Evolution and the Gospel

[Snow]

my own eyes can see...

My brother in law is a cop - those who have been through this type of training/ in this type of profession know that eye-witness accounts are the least credible, most innacurate sources of information. In most cases it would be better to have no eye-witness account as misinformation can throw off an entire investigation.

There was a class, during the class someone ran into the room, used a banana to stab the prof to death, then ran out of the room again. the prof asked everyone to write an eye-witness account of what they had just seen. Type of weapon used, descript of suspect, etc. etc... class full of cops in training, no one got it right LOL! It seems it is better not to trust your own eyes.

What are you even talking about?

Try and stay on point.

[Snow]

Snow - I am not sticking my head in the sand. I am proudly standing here before all present and declaring, with no amount of doubt on my part, that I trust in Heavenly Father before I trust in science. Evolution is not proven, as others have made aware. If Heavenly Father is capable of creating the earth, the sun, the stars, teh moon, etc, why is it difficult to believe that he can create a fossil record to serve his own purposes?

Please note, I have not said evolution or science is wrong either. In fact, my first post in this thread stated that I believed that evolution was one possible answer to how Heavenly Father performed the creation. The point being, we do not have a perfect knowledge to be certain either way. So, for me and my dogmatic, I will put my trust in Heavnly Father rather than in the arm, or brain, of flesh.

Or more accurately, you will put your trust in a particular interpretation of writings that other people say God inspired them or others to write.

[the Ogre]

Do you agree that Jesus never sinned?

I think it's irrelevant. H-s message has nothing to do either the OP [edit: original post] or the Eternal Plan of Happiness.

Everything rests on the plan of salvation, on Jesus, our perfect savior. You have lost the entire point of it all if you no longer belive that Jesus was perfect.

From the naivete bleeding from this quote and your other posts I have to tell you, I love you. You embody LDS-phariseeism quite well and make a welcome addition to the others on this site.

Keep it up.

Edited August 13, 2009 by the Ogre

[Traveler]

Macro evolution is NOT demonstratable nor is it observable.

again, a non creationist site:

Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm. by Brig Klyce

...A considerable part of Darwinism is not of the nature of an empirical theory, but is a logical truism.

Artificial selection never produces wholly new characteristics. Without the input of new genes, there is no evidence that natural selection does either.

The notion that mutation and recombination can compose new genes is implausible.

There is scant evidence that mutation and recombination can compose functional new genes that differ from any known predecessor by more than, say, a dozen essential nucleotides.

etc. etc. etc.

I believe that panspermia is better supported than macro-evolution.

COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia. by Brig Klyce

Evolution is demonstratable in every life form that exists. Every living cell will either die or divide and become two living cells - both child cells as different from each other as they are from the parent. Every life form depends on evolution to exist. Without evolution there is no life as we know it. All live is evolving. You may not want to accept evolution but that does not mean that evolution does not exist anywhere. If you take an honest look at any life you will see evolution. Evolution is the Grand Canyon that you refuse to see - it is everywhere.

Now - you may want to draw a line among living things and say evolution may be doing some things but it is not doing this one thing or another but you are missing a very important point. Evolution is a fact of all life. Even genetic engineering is evolution. It is not a matter of evolution or absolutely no evolution; even religiously. Natural selection is not the only possible kind of evolution. If Noah’s Ark really existed according to the Bible and the only kind of creatures on the Ark were worms; there is not enough room on the Ark for all the known species of worms – not even close.

So there is a great paradox. If G-d just recreated all the species alive today that was not on the Ark (because Macro evolution is not possible); why was there an Ark and why are the scriptures so misleading about the purpose of the Arc and the creatures on it?

I do not have all the answers. I know that evolution by its self cannot account for bats and sharks, at least not based on information available to us at this point of time. However, if you are going to say G-d does not use evolution you have a problem – he is using evolution in everything living that we can observe. Now he may not use evolution in some situations but I honestly do not know why anyone will testify that G-d does not now nor never has ever used any form of evolution in the creation of life. How could anyone know that and have no clue or idea what he did do?

The Traveler

[the Ogre]

As I believe in the Book of Mormon and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and the teachings of the prophets of said church, I turned to those sources to try to help explain my answer of why Faith trumps science for me, since science is the understanding of man, while faith is the understanding of Heavenly Father.

So President Eyring's father was a fool for pursuing the sciences? What about the GAs who are doctors, scientists, educators, and engineers? Are they fools, too?

Anyone who thinks science trumps faith or the inverse obviously refuses to use the brains gifted to him/her by G-d. Sometimes it is through science we understand G-d and what H- is saying to us.

[the Ogre]

. . . If Heavenly Father is capable of creating the earth, the sun, the stars, teh moon, etc, why is it difficult to believe that he can create a fossil record to serve his own purposes? . . .

Occam's razor: why would H- waste H-s time doing so? Evolution is the simplest answer and the one that makes the most sense and still does not exclude G-d as the Cr-ator.

The scriptures only make a series of claims, they do not outline a process. G-d says H- did it -- and H- did. What G-d does not say is how H- did it. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

Evolution is great and interesting, but in the long and short of salvation it is not that important -- especially if you are LDS. Let EVs and Catholics break their heads over it. As a Latter-day Saint, there are other things to do other than worry about the patently pointless.

[Gatorman]

the Ogre or snow - Can you please review this thread and find where I have ever stated that Evolution was not a possible answer? Or, where I stated that Science was false or foolish? Instead, I believe I have stated the following:

1 - Evolution is one possible answer to how Heavenly Father created us.

2 - Until such time as he tells us otherwise or until we gain the perfect knowledge, we can not know for certain.

3 - If Heavenly Father used Evolution to create us, then evolution, and science in this case, are right.

4 - If when we gain the knowledge of how Heavenly Father created us, we find evolution had not part, then evolution and science were wrong.

5 - Outside of evolution, science can make compelling arguments, theories, and claims of fact. If those things are supported when we gain that knowledge, then science was right. if not, then science was wrong.

I acknowledge that science could be right. I acknowledge that science is a valid field to pursue. But, I further acknowledge that science can not answer with 100% certainty Heavenly Father's methods or will. As such, when we gain that knowledge, if it is contrary to our scientific understanding, I have NO issue rejecting the science. I will trust in the Lord.

[Gatorman]

Occam's razor

Occam was a man, correct? As such, while his razor works well for man's science, when the day comes we learn for sure, I will trust in what Heavenly Father teaches. If Occam was right, great. However, if Occam was wrong...So be it.

[Gatorman]

Or more accurately, you will put your trust in a particular interpretation of writings that other people say God inspired them or others to write.

Or, more accurately, as I know myself well, I put my trust in my faith. My faith is based on my prayers and the answers I have received to those prayers. They speak to me the truth of what I believe.

[the Ogre]

Occam was a man, correct? As such, while his razor works well for man's science, when the day comes we learn for sure, I will trust in what Heavenly Father teaches. If Occam was right, great. However, if Occam was wrong...So be it.

Of course you just proved the limits of your education if you do not understand what I meant by Occam's Razor. Did you at least try to google the phrase before you posted? Go look it up and edit your post.

Please. Investigators are reading.

[bmy-]

Of course you just proved the limits of your education if you do not understand what I meant by Occam's Razor. Did you at least try to google the phrase before you posted? Go look it up and edit your post.

Please. Investigators are reading.

I think he was trying to say that Occam's Razor is the philosophy of men and not of God, what I think he failed to realize is that God is a man.

[Gatorman]

Of course you just proved the limits of your education if you do not understand what I meant by Occam's Razor. Did you at least try to google the phrase before you posted? Go look it up and edit your post.

Please. Investigators are reading.

bmy is right. I know what Occam's Razor is. I also know that it is the philosphy of men, not of God.

[Gatorman]

I think he was trying to say that Occam's Razor is the philosophy of men and not of God, what I think he failed to realize is that God is a man.

Is he bound by the 'laws of science'? Is he a 'man' as I am and your avatar suggests you are? Or, is he beyond our true and complete understanding as to what he is capable of?

If he is a man, that means you and I have the means today to create a world, correct? To create stars?

[the Ogre]

the Ogre or snow . . .

I did and want to let you know this discussion has nothing to do with being a Latter-day Saint or what we as a people or church believe otherwise all the evolutionists up to the Y would have been long since been exed.

The doctrine of the church ignores this whole concept except in minutia because it is not important and as such is worth ignoring.

Personally, I'm not that great a mormon, I love pointing out when members actually are getting distracted by doctrine that lies outside out faith and trust me, the question of whether or not evolution is accurate or not is way outside the ken of our doctrine and believing in it or not will not hamper one from salvation.

Who cares? Yea/nay evolution is irrelevant and unimportant.

[Guest missingsomething]

I think he was trying to say that Occam's Razor is the philosophy of men and not of God, what I think he failed to realize is that God is a man.

God is man as we are in his image, but He has a complete, exalted - non-flawed knowledge... so I personally could see how someone could differentiate them. And boy do we have spell check on these posts yet lol...

[the Ogre]

If he is a man, that means you and I have the means today to create a world, correct? To create stars?

Be more specific please: Are you asking about G-d's species and gender?

[Maxel]

Occam was a man, correct? As such, while his razor works well for man's science, when the day comes we learn for sure, I will trust in what Heavenly Father teaches. If Occam was right, great. However, if Occam was wrong...So be it.

Of course you just proved the limits of your education if you do not understand what I meant by Occam's Razor. Did you at least try to google the phrase before you posted? Go look it up and edit your post.

Please. Investigators are reading.

I'm pretty sure Gatorman was speaking symbolically, and you just "proved the limits of your own education" because you didn't catch on to that fact.

Probably though, in your virulent hostility you acted rashly and didn't think Gatorman's words through. What's to be gained by such ready anger?

BTW, bmy-, God IS a man, but His ways are higher than our ways. Pointing out that God is the same divine species as us is completely irrelevant in this context.

EDIT: I don't know why this took so long to load and post; you guys have moved on since I wrote it. Oh well.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Maxel

[Gatorman]

Be more specific please: Are you asking about G-d's species and gender?

Heavenly Father is male. And, he is an exalted being, not a fallen man.

[the Ogre]

Probably though, in your virulent hostility you acted rashly and didn't think Gatorman's words through. What's to be gained by such ready anger?

Trust me, I'm not angry . . . I'm amused by a man who refuses to use his brain.

[Gatorman]

Thank you for making my point Ogre. I don't need Evolution to line up with my faith. I don't need science to prove Heavenly Father. And, frankly,if I receive evidence through prayer, knowledge, lightning bolt, or those final days when we gain perfect knowledge that evolution, etc, is false, I will have NO worries. Because, the simple, undebatable fact for me is...

Heavenly Father, et al, created all creatures.

I did and want to let you know this discussion has nothing to do with being a Latter-day Saint or what we as a people or church believe otherwise all the evolutionists up to the Y would have been long since been exed.

The doctrine of the church ignores this whole concept except in minutia because it is not important and as such is worth ignoring.

Personally, I'm not that great a mormon, I love pointing out when members actually are getting distracted by doctrine that lies outside out faith and trust me, the question of whether or not evolution is accurate or not is way outside the ken of our doctrine and believing in it or not will not hamper one from salvation.

Who cares? Yea/nay evolution is irrelevant and unimportant.

[Guest missingsomething]

BTW, bmy-, God IS a man, but His ways are higher than our ways. Pointing out that God is the same divine species as us is completely irrelevant in this context.

EDIT: I don't know why this took so long to load and post; you guys have moved on since I wrote it. Oh well.

Thanks Maxel! This was what I was trying to say - lol

[Gatorman]

Trust me, I'm not angry . . . I'm amused by a man who refuses to use his brain.

Interesting, now I am unintelligent and flawed because my Faith is stronger than the arm of flesh. Oh, whatever shall I do. *rolls eyes*

[bmy-]

Is he bound by the 'laws of science'? Is he a 'man' as I am and your avatar suggests you are? Or, is he beyond our true and complete understanding as to what he is capable of?

If he is a man, that means you and I have the means today to create a world, correct? To create stars?

In my opinion.. yes, he is bound by the 'laws of science'. God cannot create nor destroy matter, this is why in our doctrine it says that God organizes.. which is much the same thing we do. Just a tidbit of information -- we do have the technology to 'create a world' (think Mars).

God is man as we are in his image, but He has a complete, exalted - non-flawed knowledge... so I personally could see how someone could differentiate them. And boy do we have spell check on these posts yet lol...

We are not simply in His image.. we are essentially in the Pupae stage of Godhood. We're of the race of Gods and -not creations- but offspring. Especially when dealing with logic.. the 'laws of logic' should hold true through out this universe. That includes Occam's Razor.

Edited August 13, 2009 by bmy-

[the Ogre]

Heavenly Father is male. And, he is an exalted being, not a fallen man.

H- is not fallen; I agree. H- is way too cool for that, but does that stop H-m from being a man.

Being a man implies gender unless you are inferring G-d is without gender in the way Nicia indicates or by result of Benjamin Therapy?

If so, provide quotes addressing this directly and not as an aside. Conference talks by one of the living twelve or first presidency members please. I am quite interested in your justification for the semantic differentiation.

Without splitting hairs, I think male = man.

[the Ogre]

In my opinion.. yes, he is bound by the 'laws of science'. God cannot create nor destroy matter, this is why in our doctrine it says that God organizes.. which is much the same thing we do. Just a tidbit of information -- we do have the technology to 'create a world' (think Mars).

I disagree with you here. Why? G-d is omni-powerful. A M-n with all power Wh- picked a methodology.

By using agency and by knowing all the options available, G-d chose a method to create the cosmos that evolution/science has yet to comprehend. Knowing the options is very important to G-dhood. One of those pupae things we all need to go through and why science is so important.

G-d can choose to do whatever H- wants. H- is G-d after all, why exclude On-self from one of the gifts given to fallen humanity? To think otherwise is to put G-d in a box.

Claustrophobia is horrible, why thrust it upon another?