Evolution and the Gospel

[Traveler]

Agreed Traveler. It is why I get frustrated at my stance being questioned as stupid, silly, not thinking, etc. I have studied. I have thought. I have studied enough about evolution and the scriptures to be comfortable in my stance. And, my stance is this. I have more proof and evidence that the scriptures are true than I do that evolution is true. Some of that proof is personal. I hold the 'evidence' found about scriptures in greater esteem than I do science. That is not to say that science is 'bad'. It is simply that my faith is greater than science. Now, as I have said, this does not mean that I do not believe that evolution is possible. Simply that there is not enough evidence for me to consider it fact. It is merely a theory. But, for me, the idea that Heavenly Father created the earth, man, and all animals is fact. There is just no proof of what method.

So, I stand FOR the scriptures. I stand FOR my Heavenly Father. I believe he did it. I do not know how. And, in the end, the how is not important to my life or my purposes.

Gatorman: Thank you for responding. Please understand that I am reading your post very carefully and am very perplexed. There are two statements that I would appreciate a little explanation if you would please. First – you said “Now, as I have said, this does not mean that I do not believe that evolution is possible. Simply that there is not enough evidence for me to consider it fact.” And the Second: “But, for me, the idea that Heavenly Father created the earth, man, and all animals is fact.”

What I would like to clarify is if you consider yourself a man (member of mankind) and all the animals alive today as animals. The reason I ask is because I am assuming from your statements that you believe that G-d created you and all the animals alive today. The next point I would like to make or question I would like to ask; is if we can observe the method by which humans and animals are created?

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

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

Now I have a very specific question you. This is most important because without this answer I have no idea what you mean when you say you believe G-d creates man and animals. Do you believe that G-d created only the first man and animals to exist? Do you believe you were created by G-d?

You did say you believed that G-d created all animals. So my very big question is – Do you believe that G-d is inconsistent in his methods of creation – That there is some hint or evidence in scripture or science or somewhere that G-d has drastically altered his methods as we currently observe evolution employed for creation from that creation spoken of in Genesis?

I stand with scripture and science (fact in observation) – I contend that creation by G-d is creation that utilizes evolution. What has convinced you otherwise?

The Traveler

[Guest Believer_1829]

"This is the thread that never ends, yes, it goes on and on my friends. Some people started posting because they thought it would be fun, and they'll continue posting, forever, just because... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on........................................................."

[Traveler]

It kinda depends how you look at it. One person can say against evolution, another can say they're for a more literal reading of the scriptures. Likewise one could say you are for evolution, another can say you are against a more literal reading of the scriptures. Its kinda like the whole pro-life vs. pro-choice nomenclature, people like to think they are for something. For the record I'd say I'm not sure about evolution not that I'm against it (I don't have a problem with it being taught in schools or think those who believe it are horribly flawed even if they do read the scriptures a little differently than myself). :shrug:

The main point of that post is I don't see Ogres complaint that he can't point out the problems in the OP. You can be direct, I the OP voiced those problems, admittedly they probably could have been more direct instead of musing and the reiteration was more direct (though still not totally so but I explained why as they're coming from me). If creative is a euphemism for creative/subtle condescension or insults then yeah the whole point of the rules for the thread was to prevent that, if it isn't a euphemism I'm not sure why he couldn't try to make his point in haiku or using a metaphor about a yellow submarine that fires tacos, he may have troubles with others understanding the latter, but he could still do it. Heck, I'll even take a crack at the former:

  Reading scriptures wrongdiscard dogma, seek science    enlightenment find 

P.S. I'm assuming he's complaining about the ground rules for the thread or the culture of the board.

Dravin: If you read my post to Gatorman I will not have to repeat my stand (understanding) to you. But perhaps you could give me insight into something because of your view. Why is evolution such a bitter pill for you to swallow? Is it possible that the reason is because so many that oppose G-d or do not believe in G-d have latched onto evolution as their reasoning to oppose G-d? And that you do not want to be associated with that.

I ask because I have had many good LDS ask me how I can believe in evolution and consider myself a strong believer in G-d and the LDS faith? I am thinking that many reject evolution strictly on prejudice notions that it is an evil and deceptive concept and that it undermines important religious truth. It is this prejudice that I hope to end by educating people to the fact that evolution does indeed exist and is observable.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

1. Scriptures describe condition that are at odds, at least as I understand them.

We have things such as Adam and Eve wouldn't have had children had they not fallen (2 Nephi 2:22-23), reproduction is a critical component of evolution. Is this understanding incorrect? Was this a state the first two humans were in but not others? Basically we have proto-human, they have the first human, God puts on of his Spirit Children in that tabernacle and they then experience the event depicted in the garden? Same as the beginning but the events in the garden are highly allegorical (perhaps of said first humans reaching a state to understand right and wrong)? There are probably other well thought out and consistent explanations (not claiming mine is among them, we tend to be horrible with forming consistent arguments for positions we don't personally hold).

Right. A lot of LDS people say science and the Church can be reconciled. I don't think so, without some major concessions.

concession #1: science can be wrong about details, and admits that. There is never the 'final' word, only the latest.

concession #2: science is not useful concerning those things which are not observable and/or measurable, by validated instrumentation.

concession #3: all observations and measurements must be observed by people, who are not nearly as valid in their thinking or judgement as the instruments are in their measuring.

concession #4: scriptures were never intended to be science.

concession #5: scriptures were written by people, who are not nearly as valid in their thinking, etc., etc...

If we find a scientific theory that holds up to scrutiny for decades, we can assume it is a pretty sure thing.

If a scripture or conference talk or Ensign article conflicts with a heavily used, long term, validated in practice scientific principle, usually the scripture (etc) is wrong or at least needs to be radically re-evaluated.

For this reason, I have had to change my religious beliefs on a few things:

Even though Cleon Skousen is my cousin, I no longer believe in D&C 77:6 as literal. It may as well apply to the chakras of the body as anything else. I've thrown the "dinosaur remains from other worlds" theory under the bus.

Even though Elder McConkie, Presidents Packer and Smith(the latest one) are wonderful Gospel scholars and inspired men, they are wrong about evolution and the Fall. They got those ideas from a Seventh-day Adventist anyway, and no matter how much sense he made to a non-scientist audience, he wasn't right.

No matter how much we talk about a literal "redemption of Zion" or "cleansing of the Lord's house" or "Second Coming of the Savior", none of those LITERAL things will do us personally any good if those things have not first taken place FIGURATIVELY in our hearts and souls. Thus, a figurative interpretation is often not only faithful, but essential to our salvation.

This is, of course, very unsettling to many folks. It was to me, too. But I seek after truth wherever it is found, and I seek to reconcile apparent contradictions. We ALL do that. We just find differing places where we draw the line.

I have proved to myself, with the help of the Holy Ghost, that my line is acceptable to the Lord. And I, with that help of the Holy Ghost, keep moving the line all over the place, as I receive further "light and knowledge". It does get scary, yet I follow truth.

First I sought truth. Truth taught me Love. In Love in gained Joy.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

"This is the thread that never ends, yes, it goes on and on my friends. Some people started posting because they thought it would be fun, and they'll continue posting, forever, just because... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on........................................................."

I am trying to learn something and understand why some people oppose evolution - so I continue to post and ask questions because sometimes I am slow and do not get what they are trying to say. So I can better understand you - why did you enter this post? Did you think it added something of "needed" benefit to the discussion?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Even though Cleon Skousen is my cousin, I no longer believe in D&C 77:6 as literal. It may as well apply to the chakras of the body as anything else. I've thrown the "dinosaur remains from other worlds" theory under the bus.

HiJolly

HiJolly: I am wondering why you reject the notion that dinosaurs could have lived on a world different from the earth as it currently is. I have posted that dinosaurs are too large for earth’s current gravity. This notion has perplexed science for many years and is highlighted in Robert T Bakker’s book “Dinosaur Heresies”. For years it was believed that dinosaur’s mass was supported by them living in swamps and spending their lives partially submerged. There is strong evidence that such was not the case.

I would be most interested in your idea or theory.

The Traveler

[Guest Believer_1829]

I am trying to learn something and understand why some people oppose evolution - so I continue to post and ask questions because sometimes I am slow and do not get what they are trying to say. So I can better understand you - why did you enter this post? Did you think it added something of "needed" benefit to the discussion?

The Traveler

I just wonder how many countless pages have been taken up by the Evolution/Creation debate with the same people making the same arguments and hurling the same insults over and over again? There is already 14 pages to this thread alone.

[Guest Godless]

I just wonder how many countless pages have been taken up by the Evolution/Creation debate with the same people making the same arguments and hurling the same insults over and over again? There is already 14 pages to this thread alone.

Looking over these last few pages, there seem to be virtually no insults, just people trying to understand the opposite position. I'm actually learning quite a bit from reading this thread.

[Dravin]

Dravin: If you read my post to Gatorman I will not have to repeat my stand (understanding) to you. But perhaps you could give me insight into something because of your view. Why is evolution such a bitter pill for you to swallow? Is it possible that the reason is because so many that oppose G-d or do not believe in G-d have latched onto evolution as their reasoning to oppose G-d? And that you do not want to be associated with that.

I ask because I have had many good LDS ask me how I can believe in evolution and consider myself a strong believer in G-d and the LDS faith? I am thinking that many reject evolution strictly on prejudice notions that it is an evil and deceptive concept and that it undermines important religious truth. It is this prejudice that I hope to end by educating people to the fact that evolution does indeed exist and is observable.

The Traveler

The fact that atheists support evolution isn't a block to me, plenty of folks I don't want to associate with believe Jesus is the Christ that doesn't stop me from accepting that as a truth. As least consciously, who knows what weird psychological happenings may be going on, but there is no active thinking of, "Evolution? You mean that thing atheists believe? Eeew!"

As far as undermining religious truth, if one takes the events in the garden more literally (Adam created then Eve, no death or reproduction until after the fall and so on) and believes them to be a religious truth Evolution does undermine it, they are at odds. And thus the disconnect, they see people asking/telling them to believe in something to be in conflict with 'truth' they already know, one must become a casualty, they choose what they believe to be religious truth. Now since you don't take a more literal reading as a religious truth they can coexist and neither must sacrifice itself upon the altar of the other and thus you avoid the internal drama, at least on this subject.

I'm not sure I'd say its a bitter pill. I will say I'm conflicted but that's because I have parts of me at war (in a sense) with each other, a cognitive dissonance if you will. The question then becomes, what exactly is the religious truth at stake here? All I have to do is look at the scriptures through the lens of science, accept that the scriptures are right (as is science) but not in the way I've come to understand them. This is the point we leave reason and science behind and enter psychology (a science itself I suppose).

What keeps me from just shrugging and going, "Ah, that makes sense, okay. I accept now."? I think its expressed best by a question brought up in another thread, "When does the disbelieving stop?" Why do I let science have the final say in Adam and Eve, and not have the final say in the resurrection of Christ?* Maybe on some level I fear that if I just embrace that science says Adam and Eve (my understanding of such rather) is wrong it will start a row of dominoes with results that I don't want to face.

Is this fear the result of not wanting to think? Of wanting everything to be nice and easy, to have all the good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black hats and have the hero ride into the sunset to live happily ever after (util the next movie)? It may very well be. To accept evolution requires I reexamine a disturbing amount of what I believe to be true

I'm trying to answer your question as honestly as I can, and is (at this time at least) as best as I can articulate things, I hope you can wring some sense out of it. I just ask you go easy on me, I'm sure it chock full of errors, contradictions and misunderstandings (in various ways). I present it not as objective truth but the jumbled happenings of the often illogical and erratic human psyche.

* I realize this is not analogous, the resurrection of Christ is a central tenet with an official stance on the subject, Evolution does not share these characteristics.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Dravin
Many spelling and grammar corrections.

[Guest Godless]

As far as undermining religious truth, if one takes the events in the garden more literally (Adam created then Eve, no death or reproduction until after the fall and so on) and believes them to be a religious truth Evolution does undermine it, they are at odds. And thus the disconnect, they see people asking/telling them to believe in something to be in conflict with 'truth' they already know, one must become a casualty, they choose what they believe to be religious truth. Now since you don't take a more literal reading as a religious truth they can coexist and neither must sacrifice itself upon the altar of the other and thus you avoid the internal drama, at least one this subject.

I'm not sure I'd say its a bitter pill. I will say I'm conflicted but that's because I have to parts of me at war (in sense) with each other, a cognitive dissonance if you will. The question then becomes, what exactly is the religious truth at stake here? All I have to do is look at the scriptures through the lens of science, accept that the scriptures are right (as is science) but not in the way I've come to understand them. This is the point we leave reason and science behind and enter psychology (a science itself I suppose).

What keeps me from just shrugging and going, "Ah, that makes sense, okay. I accept now."? I think its expressed best by a question brought up in another thread, "When does the disbelieving stop?" Why do I let science have the final say in Adam and Eve, and not have the final say in the resurrection of Christ?* Maybe on some level I fear that if I just embrace that science says Adam and Eve (my understanding) is wrong it will start a row of dominoes with results that I don't want to face.

Is this fear the result of not wanting to think? Of wanting everything to be nice and easy, the have all the good guys wear white hats, the bad guys black hats and have the hero ride into the sunset to live happily ever after (util the next movie)? It may very well be. To accept evolution requires I reexamine a disturbing amount of what I believe to be true

I'm trying to answers you question as honestly as I can, and is (at this time at least) as best as I can articulate things, I hope you can ring some sense out of it. I just ask you go easy on me, I'm sure it chock full of errors, contradictions and misunderstandings (in various ways). I present it not as objective truth but the jumbled happenings of the often illogical and erratic human psyche.

* I realize this is not analogous, the resurrection of Christ is a central tenet with an official stance on the subject, Evolution does not share these characteristics.

Your concerns are perfectly legitimate. The reason why some people become atheists in light of scientific knowledge is because they are unable to reshape their religious beliefs around the things they learn about things like evolution. Keep in mind though, such people probably had their faith laid on a shaky foundation to begin with (there are exceptions, I'm sure). You don't seem to fall into that category. I applaud your efforts to better understand these things, and I hope that someone more articulate than me can help you put the pieces together.

Scientific knowledge has taught me a great deal about the world we live in, just as your religious beliefs have done for you. I think it's important for people to look at the full spectrum of possibilities. Looking at the world through a strictly religious perspective could deny you some fascinating knowledge about how your God works. Similarly, looking at the world through the eyes of science alone causes people to miss some beautiful things like the story of Eden. I may not believe in it in a literal sense, but as I mentioned earlier, I find the allegorical side of it fascinating and filled with a deeper meaning that even I as a non-believer can appreciate.

[HiJolly]

HiJolly: I am wondering why you reject the notion that dinosaurs could have lived on a world different from the earth as it currently is.

I personally reject it based on parsimony in relation to geographic science, fossil analysis in relation to the geographic setting in which they are found, as well as the studies of dinosaur paleopathology.

I have posted that dinosaurs are too large for earth’s current gravity. This notion has perplexed science for many years and is highlighted in Robert T Bakker’s book “Dinosaur Heresies”. For years it was believed that dinosaur’s mass was supported by them living in swamps and spending their lives partially submerged. There is strong evidence that such was not the case.

The Traveler

Bakker's book is fascinating and an exceptional read, from the Amazon reviews given it. I haven't read it myself, so apologies for that. I understand the book was originally published in 1988, and even then some of his theories were undermined by research that he didn't reference in his book.

Regarding gravity, etc. In my reading in The Complete Dinosaur By James Orville Farlow, M. K. Brett-Surman; 1997 Indiana University Press I didn't think the evidence for your view to be very compelling. Especially in reading these two articles:

Engineering a Dinosaur by R. McNeill Alexander

Dinosaurian Paleopathology by Bruce M. Rothschild

Granted, I don't *know* that your wrong about the gravity vs. the size of dinosaurs, but I am not convinced that you are right, either.

HiJolly

[Traveler]

Perhaps there needs to be some education and definitions. I am wondering if evolution is understood. Evolution is any adaptation change that takes place. Those that believe creation from nothing have a strong point against evolution but if you start with something (even dust) and it is changed to become something else – that by definition is evolution.

It appears to me that the LDS understanding of creation does employ evolution. With all that said there is a theory that utilizes evolution concerning the origin of species. That is that all species are or at least can be generated from a single type of life mass. I do not remember anything from the Eden time period of things so I really cannot do any more than speculate. My speculation is that evolution did have a part. Even though we say there was no death there are points that seem to have some contradiction that I have done no more than speculate about myself. For example – it is my impression that Adam and Eve did eat something prior to the fall. I cannot speculate any way Adam and Eve could eat without causing death to some living matter. This also applies to the 1,000 years of peace. My speculation is that there are some details missing from our accounts concerning the extent of “no death”. I speculate that “no death” is at least in part symbolic and that there were some possible exceptions – like eating organic plant matter.

However, moving past the Eden period to our fallen state – I do not understand why anyone would reject evolution as a primary element in the continuation of creation of man, animals and plant life. Can we agree that evolution does play a part in the current fallen state of things? Is there anyone that has major issues with this – if so, would you please respond and state your issue?

Thank to all – The Traveler

[Dravin]

Those that believe creation from nothing have a strong point against evolution but if you start with something (even dust) and it is changed to become something else – that by definition is evolution.

I'm not sure if you told a scientist, "I believe man was literally formed from dust, that means he changed from one form (dust) to another (human) by means of divine act, that means I believe in evolution right?" that he'd agree with you or at least point out thats not how the term is generally understood. Its kinda like saying trees evolve into paper which evolves into books (you started with something and it changed to become something else), I'm not sure most would agree with you. Or am I wildly misunderstanding what you are saying?

As far as the rest, I know you are asking about folks who disagree, but I'll quote myself:

1. Evolution (not as an origin of man), seems pretty observable, just look at pets, livestock and most of our crops, testaments to when subjected to selective pressures things will change.

I assume most people when talking about evolution in contexts such as this are talking about evolution from non-human creatures being how man was created, not Elberta peaches and MRSA.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Dravin

[Traveler]

I personally reject it based on parsimony in relation to geographic science, fossil analysis in relation to the geographic setting in which they are found, as well as the studies of dinosaur paleopathology.

Bakker's book is fascinating and an exceptional read, from the Amazon reviews given it. I haven't read it myself, so apologies for that. I understand the book was originally published in 1988, and even then some of his theories were undermined by research that he didn't reference in his book.

Regarding gravity, etc. In my reading in The Complete Dinosaur By James Orville Farlow, M. K. Brett-Surman; 1997 Indiana University Press I didn't think the evidence for your view to be very compelling. Especially in reading these two articles:

Engineering a Dinosaur by R. McNeill Alexander

Dinosaurian Paleopathology by Bruce M. Rothschild

Granted, I don't *know* that your wrong about the gravity vs. the size of dinosaurs, but I am not convinced that you are right, either.

HiJolly

Could you be a bit more specific – I cannot find the articles concerning structural analysis.

Bruce M. Rothschild – appears to be an expert in internal medicine that has written some articles about dinosaurs but he does not seem to be qualified to do structural analysis.

R. McNeill Alexander – has many articles on human and animal movement and has written articles about methods employed in dinosaur movement based on fossils. I did not see the article you listed anywhere – can you provide a link or specify which book you read that did structural analysis.

Thanks - The Traveler

[Traveler]

I'm not sure if you told a scientist, "I believe man was literally formed from dust, that means he changed from one form (dust) to another (human) by means of divine act, that means I believe in evolution right?" that he'd agree with you or at least point out thats not how the term is generally understood. Its kinda like saying trees evolve into paper which evolves into books (you started with something and it changed to become something else), I'm not sure most would agree with you. Or am I wildly misunderstanding what you are saying?

As far as the rest, I know you are asking about folks who disagree, but I'll quote myself:

I assume most people when talking about evolution in contexts such as this are talking about evolution from non-human creatures being how man was created, not Elberta peaches and MRSA.

As an engineer and scientist – I have had the conversation with other engineers and scientist about evolution from dust to man. That is in essence part of the theory of the evolution of the Universe evolving, beginning with the Big Bang. My argument of G-d’s creation is that I add to their notions that G-d (if we define G-d as an intelligence force or director of creation) is a director of evolution and as such should not be removed from all consideration of where things came from without proof. And I have never seen such attempts at proof. (please do not confuse this concept with dogma titled “Intelligent Design).

On the religious side of things, the scriptures do not tell us anything about steps or methods. All we have from scripture is that man was created from dust. The extent of the meaning of “from” is very much a part of this discussion and I do not see how it eliminates evolution from consideration. Again I see no more compelling proof to remove evolution from a religious discussion any more than I see removing G-d from a possibility in scientific discussions.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

Ah, okay I think I may understand you better.

You're thinking formed from the dust that could be taken as abiogenesis or formed from the microbes of the dust which very well could fit within evolution. You said formed from the dust and I was thinking God grabbing a handful of dust or clay shaping it into the form of a man and then commanding it to be a man (I pictured an Indian in the Cupboard style process sans the cupboard and Indian), which wouldn't fit very well within evolution.

[Traveler]

Ah, okay I think I may understand you better.

You're thinking formed from the dust that could be taken as abiogenesis or formed from the microbes of the dust which very well could fit within evolution. You said formed from the dust and I was thinking God grabbing a handful of dust or clay shaping it into the form of a man and then commanding it to be a man (I pictured an Indian in the Cupboard style process sans the cupboard and Indian), which wouldn't fit very well within evolution.

Sorry I did not explain the notion better but I understood what I was saying quite well.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

Could you be a bit more specific – I cannot find the articles concerning structural analysis.

The book referenced - Amazon.com: The Complete Dinosaur (9780253333490): James O. Farlow, M. K. Brett-Surman: Books is a compilation of articles, those two are in the book.

Bruce M. Rothschild – appears to be an expert in internal medicine that has written some articles about dinosaurs but he does not seem to be qualified to do structural analysis.

No, he wasn't discussing gravity or other structural type stuff. He was pointing out stress fractures in differing dinosaur bones that kinda point out how the mass of the dinosaurs did cause problems vis a vie gravity.

R. McNeill Alexander – has many articles on human and animal movement and has written articles about methods employed in dinosaur movement based on fossils. I did not see the article you listed anywhere – can you provide a link or specify which book you read that did structural analysis.

Done (see link above). There is plenty of room for disagreement and further information, as usual. I'm just not convinced that it makes any sense, overall, to say dinosaurs were not on our earth, as it is.

HiJolly

[Gatorman]

God created man. After the fall, he created or triggered or something, I don't know and don't really care what, the ability for man to populate the Earth. So, regardless of how animals, plants, and man specifically came to be able to procreate, the method was created.

So, part of our creation was our ability to procreate. God created that ability. The method he used to do that is not important to me.

Gatorman: Thank you for responding. Please understand that I am reading your post very carefully and am very perplexed. There are two statements that I would appreciate a little explanation if you would please. First – you said “Now, as I have said, this does not mean that I do not believe that evolution is possible. Simply that there is not enough evidence for me to consider it fact.” And the Second: “But, for me, the idea that Heavenly Father created the earth, man, and all animals is fact.”

What I would like to clarify is if you consider yourself a man (member of mankind) and all the animals alive today as animals. The reason I ask is because I am assuming from your statements that you believe that G-d created you and all the animals alive today. The next point I would like to make or question I would like to ask; is if we can observe the method by which humans and animals are created?

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

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

Now I have a very specific question you. This is most important because without this answer I have no idea what you mean when you say you believe G-d creates man and animals. Do you believe that G-d created only the first man and animals to exist? Do you believe you were created by G-d?

You did say you believed that G-d created all animals. So my very big question is – Do you believe that G-d is inconsistent in his methods of creation – That there is some hint or evidence in scripture or science or somewhere that G-d has drastically altered his methods as we currently observe evolution employed for creation from that creation spoken of in Genesis?

I stand with scripture and science (fact in observation) – I contend that creation by G-d is creation that utilizes evolution. What has convinced you otherwise?

The Traveler

[Gatorman]

I missed the second but big answer. I believe Heavenly Father created all forms of animals and granted unto them the ability to procreate in some method.

[bmy-]

They are sent here from other more developed worlds. Other worlds, such as those orbiting Kolob for instance, can send instructions to Earth via HGT to dictate the form of life on Earth.

Now that is a heavy statement. Unfortunately.. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I'll get to the rest of the post later.. (and evolution aided by 'HGT' is still evolution, it matters not 'how' they change.. only that they 'do' change).

FEMA seems to have an idea of what is coming….

half a mil. FEMA claims it is for the military… Do they expect this many military personnel to die in the next few years? I don’t think so. This is not the only mass coffin site.

I've seen those videos before.. let me pose you a question -- in the event of a true calamity -- if there were no 'mass graves' (see: storage area) for bodies.. where would they go? We surely do not want bodies laying in the streets.. look at the diseases that spread during Katrina if you want a shining example.

There's quite a bit of looney beliefs that go hand in hand with the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists. I do believe that those who control the money control the power.. and they're making decisions on a scope that is difficult to imagine. However, check our your local CT website.. they're full of junk.

Edited August 16, 2009 by bmy-

[Bluejay]

Hi, Tubaloth.

Why would God need Evolution to create man (or animals) when he already did the “dry run” or “practice” round in pre-mortal life?

Why would you assume that creating a spirit and creating a body are equivalent processes? Perhaps spirits are created one way, and bodies, in another way.

-----

To assume that God needs evolution to get us to a point to be like him seems kind of absurd? That God can't create a man unless it Evolves?

It's not about what God need: it's about what He does. Just because He did it one way doesn't mean He couldn't have done it differently.

-----

Last, because as it has been stated we just don’t know enough about how creation happen or evolution, is how can I help my Children Evolve.

You can't help your children evolve, because individuals do not evolve: populations evolve. Evolution happens between generations, because that is the point where genomes are mixed and changed.

-----

How does Evolution happen now days?

Yes. It happens everytime the distribution of genetic traits in the new generation is different from the distribution of those same traits in the preceding generation.

[Bluejay]

Hi, Rayhale.

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.

In what way would evolution make humans less special?

[bmy-]

It is not about making humans less special, it is about destroying the entire plan of salvation.

Did or did not the fall bring death into the world?

Was or was not Adam created as a perfect unfallen being?

Did or did not Adam fall?

If you say Adam started out as an imperfect ape decendant - there is no more fall, there is no more need for a savior, there is no more plan of salvation.

Adam was a perfect flesh and spirit being in Eden (through the fall blood entered their veisn, they were changed to a state that they could procreate) - there was no death on the Earth before the fall.

Adam was not created as a perfect unfallen being. He had already lived out his mortal probation and 'passed the test' so to speak.

'Adam' is a calling. He was Michael before he was an Adam and he was Michael after he was an Adam.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Adam was not created as a perfect unfallen being. He had already lived out his mortal probation and 'passed the test' so to speak.

'Adam' is a calling. He was Michael before he was an Adam and he was Michael after he was an Adam.

Brigham Young taught he came here with one of his wives Eve as an already Celestial being.