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

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.

Thank you for that clarification. :)

As far as this thread and discussion in general:

I still believe that many think "evolution" requires that man evolved also. Once you separate man from the common understanding of evolution, it becomes believable and can even be supported in the Bible.

If we stop discussing basic evolution and focus on the original question of did man evolve from a lower form of existence, the discussion would probably be much more enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wouldn't count on it. I've seen that claim, in seriousness, made on this forum and number of times.

Just trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt without automatically assuming that is what they seriously meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you just make that up?:eek:

No - I didn't. I understand people that put their own personal dogma ahead of facts.

There are science deniers like you and there are even holocaust deniers. Rational and educated people can't make sense of how someone could deny either but they do.

Here's a question for you:

Take any important scientific discovery - maybe one that impinges on old time religious dogma:

- evolution

- round earth

- earth revolving around the sun

- germ theory of disease

- age of the earth

Do you think that any of those discoveries were made by people like you - people do deny facts and science - people for who deny that any proof is possible whilst holding to their personal dogma - or do you think that they were made by open-minded people committed to truth, regardless of it's source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - I didn't. I understand people that put their own personal dogma ahead of facts.

There are science deniers like you and there are even holocaust deniers. Rational and educated people can't make sense of how someone could deny either but they do.

Here's a question for you:

Take any important scientific discovery - maybe one that impinges on old time religious dogma:

- evolution

- round earth

- earth revolving around the sun

- germ theory of disease

- age of the earth

Do you think that any of those discoveries were made by people like you - people do deny facts and science - people for who deny that any proof is possible whilst holding to their personal dogma - or do you think that they were made by open-minded people committed to truth, regardless of it's source?

That is exactly what I was referring to when I asked if you had made that one up.

"people like you"

You have only an idea of what kind of person I am.

Yes, I believe the Scriptures.

But beyond that you have no idea.

Or do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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.

He is saying something about God though, that is my point. He is saying that mans existence occurs without any outside intervention by expressing his opinions about evolution. Don't you see that?

... and I don't think God could manipulate true data, He could not lie. (And please don't ask proof of that, that is my opinion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is saying something about God though, that is my point. He is saying that mans existence occurs without any outside intervention by expressing his opinions about evolution. Don't you see that?

... and I don't think God could manipulate true data, He could not lie. (And please don't ask proof of that, that is my opinion)

Oh - I agree. As a scientist, he's top notch. He is, however, also an ideologue and so is like unto a religious fanatic - only against religion. I am not particularly familiar with his anti-God arguments, at least not yet, but I don't put any credence in his religious convictions.

However, I have read a bit about what was believed about randomness in evolution which seemed to discount the idea of a guiding hand. However, now there is a concept of theory about constraint in randomness that some believe coordinates with the idea of a guiding hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is exactly what I was referring to when I asked if you had made that one up.

"people like you"

You have only an idea of what kind of person I am.

Yes, I believe the Scriptures.

But beyond that you have no idea.

Or do you?

I know that you are also a science denier who puts personal dogma ahead of facts.

Could you answer my question:

Take any important scientific discovery - maybe one that impinges on old time religious dogma:

- evolution

- round earth

- earth revolving around the sun

- germ theory of disease

- age of the earth

Do you think that any of those discoveries were made by people like you - people do deny facts and science - people for who deny that any proof is possible whilst holding to their personal dogma - or do you think that they were made by open-minded people committed to truth, regardless of it's source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that any of those discoveries were made by people like you - people do deny facts and science - people for who deny that any proof is possible whilst holding to their personal dogma - or do you think that they were made by open-minded people committed to truth, regardless of it's source?

Some discoveries like America were made by mistake. Still, these discoveries were fortunate mistakes, like your chocolate bar accidentally getting dipped into someone's open peanut butter jar when you are out for a stroll. Talk about symbolism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that you are also a science denier who puts personal dogma ahead of facts.

Could you answer my question:

Take any important scientific discovery - maybe one that impinges on old time religious dogma:

- evolution

- round earth

- earth revolving around the sun

- germ theory of disease

- age of the earth

Do you think that any of those discoveries were made by people like you - people do deny facts and science - people for who deny that any proof is possible whilst holding to their personal dogma - or do you think that they were made by open-minded people committed to truth, regardless of it's source?

I personally believe that all of the above except for one were pondered upon

by open minded people who sought after truth where ever it may be found.:mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe that all of the above except for one were pondered upon

by open minded people who sought after truth where ever it may be found.:mellow:

I'm curious to which one that might be.. they're all related in a way ;)

Rudick I want to ask you to share your thoughts on a question I have. I don't want a half-effort response or a regurgitated bible camp answer.. I want your opinion..

Why is the human body an 'imperfect creation'? We have things like the blind spot in the eye, palmaris muscle that only 11% of the population has, mammary tissues in males capable of producing milk, female vas deferens, and other useless junk.. where do they come from? Will they serve some unique purpose in the celestial world or does God just have a sense of humor?

Edited by Intrigued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another healthy thread going on the topic of people prior to the time of Adam but the conversation has broadened to include more concepts. I like to understand the opinions of those on the board and focus back on the crux of the matter:

1. The evolution of mankind,

2. what the Gospel has to say about it, and

3. what Mormons believe about it.

Interesting side issues include:

4. death or no death before the fall,

5. the age of the earth, and

6. the commitment that Mormons do or don't have to truth.

To start, please read the poll statement:

Man's body did NOT evolve in any fashion from simpler species and is not biologically related to them.

Answer YES or NO.

Your particular answer is not publicly shown.

Creation of mortality then yes.

If by eternal progression, then no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious to which one that might be.. they're all related in a way ;)

Rudick I want to ask you to share your thoughts on a question I have. I don't want a half-effort response or a regurgitated bible camp answer.. I want your opinion..

Why is the human body an 'imperfect creation'? We have things like the blind spot in the eye, palmaris muscle that only 11% of the population has, mammary tissues in males capable of producing milk, female vas deferens, and other useless junk.. where do they come from? Will they serve some unique purpose in the celestial world or does God just have a sense of humor?

It wasn't created imperfect. It was created perfect, then the fall occurred making all life imperfect. But it wasn't created that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another healthy thread going on the topic of people prior to the time of Adam but the conversation has broadened to include more concepts. I like to understand the opinions of those on the board and focus back on the crux of the matter:

1. The evolution of mankind,

2. what the Gospel has to say about it, and

3. what Mormons believe about it.

Interesting side issues include:

4. death or no death before the fall,

5. the age of the earth, and

6. the commitment that Mormons do or don't have to truth.

To start, please read the poll statement:

Man's body did NOT evolve in any fashion from simpler species and is not biologically related to them.

Answer YES or NO.

Your particular answer is not publicly shown.

I cannot agree nor disagree as of yet.

There is not enough info from either God or Science for a definite conclusion either way.

I do not consider Adam having evolved from a simpler organism out of respect to the man, however i am aware that does not constitute fact or even an educational guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a question designed by a scientist directed towards other scientists. You can parse it and try and spin it but everybody knows what it means - it's the theory of evolution based on Darwinian ideas and Mendels work on genetics... that man was preceeded by earlier forms of hominds that descended from yet earlier hominids that descended from yet earlier life forms all the way back to the simplest life forms.

You won't find me or any believing Mormon that thinks that evolution does not involved God.

Evolution doesn't appear to be random. There is randomness within certain constraints:

https://richarddawkins.net/articles/2141

Okay - what's the evidence?

Just so all know who Snow worships when it comes to this issue, here is a wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins.

Now, before snow and his minions howl like banshee's at the full moon, I'll redily addmit to a ton of codswallop on wikipedia. Having said that, you decide for yourself as to this virulent athiest Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so all know who Snow worships when it comes to this issue, here is a wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins.

Now, before snow and his minions howl like banshee's at the full moon, I'll redily addmit to a ton of codswallop on wikipedia. Having said that, you decide for yourself as to this virulent athiest Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think it is fair to say Snow worships him. We don't know Snow that well (at least I know I don't).

But, I would add that Richard Dawkins is very similar to Korihor in the Book of Mormon. Korihor also believed only in things that are proven by man and called the prophesies of God foolish traditions. Alma 30:

" 23 Now the high priest’s name was Giddonah. And Korihor said unto him: Because I do not teach the foolish traditions of your fathers, and because I do not teach this people to bind themselves down under the foolish ordinances and performances which are laid down by ancient priests, to usurp power and authority over them, to keep them in ignorance, that they may not lift up their heads, but be brought down according to thy words.

24 Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true."

He thought the people were "backwards" by following those traditions and not "open-minded" so to speak. And he asked for a sign, evidence in other words before he would believe. Dawkins also, from what I take from his writings, believes that religion is caused by "memes" passed down from generation to generation and evolving over time to a more complicated story. He believes in cultural evolution and that is what he thinks of scripture, that it is just stories that evolve over time becoming more and more complicated over time. And that the culture of religion promotes itself, in essence bonding itself to the story, just like Korihor stated, that religious people are in bondage by their beliefs.

I think it is important to understand truths as much as we can but if it leads to doubt one's faith in God then that is a problem. Likewise, I think promoting theories that result in people doubting religion as a whole and the value of Christ's sacrifice is a problem too. If reading Dawkins' writings dissuades a person from praying and studying to find personal convictions about truths of God then that is worse than someone who is religious who has difficulty understanding scientific truths and decides not to pursue understanding it more. At least, in the later case, that person could still make it into the Celestial Kingdom and not have a limit to their understanding.

As high and mighty his accolades are in this life regarding scientific study and understanding of earthly processes (less than Celestial processes) they will be quickly surpassed by the individual who first has faith in the Lord and obeys because of that faith, in the next life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't vote because the question is too open to interpretation. When you say "man" do you mean man in a physical sense, or man in an eternal sense? In the former, it is possible that our physical bodies evolved from other species. In the second, our innate spirit and being is evolving as a spirit child, but I would not call that a "lower species." It is more of a metamorphosis from acorn to giant oak.

1. The evolution of mankind,

I believe that man IS evolving. However, I am not sure if it is from lower species or not. I keep an open mind towards both science and religion on this, as we definitely do not have all the details.

2. what the Gospel has to say about it, and

The First Presidency has issued an official declaration stating it has not official position on it. The scriptures are mute on the point, as one cannot see in just a few pages of writ the exact manner in which all things were created. I also believe that the ancient prophets wrote according to their understanding. This is why we have a flat earth belief in the OT, and an earth-centric view in both Bible and Book of Abraham. They were not scientists.

3. what Mormons believe about it.

I'd say most Mormons quote Joseph F. Smith regarding evolution. He, Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, were after all, very vocal regarding it. Yet we also have Elder James Talmage, B.H. Roberts and John Widtsoe who accepted evolution. I would surmise that many of today's apostles keep an open mind towards evolution, as there is much evidence today that wasn't there a century ago.

4. death or no death before the fall,

There have been previous worlds. Of course there was death! When it comes to this earth, Joseph Smith stated it was formed from previous worlds. Therefore, on this world there was death before Adam in some form or another. Hugh Nibley and others suggested that this earth went through a variety of creation/destruction cycles with the last being the great Ice Age, after which Adam was brought forth to lead the children of earth. Some believe that the earth revolved around Kolob before the Fall. However, I believe that it was only the Garden that was in that orbit, and that It is possible that there was no death in the Garden of Eden until after the Fall. This would allow for death on the rest of the planet, and also the Garden when it joined the earth. (we have the city of Enoch floating in space, why not this also?).

5. the age of the earth,

In his Hebrew studies, Joseph Smith was taught that Hebrew tradition had the earth at 2.555 billion years old. He accepted that idea. I have no problem with an ancient earth. Again, it is an issue of creation/destruction cycles, which we do find in the archaeological record. Huge destructions 250M, 60M, and 10,000 years ago where vast quantities of animal and plant life were destroyed. Each time, new species appeared to fill the earth.

6. the commitment that Mormons do or don't have to truth.

I think many LDS have a commitment to truth regardless of where it comes from. However, I agree with Hugh Nibley who complained that many BYU students were convinced that education wasn't important, because they had the gospel and that was all that really mattered. At the same time, I believe many scientists and other intellectuals are "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth." I might be glad Francis Crick discovered DNA, but I don't have to accept his virulent atheistic attitude towards God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm no fan of Snow's charming personality, I think there are some things we need to establish here regarding those who believe in a strict reading of the Creation.

Johnny, et al,

1. Are you willing to accept all the "scientific" teachings as given in the scriptures?

2. Are you willing to reject all scientific evidence/proof that conflicts with the scriptures?

3. Are You willing to admit that all science in the scriptures will agree exactly with itself?

A. If so, are you ready to accept that the children of Canaan were cursed by God to be slaves (are you willing to accept slavery)?

B. The Bible is very clear about its belief in a flat earth - so are you ready to accept the concept of a flat earth?

C. Which do you accept: The Bible and Book of Abraham teach an Earth-centric science, while the BoM in Helaman suddenly notes a new scientific concept that the earth is not in the center of the universe?

D. Different versions of the Creation in Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and the Temple endowment. Which one is scientifically correct?

E. Brigham Young and other prophets have stated that much of the Creation story is symbolic, or even "baby stories." Do you believe that Eve was literally created from Adam's rib? If so, why do you go against the teachings of modern prophets on the subject?

F. Brigham Young taught about Pre-Adamites. If this is the case, then how did he ever figure that out from the scriptures and you didn't?

G. Apostles such as James Talmage, whose books Jesus the Christ, and Articles of Faith, were considered nigh scripture and officially published by the Church, believed in evolution and an ancient earth. Why would an apostle believe in evolution, then be allowed not only to remain an apostle, but also to write one of the greatest works in Mormon history - one that is still in the authorized works for our missionaries?

You see, Johnny, the answer is not as easy as to make the claims you do. If you claim that Snow and others like us are apostates and use quotes to "prove" your point, then you are also doing the same to Brigham Young, Elder Talmage, Elder Widtsoe, Elder B.H. Roberts, and perhaps most of the apostles alive today!

The reason the Church does not have an official stance on evolution, is because God has not revealed the exact method of creating. We get a very brief description that last only a couple pages, and people think it describes a scientific solution. How can that be? Why does Brigham Young read the same scripture differently than you do? He actually KNEW Joseph Smith, and learned many things from him that did not make it into the scriptures. Don't you think he would have had a good grasp of scriptural meaning? I do.

It isn't that we have to accept BY on everything. But we do need to keep an open mind on the things he taught, as he was a prophet of God - and a major one at that. It means that Snow's reading of the scriptures can be just as valid as yours - because many prophets and apostles read it in the same way Snow or I do.

Unlike Snow, I do not state definitively that evolution occurred regarding humans. There are still too many unanswered questions on both the science and religion side of things. However, it is a possible, and perhaps probable part of the answer.

We are Latter-day Saints. We embrace all truth, no matter where it comes from. And where there is conflicting information, we keep an open mind until God fully reveals the truth. When we shut our minds off to possibilities, then God can no longer work within us in those things. Joseph Smith taught us to be open to all truth, regardless of where it came from. Brigham Young said that all truth belongs to the LDS Church. Even conservative thinkers like Joseph F. Smith stated that there is nothing wrong with using scaffolding to help build the Church, as long as we understand the difference between the actual building and the scaffolding.

Too many people on both sides have confused the scaffolding for the actual Gospel. Richard Dawkins and others deny God because he doesn't fit in their scaffolding of science. Meanwhile, many reject science because it doesn't fit into their scaffolding of religion. A Creationist view of the beginning is just as much scaffolding as any other theory out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm no fan of Snow's charming personality, I think there are some things we need to establish here regarding those who believe in a strict reading of the Creation.

Johnny, et al,

1. Are you willing to accept all the "scientific" teachings as given in the scriptures?

2. Are you willing to reject all scientific evidence/proof that conflicts with the scriptures?

3. Are You willing to admit that all science in the scriptures will agree exactly with itself?

A. If so, are you ready to accept that the children of Canaan were cursed by God to be slaves (are you willing to accept slavery)?

B. The Bible is very clear about its belief in a flat earth - so are you ready to accept the concept of a flat earth?

C. Which do you accept: The Bible and Book of Abraham teach an Earth-centric science, while the BoM in Helaman suddenly notes a new scientific concept that the earth is not in the center of the universe?

D. Different versions of the Creation in Genesis 1, Genesis 2, Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, and the Temple endowment. Which one is scientifically correct?

E. Brigham Young and other prophets have stated that much of the Creation story is symbolic, or even "baby stories." Do you believe that Eve was literally created from Adam's rib? If so, why do you go against the teachings of modern prophets on the subject?

F. Brigham Young taught about Pre-Adamites. If this is the case, then how did he ever figure that out from the scriptures and you didn't?

G. Apostles such as James Talmage, whose books Jesus the Christ, and Articles of Faith, were considered nigh scripture and officially published by the Church, believed in evolution and an ancient earth. Why would an apostle believe in evolution, then be allowed not only to remain an apostle, but also to write one of the greatest works in Mormon history - one that is still in the authorized works for our missionaries?

You see, Johnny, the answer is not as easy as to make the claims you do. If you claim that Snow and others like us are apostates and use quotes to "prove" your point, then you are also doing the same to Brigham Young, Elder Talmage, Elder Widtsoe, Elder B.H. Roberts, and perhaps most of the apostles alive today!

The reason the Church does not have an official stance on evolution, is because God has not revealed the exact method of creating. We get a very brief description that last only a couple pages, and people think it describes a scientific solution. How can that be? Why does Brigham Young read the same scripture differently than you do? He actually KNEW Joseph Smith, and learned many things from him that did not make it into the scriptures. Don't you think he would have had a good grasp of scriptural meaning? I do.

It isn't that we have to accept BY on everything. But we do need to keep an open mind on the things he taught, as he was a prophet of God - and a major one at that. It means that Snow's reading of the scriptures can be just as valid as yours - because many prophets and apostles read it in the same way Snow or I do.

Unlike Snow, I do not state definitively that evolution occurred regarding humans. There are still too many unanswered questions on both the science and religion side of things. However, it is a possible, and perhaps probable part of the answer.

We are Latter-day Saints. We embrace all truth, no matter where it comes from. And where there is conflicting information, we keep an open mind until God fully reveals the truth. When we shut our minds off to possibilities, then God can no longer work within us in those things. Joseph Smith taught us to be open to all truth, regardless of where it came from. Brigham Young said that all truth belongs to the LDS Church. Even conservative thinkers like Joseph F. Smith stated that there is nothing wrong with using scaffolding to help build the Church, as long as we understand the difference between the actual building and the scaffolding.

Too many people on both sides have confused the scaffolding for the actual Gospel. Richard Dawkins and others deny God because he doesn't fit in their scaffolding of science. Meanwhile, many reject science because it doesn't fit into their scaffolding of religion. A Creationist view of the beginning is just as much scaffolding as any other theory out there.

I believe I like best the statement by Joseph F. Smith where he stated that there is nothing wrong with using scaffolding to help build the Church, as long as we understand the difference between the actual building and the scaffolding.

I also believe you are reading into what I believe and also what I believe the Bible and other Scripture teach.

Such as the first two chapters of Genesis.

I never have seen it as two conflicting accounts of Creation.

The first as a brief overview of the creation and the second

chapter in a little more detail.

Later in life I accepted the overview as a possible discription of a

Spiritual Creation. I still think that it is more likely a brief synopsis.

"A. If so, are you ready to accept that the children of Canaan were cursed by God to be slaves (are you willing to accept slavery)?"

When God lays out the inevitable outcome of a certain behavior

That does not mean that either God or you and I aught to think

the situation is a good thing.

"B. The Bible is very clear about its belief in a flat earth - so are you ready to accept the concept of a flat earth?"

Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the

earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that

stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out

as a tent to dwell in:

Brigham Young and others have said many things.

God it seems has smiled on some of them and smiled at others.

I have an open mind.

Not too open though so as to keep things from falling out.

I accept truth where ever it may be found but when it comes from Satan

I look for the bits of strychnine so as to keep my health in check.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my view, if one truly believes in the fall and resurrection then one would also believe that it is within God's power to make a human body without the need for a human evolutionary process. That is not an argument that evolution did not occur on this planet and that it wasn't necessary for other things such as laying down the organic base for human survival on this planet. But, in my view, LDS theology supports God's ability to make a human body from the "dust" of this earth. How is He going to make your resurrected body after your mortal body has turned to dust and the molecules that made up your body are now incorporated into someone elses body? I don't think He is going to have to go through a whole 2.5 billion year evolutionary cycle to make those bodies.

It wouldn't matter to me either way because I know that my mortal body is not who I really am. I know, too that God acts with purpose and intent and this world and us are not some laboratory experiment to see what happens. There was some reason the earth had to go through all those steps that scientists are recording and putting together as 'evolution.' But this does not necessarily mean that the human body shares a common ancestor with all life on this planet. And, I think as hard as scientist try, they will not have all the pieces of the puzzle in this life and so their view is inherently limited and we have to take it as such. That doesn't mean it's not valuable, it's just a limited understanding. If one believes evolution is true, I think the correct way to say it is that it is part of the truth, not the complete truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot agree nor disagree as of yet.

There is not enough info from either God or Science for a definite conclusion either way.

That's incorrect.

The evidence for evolution is massive and accumulating rapidly. In their book on Mormonism and evolution, two LDS scientists, Trent Stephens and Jeffry Meldrum) wrote, "When someone says, "There is not enough data to test the theory of evolution," and you see that the publication date for that statement is, say 1960, perhaps that statement was true then. However, this is not the case today. Over 90 percent of the evidence that we have available to test the theory of evolution today did not exist in 1960. The hominid fossil recored barely existed forty years ago; today it is enormous. In 1960, the molecular era had not yet dawned; none of that existed. Today the molecular evidence , which is probably the strongest and most voluminous support for evolution is immense." Evolution and Mormonism, Stephens, Meldrum, Peterson, p17

The National Academies of Science says, "Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously...

"In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."( Evolution Resources from the National Academies )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so all know who Snow worships when it comes to this issue, here is a wikipedia article on Richard Dawkins.

Now, before snow and his minions howl like banshee's at the full moon, I'll redily addmit to a ton of codswallop on wikipedia. Having said that, you decide for yourself as to this virulent athiest Dawkins.

That's a childish and stupid thing to say - it is also completely false.

Grow up, be honest and post like an adult.

I'd ask you to demonstrate anything that Dawkins says evolution is untrue but we both know that you can't do that. So instead you resort to fallacy's like your above ad hominid (I doubt you'll get the joke).

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