I think evolution and creation are the same.....

[SortOfMormon]

....in some ways. In the Bible it says "And the water brought forth moving creatures." or something like that. "God said Let the earth bring forth living beasts. And it was so." Something like that. I don't get why Christians always have to go around kicking the butts of anyone who believes in evolution. I do not believe man came from apes. Nor do I believe that God said let there be living beasts and ZAP! they were there. I think he created every particle and every atom of the earth. And every living thing evolved. Thats how he created the earth.

Opinions?

[Guest Godless]

There are many misconceptions about the theory of evolution. One of the most frustrating ones is the idea that humans evolved from apes. You'd be hard-pressed to find an evolutionary biologist who believes this. The theory is that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

I don't think religion and evolution are mutually exclusive. There are many faithful Christians and LDS who are able to reconcile scientific theories with their religious beliefs. And I say more power to them.

[Dravin]

There are many misconceptions about the theory of evolution. One of the most frustrating ones is the idea that humans evolved from apes. You'd be hard-pressed to find an evolutionary biologist who believes this. The theory is that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Say what you will about straw men* but that one has an olympic marathon runner's legs.

*I'm referring to Evolution says I'm descended from apes or I'm a monkeys uncle, not calling your correction a straw man.

P.S. What's it mean when your clarifications are longer than the rest of your post?

[its_Chet]

....in some ways. In the Bible it says "And the water brought forth moving creatures." or something like that. "God said Let the earth bring forth living beasts. And it was so." Something like that. I don't get why Christians always have to go around kicking the butts of anyone who believes in evolution. I do not believe man came from apes. Nor do I believe that God said let there be living beasts and ZAP! they were there. I think he created every particle and every atom of the earth. And every living thing evolved. Thats how he created the earth.

Opinions?

I believe it was Henry Eyering who said that the great thing about the Church is that we only have to believe what's true. Sounds simplistic, but the underlying point is a valid one.

We don't paint the truth with theories and interpretations, at least not outside of theoretical discussions between friends.

I believe that God made Adam and Eve in His own image. Exactly how, I don't know. I don't believe He made them to look like cavemen or monkeys. I believe that every human being is a descendant of Adam and Eve. I believe they looked just like us, and that we, as His children, look just like God. Beyond that, I can only speculate.

If the theory of evolution, contrary to everything I've ever been told, does not attempt to challenge these irrefutable facts contained in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is itself the ultimate truth, then I see no reason why it's not at least a possibility.

That would of necessity mean that it does not challenge the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The mistake some people make is to assume that their interpretation of the Gospel is the Gospel itself.

[NeuroTypical]

I've never seen a conflict between the theory evolution and scriptures talking about the creation.

I've seen an endless flood of conflicts between how people INTERPRET the theory of evolution and scriptures talking about the creation.

[EruditioSalvatus]

Religion is here to stay.

Evolution is certainly here to stay.

There's nothing that says they can't be friends unless you truly believe that a god created every single plant an animal species that has, is, and will exist at one specific point in time.

Best quote on evolution, ever.

Besides pointing to traditional fossil forms' date=' or DNA polymorphisms, or tonsils, or domesticated animals, or gene sequences, or male nipples, or common sense, how does one prove evolution?[/quote']

[Misshalfway]

....in some ways. In the Bible it says "And the water brought forth moving creatures." or something like that. "God said Let the earth bring forth living beasts. And it was so." Something like that. I don't get why Christians always have to go around kicking the butts of anyone who believes in evolution. I do not believe man came from apes. Nor do I believe that God said let there be living beasts and ZAP! they were there. I think he created every particle and every atom of the earth. And every living thing evolved. Thats how he created the earth.

Opinions?

I don't "Know" that this is how God created the earth and all the life forms found on it. I guess that perhaps evolution is one of the tools in a very broad tool belt.

Until God comes down and give us a clear "Creation 101", I think there will always be questions. And I for one have no problem saying "I don't know."

Until then, I will continue to appreciate Joseph Smith's admonition that we are to learn as much as we can from reliable sources and from "the best books."

[Vort]

There are many misconceptions about the theory of evolution. One of the most frustrating ones is the idea that humans evolved from apes. You'd be hard-pressed to find an evolutionary biologist who believes this. The theory is that humans and apes share a common ancestor.

I consider this distinction meaningless. Suppose a community of the protoapes/protohominids were found alive and well today. How would they be classified? Without any doubt, they would be classified as apes.

Most anthropologists that I have heard do not contend that humans evolved from the ape; rather, they contend that humans are a type of ape. Biologically, this seems an undeniable truism, considering (for example) that chimpanzees are genetically closer to humans than they are to gorillas or orangutans.

[Vort]

Nor do I believe that God said let there be living beasts and ZAP! they were there. I think he created every particle and every atom of the earth.

What does this mean? Do you believe that God said, "Let there be particles and atoms" and ZAP! they were there?

[SortOfMormon]

What does this mean? Do you believe that God said, "Let there be particles and atoms" and ZAP! they were there?

I don't know. I don't think he said "Let there be whales!" And ZAP! they were there just as they are today. I think he created every particle and atom in the world. But how, no clue. But then he made everything out of them. And then he made whales and fish evolve from little ,tiny organisms in the water and thats how he made them. Not just by going ZAP! I don't know too much about this sort of thing to say a lot. This is just all my opinion.

[AnthonyB]

Vort,

A study of particle physics may be illuminating for you. Particles can occur out of nothing and then return to nothing. Zap and a particle and its anti-particle can occur, then moments later run into each other and be annihilated. This isn't mere abstract "jiggery-pokery" but an important physics concept that is useful in all sorts of things, like how "black" holes emit energy.

I know LDS have a theology mindset against creation ex-nihilo. However since we now know from Physics that our universe regularly creates and destory matter on a routine basis, I don't think allowing God to do so is that mind blowing.

The LDS response to this shouldn't be IMHO to deny ex-nihilo creation within our universe but to look to the very likely reality that there are dimensions that are not used in our universe. That matter that appears out of nowhere in our universe is merely being transfered in from the dimensions not used here (String theory currently holds that there is 7 unused dimension curled up within our universe).

This would allow you to hold that (along with Traditional Christians) that God the Father is creator of all matter within our universe, all that we can currently interact with. However it says nothing about the dimension which are outside this universe leaving room for your much more complex cosmology/theology. Celestial glorification could in this sense be seen as gaining access to these other dimensions, in which God himself resides.

I'm sure someone like "atrain" could have done a much better job of Lds'ing the above.

Edited July 17, 2009 by AnthonyB

[AnthonyB]

As for creationism, I'd have 3 points....

Firstly, what does a "day" mean before there was a sun and earth. To demand a day meant 24 hours before there was an earth always strikes me as odd.

Secondly let there be light, is just another way of saying let there be electro-magnetic energy (of which light is a part). Oddly enough that is the very kind of stuff that science sense our universe started out from.

Thirdly putting the sun, moon and stars in the heavens after the creation of plant life is very clever. Since it is very likely that until plant life sequestered a lot of stuff out of our atmosphere someone on the surface (if ther had have been someone) would not have been able to see anything. The sun, moon and stars would not probably have been visible until after plant life begun the process of filtering clean our atmosphere.

[NaturalSelect]

As 'Godless' stated, evolutionists believe that Man did not descend from apes, but that man an apes and all primapes share a common ancestor.

I believe in the theory of natural selection.

Darwin's big for this theory...

Random genetic mutations occur within any single organism, and over time, these genetic mutations that actually aid in the survival of the organism develop over time as the organism gains more and more of these beneficial mutations, and over time, this organism has transformed into a whole different organism.

[EruditioSalvatus]

It's hard for anyone not to believe (accept, recognize) in natural selection. I don't know how one could not accept natural selection, but I'm sure they're out there.

If you look at the divine source as a gardener, and the world the garden, it's not hard to see that creationism and natural selection can work hand in hand. This divine gardener plants 'seeds' that eventually grow and adapt into the plants and animals that populate the earth now.

[bmy-]

Vort,

A study of particle physics may be illuminating for you. Particles can occur out of nothing and then return to nothing. Zap and a particle and its anti-particle can occur, then moments later run into each other and be annihilated. This isn't mere abstract "jiggery-pokery" but an important physics concept that is useful in all sorts of things, like how "black" holes emit energy.

I know LDS have a theology mindset against creation ex-nihilo. However since we now know from Physics that our universe regularly creates and destory matter on a routine basis, I don't think allowing God to do so is that mind blowing.

The LDS response to this shouldn't be IMHO to deny ex-nihilo creation within our universe but to look to the very likely reality that there are dimensions that are not used in our universe. That matter that appears out of nowhere in our universe is merely being transfered in from the dimensions not used here (String theory currently holds that there is 7 unused dimension curled up within our universe).

This would allow you to hold that (along with Traditional Christians) that God the Father is creator of all matter within our universe, all that we can currently interact with. However it says nothing about the dimension which are outside this universe leaving room for your much more complex cosmology/theology. Celestial glorification could in this sense be seen as gaining access to these other dimensions, in which God himself resides.

I'm sure someone like "atrain" could have done a much better job of Lds'ing the above.

The 1st law is still in place.. and that the net energy of our (multi?) universe is the same as it has been for the last 13 billion years. There's nothing ex-nihilo about particles appearing to pop in and out of existence. They come from somewhere.

Creation itself was not ex-nihilo.

[NaturalSelect]

It's hard for anyone not to believe (accept, recognize) in natural selection. I don't know how one could not accept natural selection, but I'm sure they're out there.

If you look at the divine source as a gardener, and the world the garden, it's not hard to see that creationism and natural selection can work hand in hand. This divine gardener plants 'seeds' that eventually grow and adapt into the plants and animals that populate the earth now.

There is no way to prove this. But people fill these unknown gaps with 'God' for all of these unexplainable things, and as we advance in knowledge, science seems to fill these gaps where God was the excuse.

I do not believe that God and science can go hand in hand. Some organisms were consumed in time and died out, while other complex organisms evolved for survival, not because God wanted them to do so.

[Vort]

Vort,

A study of particle physics may be illuminating for you. Particles can occur out of nothing and then return to nothing. Zap and a particle and its anti-particle can occur, then moments later run into each other and be annihilated. This isn't mere abstract "jiggery-pokery" but an important physics concept that is useful in all sorts of things, like how "black" holes emit energy.

Thanks for the advice, Anthony. As it turns out, I'm pretty well-acquainted with quantum physics, at least as far as your example goes. Particles can indeed "zap into existence", but only for the Planck time, which is an exceedingly small time interval. Past that time interval, these "virtual particles" cannot exist in the real universe unless another equivalent mass nearby ceases to exist. (This idea is the basis of the theory that black holes "evaporate"; virtual particle/antiparticle pairs occur right at the event horizon, with the particle outside the event horizon and the antiparticle inside. Under the right circumstances, the particle can escape the event horizon, in effect exiting the black hole, while the antiparticle goes into the black hole and reduces its mass, in effect "evaporating" the black hole a particle at a time.)

The upshot of this is that, in a sense, the law of conservation of mass can be locally violated, but only for the Planck time (about 5.39 x 10^-44 second, or enough time for light to travel one-billion trillionth the diameter of a proton). After that time, the books must be balanced again, so to speak. So the idea of God creating everything out of nothing is still hogwash, and quantum physics says nothing to bolster that particular sectarian false doctrine.

[DigitalShadow]

Thanks for the advice, Anthony. As it turns out, I'm pretty well-acquainted with quantum physics, at least as far as your example goes. Particles can indeed "zap into existence", but only for the Planck time, which is an exceedingly small time interval. Past that time interval, these "virtual particles" cannot exist in the real universe unless another equivalent mass nearby ceases to exist. (This idea is the basis of the theory that black holes "evaporate"; virtual particle/antiparticle pairs occur right at the event horizon, with the particle outside the event horizon and the antiparticle inside. Under the right circumstances, the particle can escape the event horizon, in effect exiting the black hole, while the antiparticle goes into the black hole and reduces its mass, in effect "evaporating" the black hole a particle at a time.)

The upshot of this is that, in a sense, the law of conservation of mass can be locally violated, but only for the Planck time (about 5.39 x 10^-44 second, or enough time for light to travel one-billion trillionth the diameter of a proton). After that time, the books must be balanced again, so to speak. So the idea of God creating everything out of nothing is still hogwash, and quantum physics says nothing to bolster that particular sectarian false doctrine.

I've heard of those concepts but never seen it explained quite so succinctly.

[Vort]

I've heard of those concepts but never seen it explained quite so succinctly.

I appreciate the compliment. Perhaps the grad school physics wasn't a total waste after all.

[AnthonyB]

Vort,

Given your studies I'm surprised by your opinions.

Bottom line for me is that matter is created and destroyed in our space-time universe. The fact that it balances out over a large enough sample area (or long enough time) doesn't negate that individual particles cease to exist and others appear form nowhere.

My main point however was that if there exists dimensions outside our universe (as string theory indicates) then matter might just be eternal just not eternal in our universe. Traditional creation ex-nihilo would stand within our dimensions but eternal matter from the higher dimensions may well be the deeper truth.

I'm curious about your ideas on cosmological beginnings. If you following Hawking's then there is no time, space or matter within our universe before it began. So what are your views? Do you hold to a repeating expansion and contraction? Or do you hold to steady-state (which from my opinion seems to align with LDS doctrines best)Do you accept the possibility of dimension that are curled up in our universe?

[Vort]

Given your studies I'm surprised by your opinions.

It's always surprising and a bit baffling to find that people don't agree with us.

Bottom line for me is that matter is created and destroyed in our space-time universe.

This exhibits an incorrect understanding of the ideas put forth.

The fact that it balances out over a large enough sample area (or long enough time) doesn't negate that individual particles cease to exist and others appear form nowhere.

Actually, it does indeed negate that.

My main point however was that if there exists dimensions outside our universe (as string theory indicates) then matter might just be eternal just not eternal in our universe. Traditional creation ex-nihilo would stand within our dimensions but eternal matter from the higher dimensions may well be the deeper truth.

I know of no physical observation that would even suggest such an idea.

Of course, if you're married to ex nihilo creationism, I guess you can think up whatever ideas you like to keep it viable. I'm not, so I don't.

I'm curious about your ideas on cosmological beginnings. If you following Hawking's then there is no time, space or matter within our universe before it began.

No, this is not correct. Modern cosmological theory suggests that the laws of physics were established at the "Big Bang", and therefore physics cannot tell us what lay before that point. In this cosmology, spatial extent and time itself is not well-defined "before" the Big Bang. But "not well-defined" does not mean "non-existent".

So what are your views? Do you hold to a repeating expansion and contraction? Or do you hold to steady-state (which from my opinion seems to align with LDS doctrines best)Do you accept the possibility of dimension that are curled up in our universe?

Your "repeating expansion and contraction" vs. "steady-state" question is apparently asking about the so-called "oscillating universe". "Steady state" was an idea abandoned many decades ago, which postulated that matter was evenly distributed throughout the universe, resulting in a static distribution of matter. I don't think that idea has been current since the 1920s. I personally don't see that aligns any better (or worse) with LDS theology than any other 20th-century physics cosmology.

As for the "oscillating universe", the question is whether there is sufficient mass in the universe to overcome the initial expansion force from the Big Bang. I have no opinion on the matter, since I'm not a research astrophysicist. My understanding is that calculations based on observations of visible matter suggest there is only a fraction of the necessary mass to "close the system", but other observations suggest that there is an immense amount of matter that cannot directly be observed, more than enough to close the system. This invisible matter is called "dark matter", and I believe it's the most generally accepted model these days. Check back in 2020 to see if they've come up with something new.

The "curled-up dimensions" thing seems to indicate ideas that are part of string theory. String theory has been around a long time and is quite durable, in part because it makes very few testable predictions. Some physicists therefore consider "string theory" to be non-scientific by definition (not falsifiable) and purely a mathematical game. Again, I have no dog in the fight and no opinion on the matter.

[Guest]

There is no way to prove this. But people fill these unknown gaps with 'God' for all of these unexplainable things, and as we advance in knowledge, science seems to fill these gaps where God was the excuse.

I do not believe that God and science can go hand in hand. Some organisms were consumed in time and died out, while other complex organisms evolved for survival, not because God wanted them to do so.

Well, to me, this post sounds like NaturalSelect knows God very well. Maybe she had dinner with him last night or something. How else does she know what God wanted and how he achieved what he wanted? How does she know that it is impossible for God himself to have created/used/followed all the laws of science? How does she know that God did not know anything about natural selection, or that God originally thought the earth was flat?

Or, maybe you read Genesis and understood it to be that the earth was created in 168 man-hours. Or that all living things in existence - including the wooly mammoth - started out inside Noah's Ark...

The more we understand science, the more we understand God, and vice versa. But, this concept can only be understood if you show the same respect for God as you do for science, and vice versa.

And of course, this is just my 2 cents.

[NaturalSelect]

The more we understand science, the more we understand God, and vice versa. But, this concept can only be understood if you show the same respect for God as you do for science, and vice versa.

And of course, this is just my 2 cents.

God is far too complex of an idea.

People say that living organisms are far to complex to have evolved to this state without some divine intervention, but in the same hand, God would be a FAR more complex creature than any organism on Earth.

And what about all of the other 100 billion worlds within the 30 odd billion galaxies of our universe?

Creationists say there is about a one in a hundred chance that life could have been created, so there must be a god.

If there's a one in a BILLION chance, then there is roughly 1 billion other worlds with life within our universe...(or is it 10 billion?) going against the Bible.

Organisms have evolved past something, evolved something useless, in order to evolve other, much needed, parts and pieces for survival.

Evolution can be lab tested, easily, there's nothing divine about that.

[Guest]

God is far too complex of an idea.

People say that living organisms are far to complex to have evolved to this state without some divine intervention, but in the same hand, God would be a FAR more complex creature than any organism on Earth.

And what about all of the other 100 billion worlds within the 30 odd billion galaxies of our universe?

Creationists say there is about a one in a hundred chance that life could have been created, so there must be a god.

If there's a one in a BILLION chance, then there is roughly 1 billion other worlds with life within our universe...(or is it 10 billion?) going against the Bible.

Organisms have evolved past something, evolved something useless, in order to evolve other, much needed, parts and pieces for survival.

Evolution can be lab tested, easily, there's nothing divine about that.

Natural, you're not LDS?

Because evolution and even the 1 billion other worlds with life in the universe doesn't contradict any of the LDS doctrine. I would even deign to say that it supports it. We can go deeper on this discussion if you want, but if you don't have the basic LDS teaching, you might get really confused as it deviates quite often from mainstream Christian or Theist doctrine.

It's one of the many reasons why I converted to LDS.

[Moksha]

Evolution would seems be be an effective tool in God's handiwork.