Evolution, The Gospel, Science


Snow
 Share

Do you agree w/ the statement? Man's body did [b]NOT[/b] evolve in any fashion from simpler species  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you agree w/ the statement? Man's body did [b]NOT[/b] evolve in any fashion from simpler species

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      32


Recommended Posts

. . . Here's a hint. Donkeys don't talk.

Numbers 22:12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with

them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed.

Balaam asked the Lord repeatedly even though he had the plane word of the Lord on the subject.

Finally the Lord said go ahead.

But then was angry when hew did so.

Why?

Because Balaam knew what the Lords word was on the subject but chose the answer he wanted.

You site BYU's decision to teach evolution as an endorsement of Evolution.

Nothing could even be farther from what the reason for teaching it could be.

It was to keep up it's accreditation in the world's eyes.

So it's students education would have worth in the world among people like you.:eek:

Just as the Church has chosen to remain silent on many issues does not mean it is neutral on those subjects either.:rolleyes:

It only means the Church has to survive today's political and social environment.

I have many mixed feelings on that subject as well which only served to get me into trouble in the past so I will pass on that one.:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course, all are familiar with the statements in Genesis 1: 26-27; 2: 7; also in the Book of Moses, Pearl of Great Price, 2: 27; and in the Book of Abraham 5: 7. The latter statement reads: "And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man's spirit) and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

These are the authentic statements of the scriptures, ancient and modern, and it is best to rest with these, until the Lord shall see fit to give more light on the subject.

You claim to be a simpleton but surely you can't be such a simpleton that you don't graph the concept of allegory.

I'll ask again. The Church is explicitly clear that the scriptures do not adequately address the issue. HOw is scripture clear to you while it is not clear to the prophets. What gift of understanding do you possess that they do not.

You referenced two different creation accounts in the Bible that contradict each other. Which one do you believe and which one do you reject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence is in the scientific fact that humans now, even in our limited understanding of the natural sciences can manipulate DNA and 'create' new forms of life that didn't exist before and are not part of Mendelian inheritance or Darwinian natural selection.

Even Richard Dawkins cannot prove that if the tape was rewound and all the random events like mass extinction at the right time were made again random events that humans would look and have the same body structure that we have now. His arguments suggest only that if you were to take all the exact events at the right time into account that one could eventually predict the outcome of evolution. But, (to me at least), you would have to say that our resulting appearance, i.e two eyes, nose, mouth, weight, height etc., have no importance as to our purpose here or that the human body exactly as we have it now is the result of evolution every time, even if the tape was rewound.

So how do you see it Snow? Do you think our body was made to appear this way and this way only or do you think that evolution, every time it is run on its own (like the atheist Dawkins suggests) results in the same human form every time? Or I suppose another view is that when it says in scripture that we are made in the image of God that one takes that loosely, that we are just roughly made in the image of God, mammalian, reptilian etc. ... it wouldn't matter.

Even Dawkins view of evolution is that there is no outside influence on events that led to our creation, meaning it is a purely contained process. He suggests this happens without any supreme being's assistance. And yet you say that you believe God has a hand in it. So, you don't really believe his view then? How do you reconcile the two? ... I gave you one possible way, but then you shoot it down by saying where is the evidence. Where is the evidence that God did not manipulate the environment, these so called natural events that result in mass extinction that change the direction of genetic drift, natural selection?

You asked:

Isn't it possible that there is evidence for evolution as God had to create suitable conditions for human life before putting Adam here? Like putting down organic material before you plant a garden.

I agree with you, based on faith, that God is involved but I asked for the evidence you implied might exist. You explanation about is not evidence. It is your attempt to persuade me but it is not evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Numbers 22:12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with

them; thou shalt not curse the people: for they are blessed.

Balaam asked the Lord repeatedly even though he had the plane word of the Lord on the subject.

Finally the Lord said go ahead.

But then was angry when hew did so.

Why?

Because Balaam knew what the Lords word was on the subject but chose the answer he wanted.

I know what the verses say. Donkey's still don't talk.

You site BYU's decision to teach evolution as an endorsement of Evolution.

Nothing could even be farther from what the reason for teaching it could be.

It was to keep up it's accreditation in the world's eyes.

So it's students education would have worth in the world among people like you.:eek:

You just made that up, didn't you Johnny. You fabricated it out of thin air. You have no knowledge whatsoever about why it is taught.

Just as the Church has chosen to remain silent on many issues does not mean it is neutral on those subjects either.:rolleyes:

The Church IS NEUTRAL. That is a fact. That man has evolved is also a proven fact. That's likely the reason that BYU teaches it = they are committed to truth.

It only means the Church has to survive today's political and social environment.

I have many mixed feelings on that subject as well which only served to get me into trouble in the past so I will pass on that one.:mellow:

Evolution is a fact. You can't change that. As a Mormon I am committed to truth, regardless of it's source. Thank Goodness that BYU is also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what the verses say. Donkey's still don't talk. . .

In our natural world that is true.

But when God steps in to do a thing He knows how.

Just because we do not know how it is done that is no reason in itself

to believe it cannot be done.

Numbers 22:28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass,. . .

If the Lord Loosens it's mouth to do so. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . .You just made that up, didn't you Johnny. You fabricated it out of thin air. You have no knowledge whatsoever about why it is taught. . .

In 1979 Elder Dallin H. Oaks, then President Oaks faced the question of whether BYU ought to teach evolution.

Convinced by this time of the need for a stronger statement, Oaks responded decisively to Hinckley: ‘If we stopped teaching this theory, within a few years students from BYU would not be admitted to…graduate schools. At that point we would cease to function as a recognized university and would, in the eyes of the world (especially the world of higher education), be little more than a seminary with added courses in the humanities. I have no doubt whatever that our accreditation as an institution of higher education would be lost. The issue is that loaded.’”

... that is, ignore evolution and the "Lord's University" would become a joke and laughing stock.

Not hardly a ringing endorsement of Evolution:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MYTHS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION:

The evidence for evolution is scant and unconvincing:

That is false. The evidences and proofs of evolution is massive and accumulating rapidly, The evidence is thick across multiple disciplines... biology, genetics, DNA, paleontology, etc. The enormous explosion of evidence has been going on for the past forty years. If you run across a evolution denier who references quotes to cast doubt on evolution, they are usually old quotes completely out of step with modern proof.

Evolutions is ONLY a theory - it can’t be proven:

That is false. Evolution is a theory in the same way as the theory that the earth is round. Such scientific theories are a framework consisting of laws, facts, evidences, proofs, observations with the ability to make accurate predictions. The theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of the round earth - both withstood intense study and scrutiny over a long period of time and both are scientifically proven.

Evolution is only one of other possible theories that may explain the origin of man:

That is false. There are no other scientific theories on the origin of man. There are some ideological ideas but they are not based on demonstrable facts and none raises to the level of scientific theory.

The Church is opposed to evolution:

That is false. The Church official, published position is neutrality. Numerous prophets have made personal statements expressing support for the possibility of evolution.

The scriptures are clear on the origin of man and make evolution impossible:

That is false. The Church’s official published position is that the revealed word of God does not adequately address the mechanics of the origin of men. Anyone who draws a conclusion from the scriptures that evolution is incorrect is making an “interpretation” of the scriptures by inserting their non-scriptural ideology.

Evolution is a devilish or atheistic tool to draw people away from God.

That is false. Evolution is science and is neutral towards man’s religious convictions. Millions of Mormons and hundreds of millions of Christians accept evolution - even the Pope accepts evolution.

There is valid scientific evidence against evolution:

That is false. “Creationists” and “Intelligent Design” proponents use pseudo-science, bad logic and sophistry to try and cast doubt on evolution. Such arguments are easily shown to be false by legitimate scientists.

The theory of evolution is controversial.

That is not true. There is no controversy in the scientific community. The principles and facts of evolution are so overwhelming that they are no longer questioned. New things are being learned about evolution and the theory is updated and expanded to accommodate new findings but the central theory itself is a fact and is as solid as the theory that the earth is round. The only controversy is with religious fanatics and science deniers who are antipathetic to science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MYTHS ABOUT HUMAN EVOLUTION:

The evidence for evolution is scant and unconvincing:

That is false. The evidences and proofs of evolution is massive and accumulating rapidly, The evidence is thick across multiple disciplines... biology, genetics, DNA, paleontology, etc. The enormous explosion of evidence has been going on for the past forty years. If you run across a evolution denier who references quotes to cast doubt on evolution, they are usually old quotes completely out of step with modern proof.

Evolutions is ONLY a theory - it can’t be proven:

That is false. Evolution is a theory in the same way as the theory that the earth is round. Such scientific theories are a framework consisting of laws, facts, evidences, proofs, observations with the ability to make accurate predictions. The theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of the round earth - both withstood intense study and scrutiny over a long period of time and both are scientifically proven.

Evolution is only one of other possible theories that may explain the origin of man:

That is false. There are no other scientific theories on the origin of man. There are some ideological ideas but they are not based on demonstrable facts and none raises to the level of scientific theory.

The Church is opposed to evolution:

That is false. The Church official, published position is neutrality. Numerous prophets have made personal statements expressing support for the possibility of evolution.

The scriptures are clear on the origin of man and make evolution impossible:

That is false. The Church’s official published position is that the revealed word of God does not adequately address the mechanics of the origin of men. Anyone who draws a conclusion from the scriptures that evolution is incorrect is making an “interpretation” of the scriptures by inserting their non-scriptural ideology.

Evolution is a devilish or atheistic tool to draw people away from God.

That is false. Evolution is science and is neutral towards man’s religious convictions. Millions of Mormons and hundreds of millions of Christians accept evolution - even the Pope accepts evolution.

There is valid scientific evidence against evolution:

That is false. “Creationists” and “Intelligent Design” proponents use pseudo-science, bad logic and sophistry to try and cast doubt on evolution. Such arguments are easily shown to be false by legitimate scientists.

The theory of evolution is controversial.

That is not true. There is no controversy in the scientific community. The principles and facts of evolution are so overwhelming that they are no longer questioned. New things are being learned about evolution and the theory is updated and expanded to accommodate new findings but the central theory itself is a fact and is as solid as the theory that the earth is round. The only controversy is with religious fanatics and science deniers who are antipathetic to science.

Now tell me:mellow:

Did you just make all that up?:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now tell me:mellow:

Did you just make all that up?:o

No - unlike you, I don't make stuff up. Each and every statement can be supported and corroborated from legitimate and authoritative source, including LDS sources.

Unlike you I don't deny facts and deny science and bury my head in ideological sand.

It's pointless to post the relevant citations for you since you are antagonistic to science and evidence but I'll gladly discuss it with others who are committed to truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - unlike you, I don't make stuff up. Each and every statement can be supported and corroborated from legitimate and authoritative source, including LDS sources.

Unlike you I don't deny facts and deny science and bury my head in ideological sand.

It's pointless to post the relevant citations for you since you are antagonistic to science and evidence but I'll gladly discuss it with others who are committed to truth.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy

trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of

science falsely so called:

1 Timothy 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the

faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, explaining what He told us was only a story to explain [and then go on explaining what the so-called allegory was really all about.]

I do not believe Evolution can be proven.

So that is what it would take.

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked:

I agree with you, based on faith, that God is involved but I asked for the evidence you implied might exist. You explanation about is not evidence. It is your attempt to persuade me but it is not evidence.

I agree. But, likewise science cannot 'prove' with evidence that God's hand was not involved in manipulating the evolutionary process for his purposes. Maybe you and I can see and accept the mesh of these truths, partly based on science and partly based in faith but many prominent scientists including the one you quoted use that evidence to suggest that there is no need for God's hand. That the process to go from single cell organism to human being occurs spontaneously without directed and purposeful intervention.

They are using the existing evidence falsely, to claim that this occurs without intervention. You are right, they jump to that conclusion because of the lack of scientific evidence but the burden of proof to make that statement is on them, not me. How could they prove that the meteor that hit the Yucatan peninsula, for example, was not directed purposely to happen at a specific moment any more than I can prove that it was.

I think it is bad science to make conclusions from observations that are not taken in a controlled environment. If you can tell me that they took all this evidence from sources that they know for sure was not manipulated by some outside source then we could say for sure that it happens without any manipulation. But, then they would have to prove there is no God for this world. It's a false negative assumption to say that God did not manipulate the process unless one can prove that there was no outside influence ... and I don't think anyone can prove that by simply saying we can't find any evidence to that effect.

And I think if one believes God's hand could have been involved in the process then it is not a far step from that to say that we don't know for certain whether we share a common ancestor with all the other organisms on this planet as God could have, some how, introduced our lineage and took away all similar competing lineages without our knowledge or proof of such. I believe evolution describes what happened on this planet but I would not go as far as saying it could happen without some outside manipulation of the system as most scientists suggest.

If there is no way to verify false negatives (i.e - a change in inherited trait X occurred by injecting synthesized DNA into existing organisms when we thought it was evolutionary mechanisms) and false positives (i.e. - the change in inherited trait X occurred through evolutionary processes when it really was introduced from an outside-the-system source) then that "science" is not as sound or complete as you are making it out to be. "Evolution" is just a historical record of changes that took place on this planet, but it is not complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that some of you may have evolved from monkeys etc., but I didn't.

Where is that darned laugh button, lol! :lol:

However, the question that should be asked, and I think the one being presented, is "Did man evolve also (from apes or monekys)?"

I believe the answer to be no.

Guess what? Biologists don't believe that either. It's a common misconception that evolution teaches that man evolved from apes, but that is not the case. I am a Biology major and have learned a lot about evolution over the past couple of years. One thing that I have learned is that evolution indicates that man and other primates evolved from a common ancestor. There's a big difference between man descending from apes and man and apes sharing a common ancestor.

As for evolution being proven, every Biology instructor I have had over the years has stated that evolution is NOT proven fact and at this point cannot be because we can only "prove" it as far as our limited abilities will enable. We can't go back in time and guarantee that the decay rate of carbon-14 is as we believe it is. However, it is universally accepted by almost everyone who has studied it (myself included) that there is enough evidence to accept that evolution is real. But as anyone who studies science knows, there is always room for new discoveries that sometimes change established belief, sometimes even turning it completely on its head. There is always the possibility that we will one day discover something that will alter the theory of evolution.

Until that time, however, we have no reason to believe that evolution does not occur. In fact, we have a great deal of evidence to indicate that it does. That said, evolution does not in any way disprove the existence of God or invalidate the Bible. Most of my Biology instructors have admitted to a belief in God. I've only had one that claimed to be an atheist. These are people with PhD's, so their religious beliefs can hardly be chalked up to a lack of education.

I have no problem accepting the existence of both God AND evolution. However, I do not have enough knowledge of either to be able to say how the Biblical account of the Creation and the evolutionary account mesh together. I believe they do somehow and I am honestly not all that concerned with when I find out how, whether in this life or the next.

Edited by MormonMama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Newton's premises were considered absolute until Einstein had a better idea. And perhaps Hawking after that.

There is no proof of evolution. It is a theory, and perhaps a correct one, but many people have doubts. There are just too many holes in it right now to be accepted as fact. However it does seem to explain a lot. It's what I would call a working hypothesis.

We have proved the earth is round by observation, so that's really not a theory anymore. Oh yeah, it really isn't absolutely round either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, explaining what He told us was only a story to explain [and then go on explaining what the so-called allegory was really all about.]

I do not believe Evolution can be proven.

So that is what it would take.

There you have. A Mormon who would refuse to accept scientific proof, not matter what it was.

It was a trick question Johnny. I already you you were a science denier and not committed to truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poll, as any other, is ambiguos.

Evolution, what this mean?

If I ask: Is a car an evolution from a simplier mech device?

What will be your answer?

Seriously?

You don't know what the evolution of man means? Then this thread definitely is not for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for evolution being proven, every Biology instructor I have had over the years has stated that evolution is NOT proven fact and at this point cannot be because we can only "prove" it as far as our limited abilities will enable. We can't go back in time and guarantee that the decay rate of carbon-14 is as we believe it is. However, it is universally accepted by almost everyone who has studied it (myself included) that there is enough evidence to accept that evolution is real. But as anyone who studies science knows, there is always room for new discoveries that sometimes change established belief, sometimes even turning it completely on its head. There is always the possibility that we will one day discover something that will alter the theory of evolution.

That is technically true but isn't particularly helpful. You cannot prove that you exist outside your mind, but we'll accept the evidence that you or someone posting as you actually does exist.

The proof of evolution is as significant as the proof of the holocaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously unacquainted with the theory of evolution.... man did not evolve from monkeys.

I think his remark was an attempt at humor. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. But, likewise science cannot 'prove' with evidence that God's hand was not involved in manipulating the evolutionary process for his purposes.

Nor can science prove that Captain Crunch did not build the ark.

Maybe you and I can see and accept the mesh of these truths, partly based on science and partly based in faith but many prominent scientists including the one you quoted use that evidence to suggest that there is no need for God's hand. That the process to go from single cell organism to human being occurs spontaneously without directed and purposeful intervention.

I wouldn't believe a thing Richard Dawkins says about God. About evolution, however, he knows what he is talking about.

They are using the existing evidence falsely, to claim that this occurs without intervention. You are right, they jump to that conclusion because of the lack of scientific evidence but the burden of proof to make that statement is on them, not me. How could they prove that the meteor that hit the Yucatan peninsula, for example, was not directed purposely to happen at a specific moment any more than I can prove that it was.

I think that's crazy - no offense. Applying that logic, a prosecutor would have to present evidence that a murderer acted of his own accord and was not controlled by demons from the underworld.

I think it is bad science to make conclusions from observations that are not taken in a controlled environment.

You mean like the conclusion that the earth is round?

If you can tell me that they took all this evidence from sources that they know for sure was not manipulated by some outside source then we could say for sure that it happens without any manipulation. But, then they would have to prove there is no God for this world. It's a false negative assumption to say that God did not manipulate the process unless one can prove that there was no outside influence ... and I don't think anyone can prove that by simply saying we can't find any evidence to that effect.

God, being God, could still manipulate the data in a controlled lab, but science doesn't address the metaphysical. Nor should it. That's a question for philosophy and religion and should be kept out of science.

Edited by Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share