stress this enough: The Theory of Evolution does not require any specific type of origin. For instance, if God created a number of life forms, those life forms could still evolve in accordance with the Theory of Evolution. If life arose spontaneously from a pool of muck, those life forms could still evolve in accordance with the Theory of Evolution.

-----

If the article truly wanted to compare religious theories against evolutionary theories, focusing on Darwin is silly and misleading. I am no more a "follower of Darwin" for finding evolution to be a well supported scientific principle than I am a "follower of Newton" for finding calculus to be a useful tool.

It's extremely hard, for some reason, for many religious people to grasp the thought processes involved in science, which are not supposed to be motivated by beliefs, but by observations and supporting evidence. Religion is fundamentally built on the concept of trusting authority, but science is not. For instance, I have never read The Origin of Species, and have no plans to do so in the near future. Most of the reading I do in science is literature from the last decade or two, because that's where all the good stuff is. I do not subscribe to the Theory of Evolution because someone converted me to it or because I respect Darwin's authority or persona, but because I have spent time, on my hands and knees, collecting data with my own hands that affirms the Theory of Evolution.

The bottom line is that, if we are going to Hell for our belief in evolution, it won't be because we blindly followed Darwin there, but because the evidence led us there.

[Traveler]

"And I might add that black holes are the most efficient engines known to exist."

I would like to know more anbout this and black holes meaning, what are they giood for... engines.... for unierse? Keeping it moving? I have to say I am pretty much ignorent og these black holes. Do they suck in them planets? What are they?

Black holes are very interesting and we are learning more about them all the time. For example it was just discovered that every galaxy has a “super black hole” at its center. Scientists are not sure what all the centered black hole does but the general idea is that galaxies cannot exist without a super black hole at its center.

The other important thing to realize is that black holes are what all stars will become if they continue to evolve long enough. As far as being efficient – if you had a black hole powering your car you would get about 300,000 years worth of driving on a gallon of gas. This is based on the amount of energy released when matter is sucked into a black hole.

Another interesting thing is that even though a black hole captures all matter near it there is a very strange thing that occurs with that matter called evaporation. This is a difficult thing to explain but is part of quantum mechanics. In essence it is a means for matter to escape and is determined by how much matter the black hole has. When this was discovered it caused major problems with the Big Bang theory – because a Black hole will evaporate before it will bang when taking on matter.

Black holes may be more key to things – since they change physics and time and space - who knows but that they play a role in maintaining the fallen universe according to the fall of man and that when man is no longer fallen may also play a part in the purifying and eternal nature that will come to be. One thing a star will do just before becoming a black hole is what is called super Nova. I have wondered if a super nova was the star of Bethlehem that gave off enough energy to cause the ozone to become fluorescent causing continual light during the night in the Americas. And again another super nova that gives off enough energy to change the earth when Christ comes again.

The Traveler

[LittleWyvern]

Haha, you lost me at irrefutable. Nothing in science is irrefutable, not even evolution. It's just that nobody has refuted it yet.

[Traveler]

Okay – To be honest I seldom read articles that try to cross science and religion and come to any conclusion. I feel that in almost all cases it is the two master’s paradoxes. Either scientific method is misrepresented to make religious ideology more appealing or vice versa.

I did not find anything astonishing when I finely read the article. For me it was a no-op. As near as I can determine going beyond the article to modern science and religion there is no comprehensive definition of life. We have been unable to even define human life (via science or religion) to put an end to the abortion debate. The last time I checked we were still arguing about if virus is a life form or not. Small wonder that the origin of something not well defined is illusive. For me the article provided no new and exciting insight into science or the particular concepts of evolution. I consider myself a hard core evolutionist but to be honest I do not believe everything that is said by every evolutionist. The article did not shed much light to me concerning Joseph Smith. I also consider myself to be a hard core LDS but I do not believe everything that is said by every LDS.

There was one thing in the article that I believe is misunderstood by lots of LDS and evolutionist concerning the contribution of Joseph Smith to thoughts about life and what life is. The concept given by Joseph is that life has no beginning or creation nor does it have an end or death. What he proposed was that what we call life was the uniting of something already living with physical stuff and death is the opposite; the separation of that which is alive from that physical stuff.

Joseph associated already life entity to intelligence; intelligence being something that is capable of learning and changing. This looks a lot like evolution to me. But there is something that many religious thinkers have great difficulty considering. That is, that what makes something live was not created by G-d. That the act of divine creation was combining physical stuff (which is stuff that also already existed in various forms we call matter and energy in science) with that which is already life so that the living entity can react directly with the physical stuff in a manner that it could not previously. I have never found anything proven in science that contradicts this concept.

I think the greater insight comes in considering the contribution Joseph has to the religious community. This is revolutionary to traditional concepts of G-d, his creation and origins or genesis of man as well as all other life. It provides a most revolutionary way to interpret and understand scripture. I personally find these religious concepts fascinating and intriguing. It truly puts the religious community on it head (with some possible exceptions to some far eastern religious concepts) and opens up opportunity for scientific discussion as well when we consider the event horizon of the Big Bang theory spoken of by Steven Hockings. But for many in both religion and science such things are forbidden territories of consideration.

If there are any willing to journey into such forbidden territories – please consider The Traveler as one interested in your thought and discoveries. If you are willing to take some chances – I have many questions I would like to consider in such a journey.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

Too many people confuse these issues.

True that. Doesn't help that Creationism (a theory of how life started) is often by people on both sides held up as the opposite of Evolution (a theory on how life changes).

[Bluejay]

Hi, Dravin.

True that. Doesn't help that Creationism (a theory of how life started) is often by people on both sides held up as the opposite of Evolution (a theory on how life changes).

I'm not sure I'm going to back you up with this one.

What I have learned during my time in the evolution vs creation debate is that the primary effort of Creationism and Intelligent Design is exerted in attacking the Theory of Evolution: very little else is put forward at all. In fact, there is very little that has been put forward in terms of an actual theory of Creationism, at all: there are some ideas and opinions out there, but none of them satisfies the scientific definition of "theory"*.

-----

*For those who don't know: a scientific "theory" is a model the describes all available evidence and has "stood the test of time": outlasting its rivals and weathering the storm of naysayers, who usually attack the theory very vehemently. For an example, read about the hobbit, Homo floresiensis: two ideas (hypotheses) were put forth to explain what this cretaure was, and, after a vicious exchange of papers supporting both sides, one hypothesis has faltered under the pressure, and the other is still going strong and gaining momentum. The one that is still going has outlasted all of its competitors, and so, has earned the right to be called a scientific theory.

[Dravin]

What I have learned during my time in the evolution vs creation debate is that the primary effort of Creationism and Intelligent Design is exerted in attacking the Theory of Evolution:

The Theory of Evolution or the theory of life out of primordial goop by accident?. I'm not overly hep on the Creationism camp (its a debate I don't stick my neck in generally). That's probably a different issue as well, the Theory of Evolution is fairly unified I doubt the various arguments that get called Creationism are such.

My point was that Evolution being a theory about how life changes not the origins of life gets confused because so often (by people on both sides, random people) tend to depict Creation as the exact opposite of Evolution, so if some random guy takes a glance he sees, "God (or something) made everything and that's how life happened" is the opposite of this evolution deal, so this evolution deal must mean, "God didn't create everything we happened by accident." It's like the old saw that Evolution means I'm a monkey's uncle or I'm descendant from apes. That's not what it means but it's a matter of perception rather than of reality.

there are some ideas and opinions out there, but none of them satisfies the scientific definition of "theory"*.

I didn't call it a scientific theory. Creationism is a theory just like, "Gremlins ate my other sock." is a theory for why my sock is missing. Actually Evolution is a theory in that sense as well it's just also a theory in the scientific sense.

P.S. I may completely be misunderstanding what exactly Creationism means or some nuances of Evolution, but as a random Joe I'm probably not the only one.

[Traveler]

One of the big debates is if anything can happen by accident. I have yet to meet a scientist that believes in what is called random cause. The closest I have seen are various ideas in quantum mechanics and chaos theory. But this is a misnomer. The variances described in these theories are very narrow and each variance is a calculated probability. There is a difference between random occurrences and calculated probabilities.

In general, a basic premise of science is that when necessary and sufficient parameters are known the outcome is determined and when the outcome is not determinable the reason is that sufficient and necessary parameters are not known.

Very often apologist for religious theories intruding into science relies on what is often called the G-d of the gaps. In other words anything that is not understood or explained in science is therefore done by an unknowable G-d whose methods cannot be understood. With this construct any logical explanation of a previous mystery attributed to G-d becomes a threat to believing in G-d.

Something else that Joseph Smith introduced into religious thought is that scientific truth and religious truth although different perspectives are parts of a whole and when truly understood never contradict. In addition Joseph Smith introduced that G-d is a master of natural law and therefore has no need to break or circumvent eternal laws. As I understand traditional concepts it is believed that G-d is so powerful that he does whatever he wants whenever he wants with no rhyme or reason. Therefore if rhyme or reason to anything divine is discovered then it disproves an all powerful G-d.

It is my opinion that many traditional Christian concepts are driveled from philosophies of men mingled from time to time with some interpretations scripture. Thus the more truth that is known and understood the more such concepts fail and the more the gap is widened between science and religion. I believe Joseph Smith taught that the ultimate science is religion and vice versa. Or another way to put it is that the ultimate destiny of man is to become a knowledgeable and powerful creator capable of scientifically putting together a universe as complex as the one we currently inhabit. This also means that ultimate wisdom and intelligence includes ultimate love, compassion and mercy.

Thus to an informed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints accepting Jesus is becoming one with him in every way that he is. To reject anything of G-d and not accept it as our own is to reject him. To say man cannot become a g-d is to say G-d cannot do such a thing. So the only thing to stop (or damn) us is our belief in him.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Agreed. One important thing to keep in mind is that Darwin knew absolutely nothing about DNA, genetic properties, or molecular biology. Nor did he have access to the ever-expanding fossil record that modern scientists are able to use to put the pieces of the evolutionary puzzle together. Darwin's work was an important catalyst to the rise of evolutionary theory, but most of the research, methods, and discoveries that have been used to develop the theory came long after Darwin.

Useless time in trying to fabricate an historical timeline since this earth for one wasn't even formed in this solar system and will eventually be moved back to the original source. If yo look close, you will find the next earth will be placed in this exact obit for the next generation of humans.

Next to that, this earth is made up of passing earths that failed to live up to the commandment given to them. Mixture of many earths and finding truths in the soil, is pure fantasy. Not only Darwin was wrong, I can bet he is pretty much apologizing across the veil.

[Hemidakota]

Black holes are very interesting and we are learning more about them all the time. For example it was just discovered that every galaxy has a “super black hole” at its center. Scientists are not sure what all the centered black hole does but the general idea is that galaxies cannot exist without a super black hole at its center.

The other important thing to realize is that black holes are what all stars will become if they continue to evolve long enough. As far as being efficient – if you had a black hole powering your car you would get about 300,000 years worth of driving on a gallon of gas. This is based on the amount of energy released when matter is sucked into a black hole.

Another interesting thing is that even though a black hole captures all matter near it there is a very strange thing that occurs with that matter called evaporation. This is a difficult thing to explain but is part of quantum mechanics. In essence it is a means for matter to escape and is determined by how much matter the black hole has. When this was discovered it caused major problems with the Big Bang theory – because a Black hole will evaporate before it will bang when taking on matter.

Black holes may be more key to things – since they change physics and time and space - who knows but that they play a role in maintaining the fallen universe according to the fall of man and that when man is no longer fallen may also play a part in the purifying and eternal nature that will come to be. One thing a star will do just before becoming a black hole is what is called super Nova. I have wondered if a super nova was the star of Bethlehem that gave off enough energy to cause the ozone to become fluorescent causing continual light during the night in the Americas. And again another super nova that gives off enough energy to change the earth when Christ comes again.

The Traveler

According to Stephen Hawkins, he believes this is not the case of stars becoming black holes. Wasn't it found the not only matter is being sucked up but there is a excretion of matter also coming forth from the same source. I truly agree with his belief or theory when stars are nothing more than gloried planets and when finally used up, is placed back into chaos or inert matter for another world. Reuse is a constant in this universe and will continue until the next state of existence of progression beyond the celestial kingdom.

[Hemidakota]

One of the big debates is if anything can happen by accident. I have yet to meet a scientist that believes in what is called random cause. The closest I have seen are various ideas in quantum mechanics and chaos theory. But this is a misnomer. The variances described in these theories are very narrow and each variance is a calculated probability. There is a difference between random occurrences and calculated probabilities.

In general, a basic premise of science is that when necessary and sufficient parameters are known the outcome is determined and when the outcome is not determinable the reason is that sufficient and necessary parameters are not known.

Very often apologist for religious theories intruding into science relies on what is often called the G-d of the gaps. In other words anything that is not understood or explained in science is therefore done by an unknowable G-d whose methods cannot be understood. With this construct any logical explanation of a previous mystery attributed to G-d becomes a threat to believing in G-d.

Something else that Joseph Smith introduced into religious thought is that scientific truth and religious truth although different perspectives are parts of a whole and when truly understood never contradict. In addition Joseph Smith introduced that G-d is a master of natural law and therefore has no need to break or circumvent eternal laws. As I understand traditional concepts it is believed that G-d is so powerful that he does whatever he wants whenever he wants with no rhyme or reason. Therefore if rhyme or reason to anything divine is discovered then it disproves an all powerful G-d.

It is my opinion that many traditional Christian concepts are driveled from philosophies of men mingled from time to time with some interpretations scripture. Thus the more truth that is known and understood the more such concepts fail and the more the gap is widened between science and religion. I believe Joseph Smith taught that the ultimate science is religion and vice versa. Or another way to put it is that the ultimate destiny of man is to become a knowledgeable and powerful creator capable of scientifically putting together a universe as complex as the one we currently inhabit. This also means that ultimate wisdom and intelligence includes ultimate love, compassion and mercy.

Thus to an informed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints accepting Jesus is becoming one with him in every way that he is. To reject anything of G-d and not accept it as our own is to reject him. To say man cannot become a g-d is to say G-d cannot do such a thing. So the only thing to stop (or damn) us is our belief in him.

The Traveler

What would it be like to view a working quantum mechanics model?

[Bluejay]

What I have learned during my time in the evolution vs creation debate is that the primary effort of Creationism and Intelligent Design is exerted in attacking the Theory of Evolution

The Theory of Evolution or the theory of life out of primordial goop by accident?

Either way: the creationist camp is generally built around the premise that if any materialistic theory of life can be shown to be flawed, then all materialistic theories go down together and the belief that God magicked the universe into existence is vindicated.

-----

My point was that Evolution being a theory about how life changes not the origins of life gets confused because so often (by people on both sides, random people) tend to depict Creation as the exact opposite of Evolution...

Agreed.

My point was that this is the fault of the creationist camp. Creationism has so far defined itself as an endeavor to defeat the Theory of Evolution and other materialistic theories of science. This is the result of a false dichotomy: creationist leaders labor under the assumption that, if they defeat evolution and abiogenesis (that's the word you were looking for :) ), then creationism is proven true by default.

The Wedge Strategy is a "secret document" written by the Discovery Institute, the leading creationist/IDist research agency, outlining their purpose. This is the relevant quote:

Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.

It isn't that people are misunderstanding what creationism is: it's that creationism is actually defining itself as the opposite of evolution.

Belief in God doesn't have to be that way, though: Traveler is an excellent example of this, and one who has gained my respect after only two posts.

[Dravin]

My point was that this is the fault of the creationist camp. Creationism has so far defined itself as an endeavor to defeat the Theory of Evolution and other materialistic theories of science. This is the result of a false dichotomy: creationist leaders labor under the assumption that, if they defeat evolution and abiogenesis (that's the word you were looking for ), then creationism is proven true by default.

Ah, okay, I got ya now.

For what its worth abiogenesis is a cool word, I just have to find a way to slip it into casual conversation.

[Traveler]

According to Stephen Hawkins, he believes this is not the case of stars becoming black holes. Wasn't it found the not only matter is being sucked up but there is a excretion of matter also coming forth from the same source. I truly agree with his belief or theory when stars are nothing more than gloried planets and when finally used up, is placed back into chaos or inert matter for another world. Reuse is a constant in this universe and will continue until the next state of existence of progression beyond the celestial kingdom.

Black holes do some rather strange things to matter. At the event horizon of a black hole (the same event horizon for light) matter is stretched and become two dimensional. As matter enters the core of a black hole it is further diminished in dimensions to singularity or one dimension. Einstein demonstrated that the universe is expanding but into what. Einstein’s answer was singularity and that is the general thought currently; giving rise to the 4 dimensional sphere as a means to define the universe. There are many reasons for defining singularity this but since all points of singularity are the same the idea was developed for worm holes or the connections of singularity to the same point for all singularities.

Since we know that black holes evaporate the question and speculation has given rise to the possibility that what are evaporated from one black hole were particles sucked into another. Thus the possibility for a theory for travel from one singularity to another.

What we do know is that black holes give off a tremendous amount of energy, mostly in the x-ray frequency in the form of a highly concentrated beam that will destroy anything close enough to the source of that beam (including other stars and planets).

One big problem with the creation of earth is the heavy metals. Our sun will not generate these heavy elements and there is no evidence of a star close enough to have supplied them. But we do know that much of our solar system was created somewhere else different than the place of our sun and many of the lighter elements needed for life. This corresponds to the suggestion from Joseph Smith that the earth was created by matter that already existed.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Imagine how illuminating it would have been to visit Olduvai Gorge with the Prophet Joseph Smith and peruse the rock outcroppings.

[Maya]

Black holes are very interesting and we are learning more about them all the time. For example it was just discovered that every galaxy has a “super black hole” at its center. Scientists are not sure what all the centered black hole does but the general idea is that galaxies cannot exist without a super black hole at its center.

The other important thing to realize is that black holes are what all stars will become if they continue to evolve long enough. As far as being efficient – if you had a black hole powering your car you would get about 300,000 years worth of driving on a gallon of gas. This is based on the amount of energy released when matter is sucked into a black hole.

Another interesting thing is that even though a black hole captures all matter near it there is a very strange thing that occurs with that matter called evaporation. This is a difficult thing to explain but is part of quantum mechanics. In essence it is a means for matter to escape and is determined by how much matter the black hole has. When this was discovered it caused major problems with the Big Bang theory – because a Black hole will evaporate before it will bang when taking on matter.

Black holes may be more key to things – since they change physics and time and space - who knows but that they play a role in maintaining the fallen universe according to the fall of man and that when man is no longer fallen may also play a part in the purifying and eternal nature that will come to be. One thing a star will do just before becoming a black hole is what is called super Nova. I have wondered if a super nova was the star of Bethlehem that gave off enough energy to cause the ozone to become fluorescent causing continual light during the night in the Americas. And again another super nova that gives off enough energy to change the earth when Christ comes again.

The Traveler

Thanks Traveller! Very interesting. I would LOVE to have such a car...

Supernova... possible too.

Sorry about the late answer... been away for a week...