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

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

Perhaps reading it might clarify the issue.

There is a conflict over the number of days over which creation happened. Genesis 1:3 and subsequent verses say that God created the universe in six days.

In Genesis 2:4, some translations, including the King James Version, imply that it took one day.

In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.

In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve.

Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth ...fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".

In the first account, God created the fish on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all. (religious tolerance)

and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Creation of mortality then yes.

If by eternal progression, then no.

To my knowledge, neither Darwin nor Mendel were LDS so I'm pretty sure we are talking about Eternal Progression.

... although I'd hazard a guess that both have been baptized and confirmed by now.

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.

I would like to reply to your post – I believe in evolution. Not because it is “the” answer to everything but because with all things considered I find it to be the best answer. I am well aware that there are “problems” with evolution. When I say problems I mean things that are observed that evolution does not explain.

I do not understand why many “religionist” are so un-accepting of science and the scientific process of examining the world around us. The view of things has changed greatly in the last 2,000 years. It has been the acceptance of science that has resulted in technological advances – and none of these advances seem to have been brought about because of religious advances.

In the arena of knowledge when science and religion (Christianity) have clashed – in the end it has been religion that has been embarrassed over things like a flat earth, or the earth centered universe (let alone solar system) and advances in the medical field or concepts of liberty and freedom.

We live in a very different society today. Not because religion has advanced but because science has advanced. The advances of science has become so pronounced that many that hear the cries that religion should be given more credence wonder if there is any benefit at all for religion that seems to only advance itself by denigrating science.

I have made the statement many times – if a person cannot accept the truths of science that are so obvious and observable; how can such a person be trusted to understand correctly the religious notions that are not so obvious and observable?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, neither Darwin nor Mendel were LDS so I'm pretty sure we are talking about Eternal Progression.

... although I'd hazard a guess that both have been baptized and confirmed by now.

Then it is no.

We will be surprised to learn something totally different that what evolutionist gives us and what is missing prior to our spiritual birth. For the masses I suspect, simply cannot accept it right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps reading it might clarify the issue.

There is a conflict over the number of days over which creation happened. Genesis 1:3 and subsequent verses say that God created the universe in six days.

In Genesis 2:4, some translations, including the King James Version, imply that it took one day.

In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.

In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve.

Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth ...fowl" ; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground".

In the first account, God created the fish on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all. (religious tolerance)

and so on.

The "Day" that the Lord created here refers to the time period that He did the work as in back in my Father's "day", does not declare that my father lived only a day.

As for the plants that the Lord Planted, He planted them in eastward in Eden.

This took place on an Earth that the Gods had already created. . .

Edited by JohnnyRudick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it is no.

We will be surprised to learn something totally different that what evolutionist gives us and what is missing prior to our spiritual birth. For the masses I suspect, simply cannot accept it right now.

No what?

That you accept evolution as the explanation for the descent of man or that you deny the science?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far the results are encouraging. As of now, about 70% accept the theory of evolution thus demonstrating that posters of this board are more educated and intelligent than rank and file Mormons.

I've seen various samples but last I recall, about 22% of Mormons accepted evolution, which, unfortunately is well below Catholics, Jews many Protestants. For general acceptance in the US population, it is much higher - one study saying 40%. Europeans, as a general rule are more educated on the matter and have a higher acceptance of the theory.

If this boards is any indicator, there is truth in President's statement that our religion is not hostile to real science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Day" that the Lord created here refers to the time period that He did the work as in back in my Father's "day", does not declare that my father lived only a day.

Really?

Prove it. And explain why "day" means one thing in one chapter and another thing in the next chapter.

As for the plants that the Lord Planted, He planted them in eastward in Eden.

This took place on an Earth that the Gods had already created. . .

So what - that's not at issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps reading it might clarify the issue. . .

In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.

In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve. . . and so on.

You asked the question:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . So what - that's not at issue.

Your responce was to my answer to your question. . .

"In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.

In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam. then the animals, then Eve. . . and so on."

So it was in question.

In the second chapter we are talking about an earth that has already been created.

The second chapter of Genisis is only talking about the Garden in the Eastern part

of Eden He planted, where He placed Adam and his wife. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the Mods on this site either live in fear of Snow, or they are as ignorant as he is. This thread has devolved into a snow urinating contest, in which he does nothing but puke unsavory comments and accusations towards anyone who dares to disagree with him.

If someone would explain how I can block his profile and unsavory comments, this place might just be worth sticking around and enjoying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the Mods on this site either live in fear of Snow, or they are as ignorant as he is. This thread has devolved into a snow urinating contest, in which he does nothing but puke unsavory comments and accusations towards anyone who dares to disagree with him.

If someone would explain how I can block his profile and unsavory comments, this place might just be worth sticking around and enjoying?

I would never even think of silencing him.^_^

He is a little bitter spice to make a dish more . . . interesting.:D

I like him around. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the Mods on this site either live in fear of Snow, or they are as ignorant as he is. This thread has devolved into a snow urinating contest, in which he does nothing but puke unsavory comments and accusations towards anyone who dares to disagree with him.

If someone would explain how I can block his profile and unsavory comments, this place might just be worth sticking around and enjoying?

Go pesterer someone else little boy. You're tiresome here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the Mods on this site either live in fear of Snow, or they are as ignorant as he is. This thread has devolved into a snow urinating contest, in which he does nothing but puke unsavory comments and accusations towards anyone who dares to disagree with him.

If someone would explain how I can block his profile and unsavory comments, this place might just be worth sticking around and enjoying?

If you block people you will miss out on important ideas. While Snow may be blunt, I doubt he impugns anyone's character through innuendo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

So are you saying that unlike the rest of the world.. Adam did not have a vestigial tail, now nonfunctional ear muscles, the plica semilunaris, and many other 'useless' traits?

Cause that's a hefty claim and I'd like to see some scriptural based evidence.. especially from Rudick. The main reason I mention the above is because of his near zealous religious views.. and that they are difficult to reconcile without admitting evolution to be fact.

Edited by Intrigued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the Mods on this site either live in fear of Snow, or they are as ignorant as he is. This thread has devolved into a snow urinating contest, in which he does nothing but puke unsavory comments and accusations towards anyone who dares to disagree with him.

If someone would explain how I can block his profile and unsavory comments, this place might just be worth sticking around and enjoying?

Just so you know, this is a violation of the forum rules. I suggest you moderate your tone, or avoid these discussions. I'd hate to have any of us mods suspend you for rule violation.

Also, Snow and many of the mods do not see eye to eye on many things. I agree with him on some issues, but often find his methodology to be rather insulting and corrosive. But then, I can be that way sometimes, also.

Snow started this thread. He should be allowed to determine its direction, at least to some extent. If you wish to start another thread on the joys of being a son of Adam, knock yourself out. But please follow the site rules.

Rules:

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

6. Posting issues you have with a moderator or administrator anywhere on the site will not be allowed. Please follow the chain of authority if you have any concerns. Any such posts will be removed and the poster will be subject to the consequences of breaking the rules.

Edited by rameumptom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 )

I wasn't arguing evolution theory which is pretty sound.

It's the application of the theory that is problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested in hearing some reasons why those that reject the theory of evolution (human evolution) do so.

It isn't because there isn't enough proof. The evidence is massive and accumulating rapidly.

It isn't because of theology - unless you are Evangelical/Pentecostal. Mormonism is neutral, the Pope accepts evolution as to the other mainline Protestant groups.

It isn't because there are other possible theories - there are no other scientific theories to explain man's origin.

The only explanations I've seen so far from those that don't accept evolution are:

1. I believe what I believe.

2. I am not a monkey or descended from one.

If you reject evolution, what is your basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just so you know, this is a violation of the forum rules. I suggest you moderate your tone, or avoid these discussions. I'd hate to have any of us mods suspend you for rule violation.

Also, Snow and many of the mods do not see eye to eye on many things. I agree with him on some issues, but often find his methodology to be rather insulting and corrosive. But then, I can be that way sometimes, also.

Snow started this thread. He should be allowed to determine its direction, at least to some extent. If you wish to start another thread on the joys of being a son of Adam, knock yourself out. But please follow the site rules.

Rules:

Thanks for the advice, you make a good point, the less time here the better.

I wonder if those who contribute their hard earned dollars to keep your so-called Foundation alive, actually know what their money is buying?

Adieu

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