Sign in to follow this  
Snow

Evolution, The Gospel, Science

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

And who here is saying God wasn't involved? It is very likely imnsho that God worked through evolution, igniting the first life and tweaking it as necessary so as to create new forms of life, including human.

Isn't that "Intelligent Design" in a nutshell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says that evolution isn't partially due to Intelligent Design?

Here's proof of it: Scientists Create ‘Artificial Life’ - The Daily Beast

Now that humans are creating synthetic DNA, are we approaching god-status in creating new life? And is this not one way in which evolution is now occurring - humans manipulate a species, just as nature has proven to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that the majority of my understanding of evolution is flawed. I don't know a whole lot about it, in fact, I probably have some personal misconceptions about it.

Evolution is a very expansive topic, including things that I didn't think were part of evolution (like adaptation), but apparently are.

What I do believe, based on personal testimony, is that Adam and Eve were literal beings placed in the Garden, and became the first living mortals after the Earth was prepared and sanctified.

Any beliefs I have about evolution must inevitably work around the fact that Adam and Eve did not arise from lesser creatures. They were placed there fully formed, imho.

Consider me silly or blind to believe that our first parents were real people, but that is part of the same testimony I have of the Savior. How evolution fits into that, I really don't know. I don't even fully know what evolution is, truthfully. Heh..:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hidden

Human life is created through procreation, not in a test tube. We may be close to duplicating aspects of it, but we will never be able to create the spirit needed to have offspring in a test lab.

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't that "Intelligent Design" in a nutshell?

No. Intelligent Design was hijacked a long time ago by the young earth of max 6000 year old, creationist.

I really think we should be able to conclude that the G-d created the universe and if we just take a good look around we should get at least an idea how he did it. The concept that G-d hides what he does and deceives anyone seeking knowledge so no one can understanding anything about him, is an outmoded flawed concept of G-d and his works that is contrary to everything Jesus taught us about him and his Father.

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that the majority of my understanding of evolution is flawed. I don't know a whole lot about it, in fact, I probably have some personal misconceptions about it.

Evolution is a very expansive topic, including things that I didn't think were part of evolution (like adaptation), but apparently are.

What I do believe, based on personal testimony, is that Adam and Eve were literal beings placed in the Garden, and became the first living mortals after the Earth was prepared and sanctified.

Any beliefs I have about evolution must inevitably work around the fact that Adam and Eve did not arise from lesser creatures. They were placed there fully formed, imho.

Consider me silly or blind to believe that our first parents were real people, but that is part of the same testimony I have of the Savior. How evolution fits into that, I really don't know. I don't even fully know what evolution is, truthfully. Heh..:P

Do you believe it is posible that Adam and Eve evolved from a lesser creature called a zygote and not a fully developed creature? You did and that is included in the understanding of evolution.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you believe it is posible that Adam and Eve evolved from a lesser creature called a zygote and not a fully developed creature? You did and that is included in the understanding of evolution.

The Traveler

As in Adam and Eve came in the same way as we did (ie being conceived and born)?

Yes.

Although I wouldn't personally consider conception and the maturation of a fetus to be 'evolution' necessarily, that just shows I know little about evolution itself. :P

So, if you would define evolution (in part, at least) as the process of maturation and growth that a newborn goes through prior to it's physical birth, then I could accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who here is saying God wasn't involved? It is very likely imnsho that God worked through evolution, igniting the first life and tweaking it as necessary so as to create new forms of life, including human.

Start off teaching the correct form of amino acids and let free agency guide them in their chaining.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As in Adam and Eve came in the same way as we did (ie being conceived and born)?

Yes.

Although I wouldn't personally consider conception and the maturation of a fetus to be 'evolution' necessarily, that just shows I know little about evolution itself. :P

So, if you would define evolution (in part, at least) as the process of maturation and growth that a newborn goes through prior to it's physical birth, then I could accept that.

So you believe that Adam and Evelyn were the first mortals but that then may have been born of some parents.

If the parents weren't mortal, pray tell, what were they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me clarify, I should have placed the last part in two paragraphs, not one. I think that Snow believes in a literal Adam, is that correct?

As I see it, I am required to accept, dogmatically, a literal Adam, who is some sense, but not necessarily biological, is designated as the first man.... and so that is what I in fact believe.

Thank you for clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you 9 posters (from the poll) that reject evolution, and therefore, I think, probably reject other pre-Adamic humans, must believe in situational morality.

... that is, in certain situations, incest is good and desirable.

Is that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you 9 posters (from the poll) that reject evolution, and therefore, I think, probably reject other pre-Adamic humans, must believe in situational morality.

... that is, in certain situations, incest is good and desirable.

Is that right?

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you 9 posters (from the poll) that reject evolution, and therefore, I think, probably reject other pre-Adamic humans, must believe in situational morality.

... that is, in certain situations, incest is good and desirable.

Is that right?

Those that didn't like incest mixed with the Neanderthals.

After this life, will we look at each other as brothers and sisters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you 9 posters (from the poll) that reject evolution, and therefore, I think, probably reject other pre-Adamic humans, must believe in situational morality.

... that is, in certain situations, incest is good and desirable.

Is that right?

Not sure that incest is good or desireable but there are certainly some close relationships in the bible even ignoring Adam's children.

I'm not sure incest was looked at the same way then as we do now.

Abraham married a blood niece. The entire house of Israel is from this marraige.

Lot's daughters slept with him after the death of their mother to preserve the line, and Tamar slept with her father in law (Judah) to preserve her husband's (Judah's!) line(perhaps not strictly incest).

Note all the incest in Egyptian Pharoah's genealogies. In the beginning they were righteous rulers. The intermarraige custom must have been descended from earlier practice.

It's clear though that by Moses' time incest was prohibited.

Edited by mrmarklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure us nine posters reject evolution in toto. I don't believe that I descend from anything other than God, but I can certainly understand based on the science today why many believe mankind did evolve. Maybe lesser creatures evolved somehow, but I'm not sold on that either.

Frankly, there are not enough facts to determine how all things were created. Only vague verses in the Bible, and scattered fossil remains, of which there are new discoveries all the time. Discoveries which on an ongoing basis challenge the supposed "knowledge" that went before.

But nothing will convince me that I'm not a child of God. This is repeated ad nauseum in the Bible particularly in the New Testament.

Edited by mrmarklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure us nine posters reject evolution in toto. I don't believe that I descend from anything other than God, but I can certainly understand based on the science today why many believe mankind did evolve. Maybe lesser creatures evolved somehow, but I'm not sold on that either.

Frankly, there are not enough facts to determine how all things were created. Only vague verses in the Bible, and scattered fossil remains, of which there are new discoveries all the time. Discoveries which on an ongoing basis challenge the supposed "knowledge" that went before.

But nothing will convince me that I'm not a child of God. This is repeated ad nauseum in the Bible particularly in the New Testament.

Why does the body have to be a "child of God" to satisfy that statement over just knowing that spiritually we are children of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does the body have to be a "child of God" to satisfy that statement over just knowing that spiritually we are children of God?

Because we may have an exception, the rule is,

These are a literal decent.

. . .

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of

Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel,

which was the son of Cainan,

Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth,

which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists create a living organism - CNN.com

Scientists create a living organism

By Clive Cookson, FT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Synthetic research behaves and divides in lab dishes like natural bacteria

Independent scientists and philosophers hail research as a landmark

Research published online by Science

Research funder Synthetic Genomics signed deal with Exxon to make algal biofuels

(FT) -- Scientists have turned inanimate chemicals into a living organism in an experiment that raises profound questions about the essence of life.

Craig Venter, the U.S. genomics pioneer, announced on Thursday that scientists at his laboratories in Maryland and California had succeeded in their 15-year project to make the world's first "synthetic cells" -- bacteria called Mycoplasma mycoides.

"We have passed through a critical psychological barrier," Dr. Venter told the FT. "It has changed my own thinking, both scientifically and philosophically, about life, and how it works."

The bacteria's genes were all constructed in the laboratory "from four bottles of chemicals on a chemical synthesizer, starting with information on a computer," he said.

The research -- published online by the journal Science -- was hailed as a landmark by many independent scientists and philosophers.

"Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny," said Julian Savulescu, ethics professor at Oxford University. "This is a step towards ... creation of living beings with capacities and natures that could never have naturally evolved."

The synthetic bacteria have 14 "watermark sequences" attached to their genome -- inert stretches of DNA added to distinguish them from their natural counterparts. They behaved and divided in lab dishes like natural bacteria.

M mycoides was chosen as a simple microbe with which to develop and prove the technology. It has no immediate application.

But scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute and Synthetic Genomics, the company funding their research, intend to move quickly on to more useful targets that may not exist in nature.

They are particularly interested in designing algae that can capture carbon dioxide from the air and produce hydrocarbon fuels.

Last year Synthetic Genomics signed a $600M agreement with Exxon Mobil to make algal biofuels. "We have looked hard at natural algae, and we can't find one that can make the fuels we want on the scales we need," Dr. Venter said.

The researchers built up the synthetic genome of M mycoides, with its million chemical letters, by stitching together shorter stretches of DNA, each about 1,000 letters long. They then transferred the completed genome into the shell of another bacterium M capricolum whose own DNA had been removed.

The transplanted genome "booted up" the host cell and took over its biological machinery. After 30 cell divisions, there were billions of synthetic bacteria in the lab dishes -- all of them making exclusively the biological molecules associated with M mycoides.

Experts warn of the risks as well as the benefits of synthetic biology. "We need new standards of safety evaluation for this kind of radical research and protections from military or terrorist misuse and abuse," said Prof. Savulescu.

© The Financial Times Limited 2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

I guess it's you I am thinking of. Either Adam had relations with his daughters, or Eve with her sons or sisters with brothers according to your theory. It's your belief, why do you look confused?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's you I am thinking of. Either Adam had relations with his daughters, or Eve with her sons or sisters with brothers according to your theory. It's your belief, why do you look confused?

Because the laws against such things were given many years later.

But yes, I believe it was with sisters and brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh...Good to know that in an evolutionary world, some things never change.

Now, to the question, the options granted are not sufficient to provide my answer. And, since I can not POSITIVELY say yes, I would tend to utilize the negative answer, resulting in me being labled a denier and other negative conotations, which is the observed behavior of the poster of the question in the past. So, based on study, observation, and learning of the patterns, behaviors, and likely reactions to events of the poster, no answer.

So, what is my answer...Though I have stated it before. I believe that evolution, via something similar to intelligent design, is a reasonable explanation for the method that Heavenly Father used to create life and man. However, since scripture is neutral, I also acknowledge the possibility that Heavenly Father's omnipotence would allow him to snap his fingers, wiggle his nose, or simply 'think' us into being. So, I can neither state unequivocably <sp?> that evolution is the answer to the question. I have observed and studied nothing that proves what methodology Heavenly Father deigned to use.

Now, to a different point, since our OP is so busy placing 'labels'. Which is greater? The power of Heavenly Father or the power of science? Evidence, based on observation and studying of the writings of the OP, suggest that he believes that science is greater than Heavenly Father. Such a belief would appear dangerous to me, as it remove the omnipotence of Heavnly Father and suggests that he is bound by Science, making science a greater power in our lives. Further, continued observation of the OP indicates that science will trump the word of Heavenly Father, when it does not fit the OPs understanding of the world. Now, while these are all observeable and recorded indications through many posts and over a period of time, all they do is create a THEORY that the OP worships science over Heavenly Father. I will hope Heavenly Father is aware of a truth that the 'science' of observation does not bare out of the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe that Adam and Evelyn were the first mortals but that then may have been born of some parents.

If the parents weren't mortal, pray tell, what were they?

Well, in this line of thinking there are clearly some gaps in understanding. I believe they were the first mortals on this Earth, and that they were born of parents.

As far as I understand the descent of things (in my belief), when two celestial beings produce offspring, that child is born with a spirit body.

When two mortal beings procreate, you get a child clothed in a mortal form.

And of course when an immortal, and mortal person procreate, you get the Son of God.

Now there are still gaps in understanding as far as Adam and his fall are concerned. Did it produce biological changes that made him mortal? I think so. But then again that leads back to what his original body was like pre-fall? Was it mortal but translated to be immortal, then became mortal again after the fall? That's a little hard to believe.

Was Adam conceived of immortal, Heavenly parents? But that goes back to the spirit bodies thing. If immortal beings can procreate to produce either spirit or physical bodies...well, why weren't we clothed in immortal physical bodies in the first place.

Things to think about.

I can't say with absolute certainty who or in what state of progression Adam's parents were. I do not believe them to be Neanderthals or pre-Adamites, as I believe all life that came before Adam (to prepare the Earth) was allowed to die off or was removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this