Dinosaurs

[MrShorty]

Was not creation and THEN evolution a potential resolution?

I'm sorry that I don't remember very well everything that was discussed. I expect it was proffered by someone as one possible explanation, but I don't recall for certain. As I recall, the point of that section of the class was mostly to describe the history and main points of the debate. Not so much to try to come to any meaningful conclusion or resolution of the debate. I know that personally, I have certainly considered creation then evolution as one possible hypothesis, but it still has problems with it that I'm not sure how best to resolve.

Honestly a lot of evolution vs. creation debates are more accurately phrased as creation vs. abiogensis.

In some ways, this is true, especially for the modern debate over evolution. Nowadays, people are less interested in debating whether finches can evolve into other finches, or whether one dinosaur species can evolve into another dinosaur species. It seems that the debate centers around whether life can evolve from non-living, maybe because science does not have much evidence for how that would occur. Historically, interspecies evolution was an important part of the debate.

[MrShorty]

The Genesis epochs of Creation, Adam, Eve and Eden is intended to be figurative. When attempts are made to do a conformal mapping of figurative symbols to literal descriptions of events I believe we miss all the important points.

In many ways, Traveler, I think you are right. Though it can be difficult to ignore that many in the LDS Church and broader Christianity want to interpret the Bible's accounts of the Creation and Fall as literally as possible.

[Traveler]

In many ways, Traveler, I think you are right. Though it can be difficult to ignore that many in the LDS Church and broader Christianity want to interpret the Bible's accounts of the Creation and Fall as literally as possible.

Thank you for your input. One of the great statements in the fairytale Cinderella is when one of the ugly stepsisters tries on the glass slipper with hardly half her foot inside and gleefully proclaims it a perfect fit. Sometimes I believe proponents of a specific idea take what ever subset of data they can approve of - then ignore the abundance of data to the contrary - and declare their hopeful discovery as "the perfect fit".

The fact that scripture and the prophets declare that prior to the fall there was no death on earth leaving hardcore evolutions like myself with no way to reconcile hundreds of millions of years of evolution imbedded in the fossil record (including dinosaurs and pre-humans) that define the empirical history of this earth. Unless there is something about the earth and its past that can account for not just death but mass extinction thousands and millions of years before Adam and Eve there is no way to intelligently reconcile the two. Even though evolution is taught as a viable science at all LDS sponsored colleges without any reservations. ---- This being the only piece of the puzzle I cannot reconcile. It is a question to which I hope there will soon be an answer.

The Traveler

[HiJolly]

By the way, you may want to review D&C 77:5-7 in regards to this being based entirely upon man's interpretation.

Isn't it interesting that Joseph Smith Jr. used this very scripture - which was revealed through him - to estimate the age of the earth at 2.5 billion years.

Think about that. Being 2 billion years shy of the reality was actually pretty good for the 1840's.

HiJolly

[Blackmarch]

deleted

[mnn727]

How strangely defensive and argumentative.

Nope, just pointing out how irrational some interpretations really are.

[The Folk Prophet]

Nope, just pointing out how irrational some interpretations really are.

Sure. Pointing out that an opinion is irrational is fine. Claiming temple worthiness as support of a point of view is defensive, not to mention that it fairly fully defines the phrase "beside the point".

[Suzie]

We can give a million views and personal opinions/interpretations on the matter, but it's just that.. pure interpretation and speculation from our part. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not take an official position on this issue.

[Crash]

Actually, we have mans interpretation after all of the multiple translations of the Bible which seems to suggest that based upon a guess of how long each generation was.

Personally I reject that particular interpretation and guess what? I still just got my Temple Recommend renewed yesterday (and there were no question about; the age of the Earth, how long mankind has been here, or anything about Dinosaurs). Must not be that important in the grand scheme of things.

As has been pointed out, we have revelation to substantiate how long mankind has been on earth, although I was off by 1,000 years. To use the example of a temple recommend is an interesting, albeit confusing, argument to make.

If dinosaurs didn't exist then all of the bones and fossils would classify the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race. Carbon dating has been substantiated as quite accurate, and we have scientific evidence that homosapiens were on earth as long as 400,000 years ago (Discovery of Oldest DNA Scrambles Human Origins Picture ). Now I don't know anything about these things because I am not a scientist but I am willing to bet there is a lot more about earth's history that we just don't know. I'm sure we'll find out someday.

[mnn727]

Sure. Pointing out that an opinion is irrational is fine. Claiming temple worthiness as support of a point of view is defensive, not to mention that it fairly fully defines the phrase "beside the point".

Not sure what you read into my post but I was pointing out that there were no questions about dinosaurs, age of the earth, etc.

[mnn727]

As has been pointed out, we have revelation to substantiate how long mankind has been on earth, although I was off by 1,000 years.

we have scientific evidence that homosapiens were on earth as long as 400,000 years ago

Not sure how you can claim both of the above are correct.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not sure how you can claim both of the above are correct.

One way to have both correct is to understand that "man" is the combination of a physical body and a spirit son or daughter of God. Adam is the first man, the first to be a spirit son of God combined with a physical body. Death (physical death) is the separation of those two things, the spirit and the body. No death could take place before that time without there being a spirit and mortal body combination.

[Traveler]

One way to have both correct is to understand that "man" is the combination of a physical body and a spirit son or daughter of God. Adam is the first man, the first to be a spirit son of God combined with a physical body. Death (physical death) is the separation of those two things, the spirit and the body. No death could take place before that time without there being a spirit and mortal body combination.

This theory makes a lot of sense and can explain a lot of things to reconcile revelation received over thousands of years of "historical" human history and relatively recent "discoveries" in science. This would allow for billions of years of evolution that is obvious in the geological record of earth as steps in creation to prepare this obscure tiny planet for the Father's grand plan for his righteous children that themselves have been spiritually evolving for quantitatively more eons. This is the one theory that, for me, holds any hope of being valid as to what G-d with human as offspring is about in this grand universe.

There is, however, one flaw, what appears to me, in this theory. That is that prior to the fall there was no death. We can try to mitigate this inconvenient fact by arguing that the billions of years of evolutionary life and death cycles do not count because that was all part of a preparatory creation ignored from any revelation and then some 6,000 + years ago G-d waved his unexplainable magic wand that leaves no trace for a honest seeker of truth and changed everything so there would be no death. At least until after the fall of Adam and Eve.

It is obvious that such an explanation is pure speculation made up from less than thin air with no reference to anything in the vast reservoir of revelations or any shred of empirical science. There is a gigantic "hole" that appears to obscure any resolution to this discrepancy. If any one has a idea, that is willing to put it to the test of any kind of intelligent light - I would gladly try it.

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

Not sure what you read into my post but I was pointing out that there were no questions about dinosaurs, age of the earth, etc.

Hi mnn727,

You've honestly got me confused here. What, exactly, are you contending?

Here's what transpired.

Crash said mankind has been on the earth for 6000 years

Then you said:

Actually, we have mans interpretation after all of the multiple translations of the Bible which seems to suggest that based upon a guess of how long each generation was.

...which is false, unless you're claiming that the D&C is 'man's interpretation'.

And then you said:

Personally I reject that particular interpretation and guess what? I still just got my Temple Recommend renewed yesterday...

...which is irrelevant. I contend bringing getting your temple recommend into it is argumentative and defensive, enhanced even more by the "guess what" phrasing.

So what are you thinking I read into your post? Because what I did read into it, as noted here, is that you are wrong about man's 6000 years on the earth being "mans interpretation" and that you being able to get your temple recommend has nothing to do with it.

You, of course, are free to view it however you want, and correctly, though unnecessarily, point out that one may believe differently and get a temple recommend. But you are dead wrong on it being "man's interpretation".

Within this conversation, I have no idea where you were "pointing out that there were no questions about dinosaurs, age of the earth, etc."

[mnn727]

I can not help it if you misinterpret what I say, which kind of helps to illustrate my point about misinterpreting documents.

Edited January 29, 2014 by mnn727

[The Folk Prophet]

I can not help it if you misinterpret what I say, which kind of helps to illustrate my point about misinterpreting documents.

Hmm. You have a curious way about you.

Fair enough. I was wrong.

[Seminarysnoozer]

This theory makes a lot of sense and can explain a lot of things to reconcile revelation received over thousands of years of "historical" human history and relatively recent "discoveries" in science. This would allow for billions of years of evolution that is obvious in the geological record of earth as steps in creation to prepare this obscure tiny planet for the Father's grand plan for his righteous children that themselves have been spiritually evolving for quantitatively more eons. This is the one theory that, for me, holds any hope of being valid as to what G-d with human as offspring is about in this grand universe.

There is, however, one flaw, what appears to me, in this theory. That is that prior to the fall there was no death. We can try to mitigate this inconvenient fact by arguing that the billions of years of evolutionary life and death cycles do not count because that was all part of a preparatory creation ignored from any revelation and then some 6,000 + years ago G-d waved his unexplainable magic wand that leaves no trace for a honest seeker of truth and changed everything so there would be no death. At least until after the fall of Adam and Eve.

It is obvious that such an explanation is pure speculation made up from less than thin air with no reference to anything in the vast reservoir of revelations or any shred of empirical science. There is a gigantic "hole" that appears to obscure any resolution to this discrepancy. If any one has a idea, that is willing to put it to the test of any kind of intelligent light - I would gladly try it.

The Traveler

That was my point, to try to fill that "hole". Physical death is described as the separation of a spirit being from its mortal body.

Here is the predicated matter; Can there exist organic material without an associated spirit entity? (Note I didn't ask about matter that hasn't been created spiritually first or associated with "spirit") Does a rock have a spirit entity associated with it? What if I break it in half, are there now two spirit entities associated with two rocks now? If I donate a kidney, while it is sitting in the cooler ready for transplant into another human being, is it associated with a spirit? Or would you call it dead? If the kidney dies before it is transplanted, while it is in the cooler, is it dead or still alive because I am alive? When did it die? What if I die but the transplanted kidney stays alive in someone else? Is the kidney dead or alive and is it still associated with my spirit? If one says the kidney died at the moment it was taken from my body, then one believes there can be live organic material without a spirit.

What if I take cells from someone, like a cheek swab, or skin cells and culture them, grow them and then the person dies but the cells are still alive? Are the cells alive with or without a spirit entity?

If there is sperm and egg donation for in vitro fertilization, are there individual spirits associated with each of those gametes? Or are the spirits associated with those cells the ones that belong to the donors? What if the donor dies but the gametes remain alive?

When a person dies and the body lies in the ground, is that material connected with any spirit? Or is it spiritless material? Is it associated with a spirit entity or the same kind of spirit one would say is associated with a rock? (which, to me, is spirit that is not of the entity variety)

If there is no spirit entity or being associated with the physical matter then there cannot be death according to the definition, just like a rock cannot die but may still be associated with spirit matter. The organic material could die but there would be no death until spirit entities become associated with specific physical entities. If it is possible to have live organic material without a spirit entity (the predicated matter). Then it would be possible to have evidence of organic tissue death without having the kind of death that we talk about when a spirit entity leaves it's assigned mortal body.

[The Folk Prophet]

If there is no spirit entity or being associated with the physical matter then there cannot be death according to the definition, just like a rock cannot die but may still be associated with spirit matter. The organic material could die but there would be no death until spirit entities become associated with specific physical entities. If it is possible to have live organic material without a spirit entity (the predicated matter). Then it would be possible to have evidence of organic tissue death without having the kind of death that we talk about when a spirit entity leaves it's assigned mortal body.

What an incredibly interesting and unique take on it.

Dinosaurs had no souls!

[Crash]

Hmmm, except it is part of gospel doctrine that everything, including the earth, was in an immortal state before the fall of Adam, and that all became mortal (would die) as a result. Furthermore, the earth shall become the celestial kingdom after the second coming of Christ and the millennium, meaning that it, too, will be resurrected to a perfect state. So, while everything may not have a soul it did exist in spirit form.

But here's the conundrum, which I think is the foundation of this thread, how could there be dinosaur fossils and skeletons, and all other manner of creatures that are millions of years old, exist if everything was only in spirit form before the fall of Adam?

This is a perplexing topic when trying to make sense of things we have pure physical evidence that they existed, yet gospel doctrine, which is truth, states that the fall of Adam made everything mortal just a few thousand years ago. The earth's formation took millions of years, but here's a theory:

The creation of the earth (the organizing of physical matter by Christ) and the millions of years of evolution to an inhabitable world with ancient life for the later use of mankind, was physical, but as has been suggested lacked spirit. The earth then went through a sort of translation to a spiritual state that prepared for the creation of our first parents. While the translation of the earth put everything into a spiritual state it did not mean that everything physical beforehand would be perfected since there was no spirit in the first place, a necessary element to make something perfect. Hence, fossils and skeletal remains.

Or did I just repeat what's been said and I'm pulling feathers out of my hat?

Edited January 30, 2014 by Crash

[Traveler]

Seminary S and put forth an intriguing theory. In essence it appears to me that she is trying to reverse engineer something and I appreciate the attempt to create an explanation. As I explained before - we have two bodies of resource that can help us. Those are empirical evidences and revelation. Not that I am rejecting the entire effort - but I am having difficulty resolving what I see as logical issues with both revelation and empirical science.

Lets look at scripture - Consider Genesis chapter 1 verses 28 - 30. I will make this short and sweet. G-d defines for us life as possessing two elements. 1. The ability to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" and 2. Mobility - means to move about on earth.

Verse 30 says specifically - wherein there is "LIFE". It is not that difficult to apply an empirical test to determine "living" things - especially concerning creatures that inhabit earth.

Well over 40,000 years ago there existed very human like creatures that did more than exist physically. They had intelligence to domesticate other creatures and plants and they left behind artwork in caves where they dwelt. They moved about and had children - sons and daughters (male and female) and they died just as we will die and return the elements of our physical self to the dust of this earth. It is also noteworthy to realize that each of us - you and I (sons and daughters of Adam and Eve) carry their DNA within our own. Enough that it can be empirically concluded that these creatures were ancient ancestors (made from the dust of this earth just like you and I) of the physical creature that makes up that part of our living soul.

I see nothing in the scriptural narrative or any empirical physical record to suggest that their existence was "lifeless".

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

I think it is quite reasonably to understand that "life" can be meant in different ways. We have a large variety of scriptural words and examples where this is true of other concepts. In that regard, it certainly makes sense to me that when referring to no death before the fall that it could be only talking about spirit/body separation, using that understanding of life, and in other cases when speaking of death it's referring to what Traveler postulated above.

Interesting.

[Traveler]

I think it is quite reasonably to understand that "life" can be meant in different ways. We have a large variety of scriptural words and examples where this is true of other concepts. In that regard, it certainly makes sense to me that when referring to no death before the fall that it could be only talking about spirit/body separation, using that understanding of life, and in other cases when speaking of death it's referring to what Traveler postulated above.

Interesting.

I did leave out one point from scripture (the Book of Abraham and D&C) that connect intelligence with spirit. I work in the field of artificial intelligence - which we could say is a kind of spiritless intelligence - perhaps???? But even as soulless as insects are - they have and display intelligence - as do even protozoa.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Seminary S and put forth an intriguing theory. In essence it appears to me that she is trying to reverse engineer something and I appreciate the attempt to create an explanation. As I explained before - we have two bodies of resource that can help us. Those are empirical evidences and revelation. Not that I am rejecting the entire effort - but I am having difficulty resolving what I see as logical issues with both revelation and empirical science.

Lets look at scripture - Consider Genesis chapter 1 verses 28 - 30. I will make this short and sweet. G-d defines for us life as possessing two elements. 1. The ability to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" and 2. Mobility - means to move about on earth.

Verse 30 says specifically - wherein there is "LIFE". It is not that difficult to apply an empirical test to determine "living" things - especially concerning creatures that inhabit earth.

Well over 40,000 years ago there existed very human like creatures that did more than exist physically. They had intelligence to domesticate other creatures and plants and they left behind artwork in caves where they dwelt. They moved about and had children - sons and daughters (male and female) and they died just as we will die and return the elements of our physical self to the dust of this earth. It is also noteworthy to realize that each of us - you and I (sons and daughters of Adam and Eve) carry their DNA within our own. Enough that it can be empirically concluded that these creatures were ancient ancestors (made from the dust of this earth just like you and I) of the physical creature that makes up that part of our living soul.

I see nothing in the scriptural narrative or any empirical physical record to suggest that their existence was "lifeless".

The Traveler

The other thing to consider is that the serpents lie was that in the "day" they eat the fruit their eyes would be open. This was a deceptive lie. It wouldn't be immediate. We all know that as well, it is a process to know and understand. The process starts at a certain point, after eating the fruit but it certainly isn't in a day that it occurs. The point being, we do not know how much time transpired from eating the fruit and the transformation of the body and the world in preparation for the mortal world after the fruit was eaten. Their eyes were open could certainly be related to a period of time in which they were shut, or 'asleep'. That period of time could be thousands to millions of years, we don't know.

It is at that point, after their eyes are open (not necessarily in the same "day" they ate the fruit - because that was a lie) that they realized eventually that all things around them had changed, even their self, they were now naked. The Lord then explains to Moses; " 25 By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return." He explains to Moses what you are saying about us having their DNA. Our bodies are made from dust, the lifeless, soulless, dust. We do not know how long it takes for paradisical bodies and creatures to degrade and change into "dust". Maybe that process takes thousands of years. Or the other way to say it is that maybe thousands of years were taken to prepare that change. The process is spoke of in Moses 8; " 28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence.

29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.

30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth."

Another thought is that mixing of DNA could have occurred before the flood. In fact, there was too much "mixing" and that is when the Lord said enough with the flood. So, we carry some of that "dust" DNA or corrupted DNA now. This idea also plays into the need for an only begotten, a person without mixed DNA or at least a smaller portion of mixed corruption. This may be a topic for another thread, but I tend to believe that the words "express image" is a reference to how little the DNA is mixed from the original. As in Hebrews " 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person," ..." 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." Think of the relationship between "inheritance" and DNA and being in the "express image". Sometimes "mighty" is also used to describe those that have less mixing of the DNA as in Abel and Seth, D&C; "40 Abel, the first martyr, was there, and his brother Seth, one of the mighty ones, who was in the express image of his father, Adam." When we return and upon resurrection we will have the chance to once again have His image in our countenance.