Evolution and the Gospel

[Dravin]

The issue is that there are human Adams supposed got out of the garden 7000 or so years ago but there are human fossils that are 100,000 years old. That is - humans existed that did not descend from Adam.

Interestingly enough I was watching aforementioned National Geographic and there was some show about what is human (the idea being at what point would you say our line crossed into what we would consider being human), they did a bunch of DNA testing and one of the things the show talked about was how all modern humans are descended from one man due to a bottle neck that happened so many years ago (can't remember the number). Of course I don't know if National Geographic (the channel) is particularly 'trustworthy' these days, the above 'fact' may not be something accepted by the scientific community at large. Note I'm not bringing this to the table as proof of any certain interpretation of Adam and Eve, its just for some reason your post made me think of this.

I'd like to point out that the dates could be wrong in the Adam and Eve story. Not that moving the garden from 7,000 to 100,000 (or more) years ago 'solves' everything (there are other issue brought up by science) and it brings up if one accepts the date is wrong one is put in the situation of trying to decide if that is the sole error contained in the narrative or if more exist.

Well that's untrue. You should read what the National Academies of Science says on the matter. Check it out.

I'm curious what is the line between proof and evidence? Or are they essentially the same thing? I agree with you though, the evidences/proof out there is exactly what makes evolution so compelling an answer for so many (myself included). Of course on the flip side people's belief over certain interpretation of scriptures is what makes that angle so compelling and is what leaves me in my position.

Yes I realize that leaves me in the position of having dogma fight it out with what others are observing of the world around them and the conclusions they draw. The human psyche is interesting, it leaves me both not quite able to reconcile various beliefs (I'm not claiming them as objective truth, just that I hold them) with evolution and yet still able to find it interesting, the learn about it and even when put inside a box talk about it within that box.

It may be useful to understand who believe what

How so? It looks like you are making some sort of appeal to authority combined with an appeal to popularity. Its kinda of a one two punch, look at how many educated people agree with X position. If there is another point being made please bear with my dimwittedness, but I don't see how that is useful to the discussion at hand. I am know to be occasionally obtuse though.

And before you point it out quotes such as President Packer's and even the Scriptures are in a very real sense appeals to authority if one is using them as evidence of evolution being flawed. Just for the record my point in posting such things is as evidence of what I believe not as evidence of any particular objective truth.

Why anyone would argue that evolution disproves G-d is beyond rational to me – it is a stand of ignorance and foolishness.

In my case (I can't speak for others), the correctness of evolution one way or the other doesn't disprove or prove God, it just may or may not have happened. It's kinda like arguing over what color God's eye's are, the answers don't change anything overly substantive to me, it changes some interpretation of scripture and may start a few arguments at home but ultimately doesn't change my life all that much. I can see my position bugging some of the more scientifically minded out there, its kinda like time dilation as one approaches the speed of light (a distant approach admittedly), true or not (I understand it to be true but bear with me), it doesn't effect my life much either way.

P.S. Evolution not of the origins kind (and I realize this may be a useless distinction) does impact my life in very real ways (or at least can) if in no other way than the field of infectious disease, but then I have no problem with life evolving, its a question of from what did the evolution start, not if life adapts.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Dravin

[bmy-]

I have a PhD in an engineering field and I do not believe that humans developed from an earlier species. I believe that some forms of evolution exist, but I believe that Adam was a perfect immortal being in Eden - that Adam was the "son of God" not the son of an ape. I believe in the fall of man - and the redemption of man. (It is impossible for man to fall if he started out fallen - the entire plan of salvation, atonement, etc. rests on Adam starting out as an immortal perfect being who was the son of God. If you say man was decended from apes? then Adam was not perfect, he did not fall, there is no reason for an atonement to be made.)

I've always found it interesting that it is common for highly educated engineers to still be religious.. it's backwards in regards to most advanced degrees.

A student of mine did a research paper on beliefs vs. education level. It showed among other things that grad students were more likely to believe in things like UFO's than undergrads... you see, the more you know, the more you know you don't know. The more of a scientist you are, the more you know science does not answer all the questions.

I think it has more to do with the highly educated people recognizing the potential for life in just our solar system.. and forming an opinion about our galaxy based on a much-to-small sample.

The difference (I suspect) between the people is this -- the higher educated non-religious people would drop their idea of UFOs if evidence to the contrary was presented. The lower educated religious people would fight tooth and nail because theirs is an emotional attachment.. not an intellectual one.

Adam's was a VERY different creation. Adam came to this world as a perfect immortal being of flesh and spirit - no blood flowed in his veins when he came here. Again, there would be no fall, no plan of salvation, no atonement, none of it - if Adam/Eve had not fallen from a perfect state.

No.. he was previously exalted. His 'creation' was nothing out of the ordinary.

[Snow]

Folks, I thought I was very clear. I can not prove or disprove the most important link. No one can until that day. My point is, any time science goes so far as to prove God doesn't exist, then, science proves it is flawed. Heavenly Father is not. So, the proof that Heavenly Father is is flawless. Science is not. I don't have 'faith' in science.

That said, do I believe some of the evidences science provide to us? Yes. And, where neither side can 'prove' the truth, IE: How old is the earth, I have faith that I will find out later. I don't have proof that the Earth is trillions or whatever of years old. But, I know it is possible if that is how Heavenly Father chose to create the Earth. It is not important to me how old the Earth is. It is important that Heavenly Father created it, regardless.

Huh?

Evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving God. I've never heard of any scientific theory that deals with disproving God.

4.5 billion, not trillions. Why is knowledge about the earth and the universe and physics and geology and biology important? Is not the answer self evident?

[Snow]

I have a PhD in an engineering field and I do not believe that humans developed from an earlier species. I believe that some forms of evolution exist, but I believe that Adam was a perfect immortal being in Eden - that Adam was the "son of God" not the son of an ape. I believe in the fall of man - and the redemption of man. (It is impossible for man to fall if he started out fallen - the entire plan of salvation, atonement, etc. rests on Adam starting out as an immortal perfect being who was the son of God. If you say man was decended from apes? then Adam was not perfect, he did not fall, there is no reason for an atonement to be made.)

Ok - do you disbelieve the evolution based on the science and evidence or because someone told you that is what you were supposed to believe?

There's always exceptions - however, the better educated you are, the more likely you are to be able to understand it, the more likely you are to not believe the dogma and do believe in the theory.

[Traveler]

Adam's was a VERY different creation. Adam came to this world as a perfect immortal being of flesh and spirit - no blood flowed in his veins when he came here. Again, there would be no fall, no plan of salvation, no atonement, none of it - if Adam/Eve had not fallen from a perfect state.

Changed – I appreciate your post and your contribution to this discussion. There are several “flaws” or missing pieces of the puzzle in the concepts of evolution and the genesis or origins in creation. You have touched only on one paradox. The idea that Adam was not a child, as we understand children developing and “growing” into adulthood is a very interesting possibility. For example, the brain of a human is not fully developed (or in your terms – perfect) until about age 25.

Perhaps you ought to consider Jesus. He also was not a fallen creature but he was not “Perfect” at conception, birth or any other time prior to his resurrection. I think you have some perceptive ideas but I am not sure I can come to terms as easily has you have that Adam did not have at least one parent of lesser standing (fallen or subject to death) than himself (not fallen) when I have the example of Jesus born of fallen Mary and that Jesus was not of the fall. One aspect that I do not understand is that prior to the fall there was no death in the world. But it does appear to me that death was possible somewhere in the universe prior to the fall – and this I do not understand why such an important point is missing (or incomplete) from scripture.

Man – including Adam is of dust. Dust is the lowest symbolic substance in scripture. Dust is worse than fallen material – dust is substance void of any life, meaning or purpose. Dust is useless. The scriptures tell us that G-d started with substance of no value or purpose and from that he “created” or organized the body of flesh that is the great gift to mankind. The process by which dust become a most valuable asset is one of the great miracles of creation. I for one, believe that the same miracle of creation surrounds us and that we can observe the wonders of creation even to the point of marriage; we can partner as a man and a women with G-d to create a human in G-d’s and our own image and likeness.

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

Huh?

Evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving God. I've never heard of any scientific theory that deals with disproving God.

4.5 billion, not trillions. Why is knowledge about the earth and the universe and physics and geology and biology important? Is not the answer self evident?

I agree. The answer is self evident, for me. Faith is far greater than Science. Trust in the Lord is far more important to me than trust in what I or some genius can prove. So, no, I don't require a personal testimony of the universe, physics, etc. I know that they are creations of our Heavenly Father and that is enough. Now, I am not stupid or a simpleton. I do understand some science. Probably more than you might give me credit for. However, science is unable to shake my faith. I am perfectly content to ignore 'scientific fact' when it goes contrary to my faith. If my faith told me that the Law of Gravity was false and that we were held to this earth by our loving Heavenly Fathers hands, then, the 'Theory' of Gravity would not be important to me. It would be, as it is today, a nice theory. Until I have that perfect knowledge, no scientific fact is, well, 'fact'. It is merely our understanding of the evidence at hand and our ability to reproduce the results. But, Heavenly Father has far greater tools at his disposal and may very easily be capable of achieving the tested results in his own way.

[Traveler]

I agree. The answer is self evident, for me. Faith is far greater than Science. Trust in the Lord is far more important to me than trust in what I or some genius can prove. So, no, I don't require a personal testimony of the universe, physics, etc. I know that they are creations of our Heavenly Father and that is enough. Now, I am not stupid or a simpleton. I do understand some science. Probably more than you might give me credit for. However, science is unable to shake my faith. I am perfectly content to ignore 'scientific fact' when it goes contrary to my faith. If my faith told me that the Law of Gravity was false and that we were held to this earth by our loving Heavenly Fathers hands, then, the 'Theory' of Gravity would not be important to me. It would be, as it is today, a nice theory. Until I have that perfect knowledge, no scientific fact is, well, 'fact'. It is merely our understanding of the evidence at hand and our ability to reproduce the results. But, Heavenly Father has far greater tools at his disposal and may very easily be capable of achieving the tested results in his own way.

First Thessalonians Chapter 5 verse 21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

First Thessalonians Chapter 5 verse 21: Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

The Traveler

I have. I have proven that Heavenly Father answers prayers. I have proven that Heavenly Father created the Earth and men. I hold fast to those. I do not have proof of what method Heavenly Father used. Evolution is one possibility. Snapping his fingers, like the Great Kazoo is a possibility. Or, wiggling his nose like Samantha Stevens. Point is, science can't 'prove' it either. So, the proof and faith that Heavenly Father did is sufficient. I do not require further proof.

[the Ogre]

???!!!!???

Jesus did not “become” perfect, he was born perfect, and remained perfect - Jesus was always perfect . . .

Hmmm . . . Talmage disagrees with you. I think I do to. Perfected is a past-tense word and is used most often by GAs to describe Chr-st. Perfected implies one who has gone through the perfection process. Was Chr-st superior to anyone who was born? Yes, but did H- ever get a cold? Did H- laugh and play and then was subsequently scolded? Yes, H- was a child at one time and had to grow physically, intellectually, morally, and spiritually. To exclude Chr-st from this would nullify the redemption.

Next, the irony laden in the Four Gospels indicate H- had a sense of humor. Most modern Latter-day Saints would exclude humor from perfection. How often are we told to not make light of the scriptures, but there are sections of scripture that have dual meanings: sarcastic derision of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Last as a person from an evolved species, H- had many of the faults and weaknesses that are inherently biological. Scientists identify parts of character, personality, and behavior that are biological. As a perfected being now, H- does not have those problems, but H- did prior to crucifixion.

As a member of an evolved species, I am proud of my ape ancestors and am glad they were inspired to leave the trees and invent the Ford Mustang. Imperfection and differences are to be celebrated. I am also glad that my S-vior was one of these imperfect people, who through the period of H-s life achieved what is beyond the ken of our ability: perfection.

[rayhale]

There are several questions I have for people who believe in evolution:

What is your proof?

Now I can’t say this more clear, what is your proof of evolution? Is it since you CAN’T believe in God, and in Creation, then it MUST be evolution. I watched a History Channel program that told ‘a’ story of creation, during the whole show, it told so many things that there was NO WAY they, or anyone else, could possibly know. Also is your proof actual documented, provable evidence, or is it, you say something is true long enough that you believe it? For example the ‘picture’ of the different stages of evolution of humans from apes. I have one major question with that, why is that ‘picture’ a cartoon drawing, NOT a series of photos of skeletons or fossils showing the progress from ape to man. Also another question I have, why is some of your ‘proof’ of evolution of ape to man ONE skeleton???? One major example is the fossil remains known as Lucy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(fossil), to me that tells me that these so-called experts know nothing about mutation, or any other form of disfigurement. It would be interesting to know what these so-called experts would think of a skelketon, or a fossel of someone like Joseph Merrick, more commonly known as the elephant man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Merrick if they had no other skeletons or fossels to compare it to.

As far as dating the earth goes, one major question I have is what form, or forms of testing the date of things, like fossils, is it carbon dating? If it is well then, there is enough proof out there of carbon dating that it is NOT effective in dating extremely old dates, like hundred plus thousand years, yet these so-called experts can be certain that dinosaurs lived one or more MILLION years ago.

One thing that a few posts have pointed out of the main reason why religious people can’t believe in evolution, especially of ape to man, is that evolution will somehow make humans less special and that it will make humans just like any other animal, not children of God.

Edited August 11, 2009 by rayhale

[Dravin]

Jesus did not “become” perfect, he was born perfect, and remained perfect - Jesus was always perfect.

48 Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect. (Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 12:48)

Jesus never sinned - that is what made him perfect. Do you agree that Jesus never sinned?

Christ was resurrected at the time he gave that statement, prior to being resurrected when he gives a similar statement (Matt. 5:28) a claim to perfection is absent (the claim to the Father's perfection is still present). Note this isn't the say he was sinful, and I know that sinless tends to be used as synonymous with perfection, but Christ came into this world (and until he left it and was subsequently resurrected) was in possession of a imperfect tabernacle, he had to be, a perfected immortal body would have caused problems with the dying and being resurrected part of the atonement.

If I'm not mistaken that is what people are talking about.

[bytebear]

The word 'perfect' has different meanings. Today we think of it as being without error, and in that sense Jesus was perfect, but it has a second meaning which is to be complete or finished. In that sense Jesus was perfected only after the resurrection when he was given a perfect glorified body. Compare Matt. 5: 48 with 3 Ne. 12: 48, one was pre-atonement and resurrection, and the other was after. Also read John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." If Jesus was perfect, or complete, he would be equal to the Father, but the father was greater. I believe this was in part because the Jesus did not yet have a glorified body as the Father had.

[Traveler]

Changed – I am curious that you and I have not had more discussions. I find you post most refreshing and informative. However, I think my understanding of “perfect” is perhaps different than your understanding and I would like to pursue why. I believe that perfect, whole, holy, sanctified and complete are all synoptic of the concept that is often used to describe the “perfectness” of G-d. In essence I believe that perfect (as with the other terms) describes a process in one’s covenants rather than a stagnant or static state of being. But please understand that a covenant cannot be complete (whole, holy or sanctified) until it has been “fulfilled”. This is why Matt 5:48 is different from 3 Nephi 12:48 even though Jesus is giving the same sermon – the difference between the two is that Jesus had completed and fulfilled his covenant and been resurrected when 3 Nephi was given. This is also why Abraham was given the title of “perfect” in his generation – because he had fulfilled his covenants with G-d. Thus the commandment that Jesus gives to all of us in Matt 5:48 and 3Nephi 12:48 is directed to us to be perfect (complete our covenants) even though we are fallen creatures. It is not because it is incorrect but because it is possible to become perfect by covenant even though we are flawed and not currently perfect. Please note that our perfection is not different but the same as G-d’s and Jesus’ perfection.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

There are several questions I have for people who believe in evolution:

What is your proof?

Now I can’t say this more clear, what is your proof of evolution? Is it since you CAN’T believe in God, and in Creation, then it MUST be evolution.

Those aren't exclusive, one can believe in God, believe we were created and that the process was evolution. If you need an example I point to some of the people in this thread. God or Evolution is a false dichotomy, Evolution or Creation is also a false dichotomy. I will give you that Evolution and a more literal reading of Genesis type creation are exclusive.

Also another question I have, why is some of your ‘proof’ of evolution of ape to man ONE skeleton????

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , I didn't count them but there is more than one fossil involved in the formation of their hypothesis.

As far as dating the earth goes, one major question I have is what form, or forms of testing the date of things, like fossils, is it carbon dating? If it is well then, there is enough proof out there of carbon dating that it is NOT effective in dating extremely old dates, like hundred plus thousand years, yet these so-called experts can be certain that dinosaurs lived one or more MILLION years ago.

These articles talk about how dating is done, the last one seems the more technical of the group.

Dating Fossils I: Relative Dating | Suite101.com

Dating Fossils II: Radiometric Dating | Suite101.com

Radiometric Dating

P.S. If the above is insufficient the USGS website is chock full of articles talking about radiometric dating: Welcome to the USGS - U.S. Geological Survey

Edited August 11, 2009 by Dravin

[AdamWyson]

When I was 16, I was told by my stake president in a lesson with all the priests, that dinosaurs got here cause god created the world from other planets...

I was blown away that a man of around 60 years old would try to feed such garbage to High school students that not only avidly study evolution, but dinosaurs. Several of the young men I went to priest quorum with actually stopped believing in the church because of this stake president.

To say dinosaurs came from other planets when we have found petrified trees with mosquito on them with Dino blood INSIDE of them, is practically insane...Not to mention the thousands of raptern nests through out the world that were petrified by lava...

We all know the earth is older than what most people say it is, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years old. What I don't understand is why the church does not have an official stance on evolution..I mean we have PROPHET, why doesn't he ask the Lord?

Some may say that is silly, why would the prophet trouble the lord with such things, well why not? The prophet Joseph troubled the lord with things such as, will it rain today? Even in The Book of Mormon, Mormon himself asked the lord if the three nephites were in fact immortal or in some other state. The lord has never had any problem answering the questions of the prophets and I challenge anyone to give me 1 instance.

Anyways, ya, evolution :) The church may never know.

[Guest Godless]

There are several questions I have for people who believe in evolution:

What is your proof?

Fossil records and genetic research are the primary sources of evidence (as opposed to proof). Only a fool would claim that evolution, or any scientific theory, has been proven. Evolution is an evidence-supported theory. There is enough evidence for it to be considered fact, but that's not the same as proving the theory. There's no such thing as a proven theory. But that doesn't mean that the theories are false.

Now I can’t say this more clear, what is your proof of evolution? Is it since you CAN’T believe in God, and in Creation, then it MUST be evolution.

Religion and evolution are not mutually exclusive. As you can see, I'm the lone atheist on here defending evolution. Snow and Traveler are both faithful LDS members, and they are among many LDS and Christian believers who accept scientific evidence without allowing it to sway their faith in God.

I watched a History Channel program that told ‘a’ story of creation, during the whole show, it told so many things that there was NO WAY they, or anyone else, could possibly know.

Is this the same History Channel that airs shows like UFO Hunters and MonsterQuest?

Also is your proof actual documented, provable evidence, or is it, you say something is true long enough that you believe it? For example the ‘picture’ of the different stages of evolution of humans from apes. I have one major question with that, why is that ‘picture’ a cartoon drawing, NOT a series of photos of skeletons or fossils showing the progress from ape to man. Also another question I have, why is some of your ‘proof’ of evolution of ape to man ONE skeleton???? One major example is the fossil remains known as Lucy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(fossil), to me that tells me that these so-called experts know nothing about mutation, or any other form of disfigurement. It would be interesting to know what these so-called experts would think of a skelketon, or a fossel of someone like Joseph Merrick, more commonly known as the elephant man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Merrick if they had no other skeletons or fossels to compare it to.

Yes, the fossil record is incomplete. That's no secret. But that's a reason to keep digging, not to stop. We're constantly learning new things about what life was like millions of years ago. Heck, just last year archeologists discovered the skeleton of a new species of frog in Madagascar that was large enough to eat baby dinosaurs. As for our own ancestry, scientists already have some pieces of the puzzle. Are you suggesting that they should give up just because there are still some gaps in the fossil record? That's not how science works.

[Guest Godless]

Some very interesting things have been said about the pre-Fall state of man. What does it mean to be in a "perfect" state? Is it without sin? A lifeform without self-awareness is incapable of sin, is it not? The simple creatures of the Earth can be said to be pure, can they not? From these sinless creatures, mankind emerged. How is this incompatible with scripture?

[Vort]

When I was 16, I was told by my stake president in a lesson with all the priests, that dinosaurs got here cause god created the world from other planets...

I was blown away that a man of around 60 years old would try to feed such garbage to High school students that not only avidly study evolution, but dinosaurs. Several of the young men I went to priest quorum with actually stopped believing in the church because of this stake president.

Then shame on them for giving up their testimonies based on the words of a man who was only trying to help them by sharing something that he himself found convincing. If their education on the matter exceeded his, they should have been patient with him. Not the forte of a sixteen-year-old, I understand, but still -- your leader tries to give you something to help you, and you turn it to his (and your own) condemnation. That just isn't very smart.

Not to mention the thousands of raptern nests through out the world that were petrified by lava...

I agree, it's probably best not to mention lava-petrified raptern [sic] nests, especially since lava doesn't petrify anything.

We all know the earth is older than what most people say it is, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of years old.

Latest estimates are about 4700 million years old.

What I don't understand is why the church does not have an official stance on evolution..I mean we have PROPHET, why doesn't he ask the Lord?

How do you know he hasn't? How do you know the Lord didn't tell him "That's not for you to know" or "Here's the answer, but don't give it to anyone else"?

Do you also expect the prophet to ask the Lord about genetic inheritance theory, string theory, astrophysical questions, information theory, and the specifics of high-pressure, high-temperature nuclear fusion?

Some may say that is silly, why would the prophet trouble the lord with such things, well why not?

Perhaps because the prophet is expected to worry about other things, and not trouble the Lord with questions of (at best) tangential relationship to spiritual matters.

The prophet Joseph troubled the lord with things such as, will it rain today?

In such instances, Joseph was busy preparing to address the Saints in outdoor conditions. The presence or absence of rain was an immediate concern for his ministry, and not one over which he could exert much control.

Even in The Book of Mormon, Mormon himself asked the lord if the three nephites were in fact immortal or in some other state.

Mormon was writing about those men and their physical state. He was authoring scripture on the matter. He felt that he needed a good understanding of it, so he asked and was given the answer. That's much different from asking God for revelatory clarification on current scientific models.

The lord has never had any problem answering the questions of the prophets

This is logically difficult to prove, isn't it? How many times have the prophets asked God for answers, only not to be given the answers they sought? Do you think the prophets generally make it a practice to tell of all the things they asked God that didn't get answered like they wanted?

and I challenge anyone to give me 1 instance.

D&C 130:14-16

I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face.

[Dravin]

Some very interesting things have been said about the pre-Fall state of man. What does it mean to be in a "perfect" state? Is it without sin? A lifeform without self-awareness is incapable of sin, is it not? The simple creatures of the Earth can be said to be pure, can they not? From these sinless creatures, mankind emerged. How is this incompatible with scripture?

Depends on the scripture and how you view it. Adam and Eve according to my understanding of the scriptures couldn't have children unless they fell or otherwise obtained a knowledge of good and evil. Needless to say, all those pure sinless creatures were/are capable of reproducing without any sort of additional knowledge such as good vs. evil or what have you. A species that can't reproduce can't evolve, the idea that Adam and Eve would have spent a possible eternity in the Garden had they not partaken also puts a crimp on that.

Of course Nephi probably lacked the benefits of modern understanding of the fossil record, and one could say that if they had never crossed that threshold they'd be wandering around the earth in their innocent state with no children of men being around, the seed of Men wouldn't have happened.

The reason I'm not inclined to look down on those that believe in Evolution is first it's convincing, and two there are ways to have it coincide with scripture by various interpretations, its a question of are those interpretations correct. I suppose the issue in my case is just because X interpertation makes it all work together doesn't compel me to assume X is the correct interpertation. Interesting enough though when it comes to various situations in the Bible I interpret things as Y because I assume the Book of Mormon is correct and thus shape things to fit, I suppose with Evolution believing saints the processing isn't all that dissimilar.

[Snow]

by your figs 40% - not a small number, do not go for it. That is an appeal to authority - Perry level #1 though.

Nope. There is no appeal to authority. The theory of evolution stands on it's own scientific merits. Pointing out that smart and educated people are more likely to understand and acknowledge the merits while uneducated or less intelligent people are less likely to understand does nothing to matter the theory any more or less valid. It's just interesting.

I disbelieve that humans evolved from apes because the Holy Spirit bore witness to me of the plan of salvation. Not just "someone" - a member of the Godhead, came down from heaven, revealed himself to me, and taught me of the plan of salvation. Man from Ape goes against the plan of salvation as it goes against Adam coming to Earth as a perfect immortal being.

No offense but I don't believe you.

Arguing a scientific matter by saying God personally told you so is a bad argument.

I’ve inquired and got no such answer.

Prophets, seers and revolters have have received no such answer.

You are factually mistaken that evolution goes against the plan of salvation. This is the official position of the Church on the matter:

“Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.”

I have been around science long enough to be skeptical of it. One of the labs I taught I always started out asking everyone "what is the temperature of this room?" I let them go up and read it off the wall thermometer - then I would say, are you sure? are you sure that is the temp? and they would say, yes, that is the temp. Then I would tell them, "I asked for the temp of the entire room, not just the temp by the thermometer" - and the smart ones would relent, OK - the temp is different by the window - it is different by the computers, by the door. The temp changes with time, the thermocouple has limited accuracy, etc. etc. - we would have a little discussion, and finally they would get it. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL THE TEMP OF THE ROOM. Everything we do in science is not exact, it is all just an approximation.

That’s a nice story. Irrelevant, but nice - I guess.

Setting aside your belief that God personally has personally descended from heaven and appeared to you on the matter of evolution, do you have any scientific evidence that modern man appeared on earth, suddenly, for the first time, some 6-9k years ago?

I’d guess no - but you’re the PhD.

[Snow]

I agree. The answer is self evident, for me. Faith is far greater than Science. Trust in the Lord is far more important to me than trust in what I or some genius can prove. So, no, I don't require a personal testimony of the universe, physics, etc. I know that they are creations of our Heavenly Father and that is enough. Now, I am not stupid or a simpleton. I do understand some science. Probably more than you might give me credit for. However, science is unable to shake my faith. I am perfectly content to ignore 'scientific fact' when it goes contrary to my faith. If my faith told me that the Law of Gravity was false and that we were held to this earth by our loving Heavenly Fathers hands, then, the 'Theory' of Gravity would not be important to me. It would be, as it is today, a nice theory. Until I have that perfect knowledge, no scientific fact is, well, 'fact'. It is merely our understanding of the evidence at hand and our ability to reproduce the results. But, Heavenly Father has far greater tools at his disposal and may very easily be capable of achieving the tested results in his own way.

... and that illustrates perfectly the difference between the two of us. Science, being a subset of theology, is part of my faith. Nothing in science, that I can think of, contradicts my faith, so I don't have to choose to believe the law of gravity and heavenly sticky fingers.

As I learn more, about God, about biology, about physics, my faith and knowledge grow together, in correlation with one another.

[Snow]

When I was 16, I was told by my stake president in a lesson with all the priests, that dinosaurs got here cause god created the world from other planets...

I was blown away that a man of around 60 years old would try to feed such garbage to High school students that not only avidly study evolution, but dinosaurs. Several of the young men I went to priest quorum with actually stopped believing in the church because of this stake president.

To say dinosaurs came from other planets when we have found petrified trees with mosquito on them with Dino blood INSIDE of them, is practically insane...Not to mention the thousands of raptern nests through out the world that were petrified by lava...

Very sad but very true. Undoubtedly there are those on this very forum who think that is a plausible explanation.

[pam]

I was taught the same thing when growing up. I believed it for the longest time too.

[Gatorman]

The difference appears to be Snow, your belief that my position is dogma, because I don't need or require the science. I did not say the science was bad. I believe I said I can see an argument for evolution potentially being heavenly father's method. The fact is, there is no proof of it. So, either evolution was the means heavenly father used or else evolution is false. I have no real proof of either answer and, frankly, I don't require it.

[Guest Believer_1829]

He has seriously been allowed to disparage and belittle people for 5 years on here?? Astounding!