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

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).

"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:

When you first learn addition and then later in life learn calculus, you wouldn't say that calculus replaces my earlier understanding of addition. Then, why would you go so far as saying that our attempts to add to our current knowledge of God's works is one of replacing previous understanding, or "replacing old revelation with new revelation"?

The point I've tried to make is that evolution is not the complete story but parts of it certainly could easily mesh with our understanding of God's creation. I cannot prove that because we don't have all the pieces of the story nor of the scientific understanding of how that is possible yet.

"Eating a fruit" is figurative. Many of the scripture stories are figurative. We know there are people that have ears but won't listen and eyes but won't see because they rely on their own knowledge and don't understand the promptings of the spirit. I can't make anyone see something they don't want to see ... so I can't 'prove' it to you.

I was simply pointing out your perception that God directly created a life form that was not perfect in the beginning. What God created was perfect. The agency given to man and the decision to not keep it in it's perfect state was as a result of man's agency. Yes, God allowed that to happen and sees the bigger picture but God then did not directly create any vestigial or useless body parts or body parts that would die for any of His children. The Fall which resulted in Satan having dominion over this world has led to the corruption of the perfect body.

I can't tell you if Adam could "wiggle his ears" or had a vestigial tail etc. in the original creation of Adam. Because Adam's perfect, before the fall body was not like ours now which is corruptible (it mutates and changes over generations) and dies. If you look at other threads I have started, I have speculated at that but we will not know.

If all we know now is "addition" so to speak in our scientific understanding and we came across a "calculus" textbook, you can't use the rules of addition to discount the rules of calculus. God's understanding is miles higher than ours. We shouldn't try to disprove God's way using our limited understanding of the events. I don't have any problem talking about evolution and taking it for what it is worth, just don't try to use that to say that God did not create man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 256
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I completely accept evolution for YOU. It's becoming more and more obvious.

Just not me.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

IIRC, Brigham Young taught that before being brought into the garden and losing his memories Adam was an exalted being, not a proto-human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, it has nothing to do with the fables [half-truths] of evolution.

Is that a 'yes', but? If he had a vestigial structure (tailbone).. unless God made his common ancestors 'to match him' then it's pretty clear he shares a common ancestor. If he did make the common ancestors to match him.. that's pretty cruel imo.

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

Crack open a biology textbook.

"Eating a fruit" is figurative. Many of the scripture stories are figurative. We know there are people that have ears but won't listen and eyes but won't see because they rely on their own knowledge and don't understand the promptings of the spirit. I can't make anyone see something they don't want to see ... so I can't 'prove' it to you.

Genesis is pretty clear (if it happened the way Genesis says) that they literally ate a fruit. There's no dividing line between figurative and literal in Genesis.. but if the 'eating fruit' part is figurative.. who is to say that the 'from the dust of the earth' part isn't also?

I was simply pointing out your perception that God directly created a life form that was not perfect in the beginning. What God created was perfect. The agency given to man and the decision to not keep it in it's perfect state was as a result of man's agency. Yes, God allowed that to happen and sees the bigger picture but God then did not directly create any vestigial or useless body parts or body parts that would die for any of His children. The Fall which resulted in Satan having dominion over this world has led to the corruption of the perfect body.

My perception is that any possible God and/or being would also be subject to natural laws and he would have evolved to be the way he is. Vestigial structures and all.

I can't tell you if Adam could "wiggle his ears" or had a vestigial tail etc. in the original creation of Adam. Because Adam's perfect, before the fall body was not like ours now which is corruptible (it mutates and changes over generations) and dies. If you look at other threads I have started, I have speculated at that but we will not know.

Was the Garden only in Missouri or was the rest of the world free from death as well? I'm curious as I've never heard either way.

If all we know now is "addition" so to speak in our scientific understanding and we came across a "calculus" textbook, you can't use the rules of addition to discount the rules of calculus. God's understanding is miles higher than ours. We shouldn't try to disprove God's way using our limited understanding of the events. I don't have any problem talking about evolution and taking it for what it is worth, just don't try to use that to say that God did not create man.

I understand that scientific theories will be tweaked in the future.. but evolution is past the point of going through a major overhaul any time soon. Why can't the two fit together? Why can't (with our divine nature) our understanding be the same as Gods understanding? Is there a rule in place against this?

I guess my point is that I feel you, Rudick, and the creationist crowd are downplaying the intelligence of our race. We were intelligent enough to develop weapons that could destroy this planet.. but we're not intelligent enough to figure out how we got here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that a 'yes', but? If he had a vestigial structure (tailbone).. unless God made his common ancestors 'to match him' then it's pretty clear he shares a common ancestor. If he did make the common ancestors to match him.. that's pretty cruel imo.

I understand your point. Do you know why he or she still has structure still in place? Ask GOD for the answer. The answer may shock you. It has nothing to do with physical ancestor’s mutation from a lesser species either.

We the have the opportunity to learn from science and the priesthood to see the past or have questions answer. Caution is; when you are mature enough to not only understand it but accept it when it is given.

Genesis is pretty clear (if it happened the way Genesis says) that they literally ate a fruit. There's no dividing line between figurative and literal in Genesis.. but if the 'eating fruit' part is figurative.. who is to say that the 'from the dust of the earth' part isn't also?

There is...sad to say. You need to remember who is observing the 'movie' when it is written. Joseph Smith may have seen it different than both Abraham and Moses. Yet, he was very quite on this subject, where both Apostle Pratt and President Young stated that both Adam and Eve were brought here.

My perception is that any possible God and/or being would also be subject to natural laws and he would have evolved to be the way he is. Vestigial structures and all.

I may be reading this wrong, but I would say no. If GOD needs to be under natural or physical laws.

HE has authorship and the enforcer of the lesser laws. But seen throughout earth's history, this has been overriden when it was necessary. Remember deluge? Walking across the water by the Savior? Telling the fig tree to wither away? Healing on the spot? None of these can be subscribed back to our natural laws. Can you move a mountain by natural laws? Or in the case of both Enoch and the Brother of Jared, moving mountains. However, I am cautious here in stating this.

Was the Garden only in Missouri or was the rest of the world free from death as well? I'm curious as I've never heard either way.

For this earth, then yes.

I understand that scientific theories will be tweaked in the future.. but evolution is past the point of going through a major overhaul any time soon. Why can't the two fit together? Why can't (with our divine nature) our understanding be the same as Gods understanding? Is there a rule in place against this?

It will be rewritten. We will still have those HONORABLE MEN & WOMEN on the earth to correct past errors. This and other field of studies will need to be alter.

I guess my point is that I feel you, Rudick, and the creationist crowd are downplaying the intelligence of our race. We were intelligent enough to develop weapons that could destroy this planet.. but we're not intelligent enough to figure out how we got here?

Where do you think, these wonderful technology wizardry comes from? I can visited another earth and see the same technology, depending on the hour of visitation. ;)

But no. I grow tired of those individuals, it is their way or else. Stating..."My credentials speak for itself." Excuse me! What creditials? :) The pity in this pompous attitude, they will fall short and be embarrassed when they realize their arrogant mistake. Who are they really serving in the end? Not GOD! Look at the Savior’s academic credential. What a minute…what credentials? Let me see if He even has one. What…none? This simple minded mortal human [not to debase our beloved Savior], has formed this earth, brought this earth to this solar system, and then brought life to it. Can any puny human do this? Not likely. Sidenote here: you know, there is no element or part of this world that is not controlled by one His people [angels or ministering beings]. So what is nature? :lol:

We have the capacity to learn real science, which does not honor itself, but give honor to GOD on where it is due. It will only open the doors for those mysteries questions to be answered.

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that scientific theories will be tweaked in the future.. but evolution is past the point of going through a major overhaul any time soon. Why can't the two fit together? Why can't (with our divine nature) our understanding be the same as Gods understanding? Is there a rule in place against this?

I guess my point is that I feel you, Rudick, and the creationist crowd are downplaying the intelligence of our race. We were intelligent enough to develop weapons that could destroy this planet.. but we're not intelligent enough to figure out how we got here?

I've never said anything against the two fitting together. In fact that has been my point too. There will be an explanation at some point that will make perfect sense to us, both in terms of natural laws and the currently unknown abilities of God to make this happen. But I don't accept the theory of evolution as the complete story.

And, sure, I am downplaying our intelligence, absolutely! Why don't you get mad at Moses too for calling our race nothing, compared to God. But instead of saying that I am downplaying our intelligence, maybe what I am really doing is upgrading God's intelligence well beyond our sight. It is so far away from our understanding that we couldn't comprehend it even if he were to straight out tell us, right now. It would be like teaching Calculus to kindergarten students, so to speak.

I realize the purpose of this world is not to have a perfect knowledge of all things. If we had a perfect knowledge of all of this, that would kill faith. Without faith, there would be no test or probationary period to determine our true desires. This was Satan's exact argument, why not give everyone everything God has without having to go through the test. You already at one point in your pre-existence life saw the wisdom in not having perfect knowledge while we are being tested, why change your mind now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize the purpose of this world is not to have a perfect knowledge of all things. If we had a perfect knowledge of all of this, that would kill faith. Without faith, there would be no test or probationary period to determine our true desires. This was Satan's exact argument, why not give everyone everything God has without having to go through the test. You already at one point in your pre-existence life saw the wisdom in not having perfect knowledge while we are being tested, why change your mind now?

WE STRIVE FOR THE PERFECT DAY. Yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation. We are to strive to have a perfect knowledge.. even though this is impossible. We're really not that different after all :cool: The big difference is that I look to the observable and to the testable.. and God so far has not proven to be either to me. It's obviously different for you. I say that with the utmost respect too.

Hemi, do you have any more info on the LANL? I'd love to read more about these robot bugs that 'learn on their own'. I think those things are fascinating.. like this one IEI Robots That Learn from Scratch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation. We are to strive to have a perfect knowledge.. even though this is impossible. We're really not that different after all :cool: The big difference is that I look to the observable and to the testable.. and God so far has not proven to be either to me. It's obviously different for you. I say that with the utmost respect too.

Hemi, do you have any more info on the LANL? I'd love to read more about these robot bugs that 'learn on their own'. I think those things are fascinating.. like this one IEI Robots That Learn from Scratch

If you really want to test it, I can have a couple guys in white shirts and ties come over and help you with that test. The gospel is both observable, glad you are doing that to some degree right now and testable ... go ahead and test it then. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Is there a reason you don't want to clearly state your position?

Are you saying that the theory of evolution (human evolution) is a fable or are you saying that bible allegorical accounts are fables?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely accept evolution for YOU. It's becoming more and more obvious.

Just not me.:P

You, then, are one of the irrationals. You believe what you believe because you believe, even though it contradicted by fact and evidence.

That doesn't make you bad or immoral but you and those other science deniers belong to the pre-enlightenment milieu.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Moi?

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.

I don't know what to make of that... other than that is not something I believe.

Edited by Snow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to test it, I can have a couple guys in white shirts and ties come over and help you with that test. The gospel is both observable, glad you are doing that to some degree right now and testable ... go ahead and test it then. :)

I have.. and that's part of the reason I cling to science. I find comfort in science. Testing Alma really got me nowhere.. who knows what the future holds though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation. We are to strive to have a perfect knowledge.. even though this is impossible. We're really not that different after all :cool: The big difference is that I look to the observable and to the testable.. and God so far has not proven to be either to me. It's obviously different for you. I say that with the utmost respect too.

Hemi, do you have any more info on the LANL? I'd love to read more about these robot bugs that 'learn on their own'. I think those things are fascinating.. like this one IEI Robots That Learn from Scratch

No problem.

This wonderful piece was done by Scientific American a couple years ago. The scientist name is Mark Tilden and very humble individual to communicate with. His work is found in other books; see Robo sapiens: evolution of a new species - Google Books

LINK to MAGAZINE: Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American

Edited by Hemidakota
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a reason you don't want to clearly state your position?

Are you saying that the theory of evolution (human evolution) is a fable or are you saying that bible allegorical accounts are fables?

Noting your two pole statements, for me as a reader, it may have other meanings that are unclear.

Theory of evolution is filled with fables [partial truths with man made fables] - period. That is being blunt. This doesn't give any credence to religious professors or people on creationism mixed with fables. The best approach is to learn both side by research, formulate your own assessment, then ask GOD to see if your answer is correct. There is no other way around it. If you simple want to know the truth, then apply some faith.

How do you know everything that is given in bible is allegorical or literal? Which part we are speaking too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, Brigham Young taught that before being brought into the garden and losing his memories Adam was an exalted being, not a proto-human.

He also taught that Adam was plucked off another world of pre-Adamites, and planted in the Garden with his memories erased.

So, if you are going to quote someone, make sure you don't pick and choose from the things they wrote/spoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moi?

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.

I don't know what to make of that... other than that is not something I believe.

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?

Separately, I (as in only me) believe that the Garden was in a state of no death, and Adam was placed in it. When the Fall came, it symbolically represented the entire earth falling - even while death already existed. The Garden would have fallen, perhaps even literally, from its revolutions around Kolob, and placed in its fallen state in this world.

Adam would then become the father of all living, and others could be "adopted" into his line, even as we are adopted into Abraham's line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us look at a person who seen it first hand - notable, Abraham (see chap. 4):

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or great waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

[side note: last creation prior to this one failed here. They did not obey.]

26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

28 And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And the Gods said: Behold, we will give them every herb bearing seed that shall come upon the face of all the earth, and every tree which shall have fruit upon it; yea, the fruit of the tree yielding seed to them we will give it; it shall be for their meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, behold, we will give them life, and also we will give to them every green herb for meat, and all these things shall be thus organized.

31 And the Gods said: We will do everything that we have said, and organize them; and behold, they shall be very obedient. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and they numbered the asixth time.

Now, do you see any where that man mutated from animals or GODs watch it happen? Or, the GODs waited until the lesser intelligence muted into man[woman]? Or did they, stated by Abraham, "Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness...?" It is quite clear, man was not formed from a lower life or they waited for evolution to carry out their plan.

What is not clear is the animal’s creation. Abraham never stated, the animals were brought here or not. He said, "Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts." It only stated they organized the earth to bring forth life. This may be an issue for anything less than man with the GODs in manipulating life forms from a lesser to an higher. Or, Abraham did not bother in giving any further details regarding the animals? This remains unclear to an average reader.

Link to comment
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?

Separately, I (as in only me) believe that the Garden was in a state of no death, and Adam was placed in it. When the Fall came, it symbolically represented the entire earth falling - even while death already existed. The Garden would have fallen, perhaps even literally, from its revolutions around Kolob, and placed in its fallen state in this world.

Adam would then become the father of all living, and others could be "adopted" into his line, even as we are adopted into Abraham's line.

This also was spoken by a few scholars...interesting statement though.

Looking at it from this viewpoint, let us not forget (other readers here, in seeking an answers with having animals outside of the garden for pervious deaths), Adam was already interacting with the animals and other life forms prior to the fall.

Link to comment
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.

Exactly, this is why I said earlier that the poll question was vague by including the words "in any fashion". Then Snow said I was spinning it. That's why. like I said before, I think many would disagree with that statement. By including, "in any fashion" that would include the possibility that God used parts of the evolutionary process to either prepare the earth for man's existence or even make the body itself. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that man shares a common ancestor with all life on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also taught that Adam was plucked off another world of pre-Adamites, and planted in the Garden with his memories erased.

So, if you are going to quote someone, make sure you don't pick and choose from the things they wrote/spoke.

Thanks, Rameumptom. I'd be interested in seeing a cite on that, when you get a moment.

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