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

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.

I didn't say it was unlike the rest of the world (at least I don't think I did). It was like everything in this world, created spiritually, meaning immortal or perfect. Then with the fall all things were made mortal. The other way to understand this is that the fall is inversely proportional to Christ's resurrection. However high you think Christ ascended by overcoming this life and overcoming death itself and the changes that took place to the body with that event are inversely proportional to the fall of Adam. My point though is that God first created everything in perfection, there was nothing vestigial about anything He created. Coming under the influence of Satan resulted in things becoming corrupted and changed and vestigial. With the resurrection all things will be made whole, in other words how they were originally.

Harold B. Lee said: "… Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death. … How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state. …"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't say it was unlike the rest of the world (at least I don't think I did). It was like everything in this world, created spiritually, meaning immortal or perfect. Then with the fall all things were made mortal. The other way to understand this is that the fall is inversely proportional to Christ's resurrection. However high you think Christ ascended by overcoming this life and overcoming death itself and the changes that took place to the body with that event are inversely proportional to the fall of Adam. My point though is that God first created everything in perfection, there was nothing vestigial about anything He created. Coming under the influence of Satan resulted in things becoming corrupted and changed and vestigial. With the resurrection all things will be made whole, in other words how they were originally.

Harold B. Lee said: "… Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death. … How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state. …"

There is no way I could have explained it better.:o

Unless there is some way that my spirit is reading your spirit and I am somehow by this seeing things in your postings that others can't see.

I cannot understand why the others cannot understand that there are reasons other then blind faith that keep us believing the way we do.

SLC2002GOLD, I am sorry to see you go.

You were a valiant comrade.

Wish you could have stayed the course.

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?

I personally think that most of the LDS objectors to organic evolution do so due to a misconception of theology within the Church. I know as I was growing up, I heard over and over the opinions of Joseph Fielding Smith, Mark E. Petersen, Boyd K. Packer, Bruce R. McConkie (and more) saying that organic evolution was wrong, was of the devil, was communistic, was impossible because it falsified the Fall & Atonement.

I wish I had known then that the ideas were taken from a racist Seventh-day Adventist, George McCready Price. Would've saved me some time.

These leaders were sincere but wrong, and they were very vocal, and no one set the record straight. Take, for example, Pres. Smith's book Man, his Origin and Destiny -- yech. Or McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, which quoted extensively from that book.

A vast majority of the church took all this to mean it was DOCTRINAL. If they were to pursue truth vigorously, my opinion is that they would eventually come to agree with the idea that organic evolution is true. But too many simply cannot lay aside their 'loyalty' to the erroneous ideas of men, due to the pulpit connection.

HiJolly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for my bad English. I'm not able to explain clearly my point of view so I'll try to do it with a question.

No one, till today, is able to have a man from a bonobo. But if someday this will be possible what this prove for you?

That this can be happen by chance or that an intelligent being can do it?

And if we can create a robot from the dust (computer from the sand and body from the iron) why is so difficult to accept that a being well higher than us, in skill and knowledge and power, could do better?

just my 2 cents!

I cannot explaing in English but adaptation is proven not evolution!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for my bad English. I'm not able to explain clearly my point of view so I'll try to do it with a question.

No one, till today, is able to have a man from a bonobo. But if someday this will be possible what this prove for you?

That this can be happen by chance or that an intelligent being can do it?

And if we can create a robot from the dust (computer from the sand and body from the iron) why is so difficult to accept that a being well higher than us, in skill and knowledge and power, could do better?

just my 2 cents!

I cannot explaing in English but adaptation is proven not evolution!

I Love your "2 Cents":)

Thanks a lot^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting Snow is so adamant about the "fact" of evolution. Makes him seem like one of the Evangelicals he averrs to despise. Certainly wouldn't want any anomalies or evidence to the contrary get in the way of this "fact".

Genesis 1:

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I'm sticking to my guns: I never descended from a monkey. Or any amoeba either.

I understand the church's policy and agree with it.

It's just my personal belief that I didn't evolve. You can be evolved if you want to. BTW Snow, I'm very educated and evolved (did I mean involved?) in a successful career. I'm having a lot of fun seeing you bloviate on this forum!!!!

Edited by mrmarklin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting Snow is so adamant about the "fact" of evolution. Makes him seem like one of the Evangelicals he averrs to despise. Certainly wouldn't want any anomalies or evidence to the contrary get in the way of this "fact".

Genesis 1:

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I'm sticking to my guns: I never descended from a monkey. Or any amoeba either.

I understand the church's policy and agree with it.

It's just my personal belief that I didn't evolve. You can be evolved if you want to. BTW Snow, I'm very educated and evolved (did I mean involved?) in a successful career. I'm having a lot of fun seeing you bloviate on this forum!!!!

Did you evolve from a zygote?

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You are forgetting:

3. Gimme that old time religion.

Traditionalist views can exist despite evidence to the contrary. If our understanding of God's handiwork began with a primitivist view, then for some it is important that it remain so unchanged.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, I've been a little skeptical of human evolution, just because I've always been partial to the idea that Adam's body was created by Heavenly Father and Mother directly. (I like to pick my heresies, thank you very much!)

But really, nothing would surprise me and I have a hard time getting too worked up over the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think that most of the LDS objectors to organic evolution do so due to a misconception of theology within the Church. I know as I was growing up, I heard over and over the opinions of Joseph Fielding Smith, Mark E. Petersen, Boyd K. Packer, Bruce R. McConkie (and more) saying that organic evolution was wrong, was of the devil, was communistic, was impossible because it falsified the Fall & Atonement.

I wish I had known then that the ideas were taken from a racist Seventh-day Adventist, George McCready Price. Would've saved me some time.

These leaders were sincere but wrong, and they were very vocal, and no one set the record straight. Take, for example, Pres. Smith's book Man, his Origin and Destiny -- yech. Or McConkie's Mormon Doctrine, which quoted extensively from that book.

A vast majority of the church took all this to mean it was DOCTRINAL. If they were to pursue truth vigorously, my opinion is that they would eventually come to agree with the idea that organic evolution is true. But too many simply cannot lay aside their 'loyalty' to the erroneous ideas of men, due to the pulpit connection.

HiJolly

I think you are right.

Of those that reject evolution, I'd put them or most of them into three basic categories:

1. The Irrationals: They believe what they believe because they believe it and facts mean nothing to them.

2. Those that have been naively influenced by propagandists to incorrectly believe that the science isn't solid, massive and certain.

3. Those that believe what they do because someone told them that is what they are supposed to believe from a religious standpoint - even though what they have been told is wrong... to your point above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no way I could have explained it better.:o

Unless there is some way that my spirit is reading your spirit and I am somehow by this seeing things in your postings that others can't see.

I cannot understand why the others cannot understand that there are reasons other then blind faith that keep us believing the way we do.

I didn't say it was unlike the rest of the world (at least I don't think I did). It was like everything in this world, created spiritually, meaning immortal or perfect. Then with the fall all things were made mortal. The other way to understand this is that the fall is inversely proportional to Christ's resurrection. However high you think Christ ascended by overcoming this life and overcoming death itself and the changes that took place to the body with that event are inversely proportional to the fall of Adam. My point though is that God first created everything in perfection, there was nothing vestigial about anything He created. Coming under the influence of Satan resulted in things becoming corrupted and changed and vestigial. With the resurrection all things will be made whole, in other words how they were originally.

It would have to be implied it was 'unlike the rest of the world' if he was anatomically different. So it is your stance that Adam did not have any of the.. 'useless' items I listed, as he was perfect. Are you saying that Satans influence is the reason that some humans can wiggle their ears and that some humans are born with 'tails' (quite demon-ish :cool:)? It sounds silly to me.

Vestigial structures have nothing to do with Satans corruption.. they're simply 'left overs' from evolution. They do not retain their original functionality.. absolutely nothing to do with 'Satans influence'. They are a major evidence for evolution.. and Adam would have had these vestigial structures because evolution is (for the most part) true. If vestigial structures did not exist pre-fall.. then evolution would be entirely false (and this should show in the fossil record).

Harold B. Lee said: "… Besides the Fall having had to do with Adam and Eve, causing a change to come over them, that change affected all human nature, all of the natural creations, all of the creation of animals, plants—all kinds of life were changed. The earth itself became subject to death. … How it took place no one can explain, and anyone who would attempt to make an explanation would be going far beyond anything the Lord has told us. But a change was wrought over the whole face of the creation, which up to that time had not been subject to death. From that time henceforth all in nature was in a state of gradual dissolution until mortal death was to come, after which there would be required a restoration in a resurrected state. …"

"The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable substance. The whole series of chalk deposits and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation. -James E. Talmage"

The claim Lee made is demonstrably false (see: fossil record). Also, if there was no death pre-fall.. how then.. could there be villages of pre-adamites? Were they perfect also? Didn't Adam and Eve eat a fruit.. which would damage the tree (what is death but unfixable damage?)? It seems to me that if injury could be caused.. death could also be caused, but I'm afraid that's an entirely different subject.

LDS are no stranger to replacing old revelation with new revelation. Snoozer and Rudick, if new revelation was revealed that conflicts with past revelation (and your own personal convictions) would you then leave the dark side? :lol:

Edited by Intrigued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . If vestigial structures did not exist pre-fall.. then evolution would be entirely false (and this should show in the fossil record). . .

LDS are no stranger to replacing old revelation with new revelation. Snoozer and Rudick, if new revelation was revealed that conflicts with past revelation (and your own personal convictions) would you then leave the dark side? :lol:

And if I believe that there were no lineage to Adam on this planet?

New Revelation that conflicted with prior revelation that dealt with a

subject at the same level of circumstance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I believe that there were no lineage to Adam on this planet?

New Revelation that conflicted with prior revelation that dealt with a

subject at the same level of circumstance?

What's it matter what you believe? You believe what you believe regardless of the facts - indeed, facts stare you in the face and you claim that such facts aren't even possible. Why are you even debating it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if I believe that there were no lineage to Adam on this planet?

New Revelation that conflicted with prior revelation that dealt with a

subject at the same level of circumstance?

Did Adam have a tail bone?

Also, I was speaking of a hypothetical scenario in which an LDS authoritative figure said that evolution was an undeniable fact of life.

Edited by Intrigued
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you?:cool:

Because I believe that due to Mormon Theology, Mormons should actively peruse knowledge and understanding, in school, or out of school their whole life long. I think that we as Mormons are (should be) committed to truth regardless of it's source.

I think that it is an embarrassment that some Mormons mistakenly deny science on evolution, but understand that most of them probably do so out of naivete. Fortunately, most people are not irrational and once they recognize their error, accept it and then can correct it. There's no such hope for the irrational Johnny, but we keep trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

If you reject evolution, what is your basis?

I know several people who are descended from Jackasses! Is that evolution, or what?

I accept evolution, myself. I just don't know all the fine tuning that God may have accomplished to bring about Adam in this arrangement.

I believe, as I think Snow does, that there was an Adam. I believe he was the only man in a piece of the earth that revolved around Kolob prior to the Fall. Death began for the creatures in the Garden of Eden when Adam transgressed and that chunk of rock fell to the earth we are now upon.

Adam was probably engendered from Pre-Adamites and brought to the Garden of Eden from the main planet, with his memories erased. Brigham Young believed something akin to this. As we can be adopted into Abraham's lineage and be blessed, I believe that the humans in Adam's day could be adopted into the lineage and be blessed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot explaing in English but adaptation is proven not evolution!

But that is exactly what evolution is: adaptation.

Environments change, and animals adapt by changing their feeding habits, growing thick fur, etc. Over a period of time, those genetic changes add up to making new species. Look at dogs, for example. There are hundreds of breeds that range in size, shape, bark, fur, color, etc. Some are unable to breed with one another. Humans create new forms and breeds all the time.

Our genes literally contain the code for many things. Biologists have turned on certain genes in chicken embryos, turning the baby chicks more into their dinosaur ancestors: scales instead of feathers, teeth, etc. It is now believed that the easiest way to bring back a dinosaur is simply by switching genes on/off in an ostrich (which already has scales on its legs).

Biology proves evolution via adaptation occurs all the time, especially in microbes. We can manipulate bacteria to produce insulin, vitamins, and a variety of other items useful to man.

Apes and chimps are capable of communicating through sign language, showing they have intelligence. We know through Joseph Smith's teachings that they all have a soul.

So, why can't God manipulate DNA to form new creatures from older creatures? Why keep reinventing the wheel, when the solutions to form a variety of things are already found in our genetic code?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I believe that due to Mormon Theology, Mormons should actively peruse knowledge and understanding, in school, or out of school their whole life long. I think that we as Mormons are (should be) committed to truth regardless of it's source.

Exactly...it is then we can receive further clarity by the teachings of those assigned to us (Spirit or ministering beings) regarding the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is exactly what evolution is: adaptation.

Environments change, and animals adapt by changing their feeding habits, growing thick fur, etc. Over a period of time, those genetic changes add up to making new species. Look at dogs, for example. There are hundreds of breeds that range in size, shape, bark, fur, color, etc. Some are unable to breed with one another. Humans create new forms and breeds all the time.

Our genes literally contain the code for many things. Biologists have turned on certain genes in chicken embryos, turning the baby chicks more into their dinosaur ancestors: scales instead of feathers, teeth, etc. It is now believed that the easiest way to bring back a dinosaur is simply by switching genes on/off in an ostrich (which already has scales on its legs).

Biology proves evolution via adaptation occurs all the time, especially in microbes. We can manipulate bacteria to produce insulin, vitamins, and a variety of other items useful to man.

Apes and chimps are capable of communicating through sign language, showing they have intelligence. We know through Joseph Smith's teachings that they all have a soul.

So, why can't God manipulate DNA to form new creatures from older creatures? Why keep reinventing the wheel, when the solutions to form a variety of things are already found in our genetic code?

Adaption may give some credence in creating lesser lives or mutant variants but nothing greater than itself. Our own research into stem cell cloning found this out. It simply doesn’t work without outside assistance.

I yet to see anything that mutants or adapt itself into a higher life form from its predecessor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No what?

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

I simply don't accept fables of men Snow. When I know the true author and the reasoning behind it, it becomes less creditable to accept it. It is really know different from Astro-physics. Allot of holes in both cases but some great work has been accomplished by honorable men/women - giving credence where it is due Snow.

I also fault those in the church in not really researching it out and then asking GOD, if it is true or not prior to publishing. We have ‘Y’ professors on both side of the creational topic that does this kind of academic nonsense publishing.

But the point of finding truth is our objective, you stated in a posting. As I do agree with your assessment Snow, we need to learn science in order to receive a greater understanding of truths, whether; it is in the earth or in our universe.

I for one Snow am a fan of science but do not allow it to be my truth or god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for my bad English. I'm not able to explain clearly my point of view so I'll try to do it with a question.

No one, till today, is able to have a man from a bonobo. But if someday this will be possible what this prove for you?

That this can be happen by chance or that an intelligent being can do it?

And if we can create a robot from the dust (computer from the sand and body from the iron) why is so difficult to accept that a being well higher than us, in skill and knowledge and power, could do better?

just my 2 cents!

I cannot explaing in English but adaptation is proven not evolution!

Let you know, we have taken rat neurons and just simply placed them on a silicon chip to see what will occur. They simply adapted themselves to the chip. It reveals that a single neuron have intelligence.

I have to laugh at the works of MIT in the field of digital robotics. Where at Los Alamos Lab, a work of a fellow scientist, have proven analog robotics is superior in this field than what is being done at MIT. Using Lehi statement of the term ‘ACT’, MIT robotics are ‘TO BE ACTED UPON, where Los Alamos robotics are ‘TO ACT’ for themselves. Yes! With simple basic command movements and functions, these little robotic insects now crawl around his office, learning as they move about.

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