Pathetically weak antireligion argument

[Traveler]

Often (usually) in the discussions and odyssey of truth we find ourselves at odds with others frustrated with the many religious doctrinal apostasies that distort and misuse sacred ancient principles that were once part of cultures now dead and gone. We should not be surprised in the confusion of truth in these the last days leading up to the return of our Savior and King, Jesus The Christ.

As LDS we have proclaimed since the restoration that all ancient religion has fallen into apostasy - both of doctrine and authority. There is and has been no enduring tradition - no not one that is acceptable to G-d and his saints. Therefore, it is necessary to reboot the church and kingdom (including the doctrine) of G-d and his covenant saints and start over. Sadly I have observed that many LDS have mistakenly held to various religious traditions that have not endured the apostasy well - thinking them to be our better allies in truth of the restoration. The light of the science of the restoration has demonstrated so many of these traditional religious notions incomplete and flawed.

It seems to me that many LDS in efforts to reconcile differences with our Christian cozens have adopted some of their fables (which were warned of anciently prior to the apostasy by apostles and prophets of G-d) which cannot stand the scrutiny of modern advances in light and truth.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Richard Dawkins trying to pontificate on the BoM is akin to me trying to ponticate about darwinian evolution on a purely scientific basis. See my collar--of course I'm qualified! :-)

I do not think the problem is quite as you have stated it. Sadly I have not seen even a single reference from traditional Christians that understand Darwinian Evolution to have relevant input. If we are going to discuss a topic we need to be well informed or we will not have serious input - I believe this is the great failing of the religious community.

The Traveler

[Jamie123]

Sadly I have not seen even a single reference from traditional Christians that understand Darwinian Evolution to have relevant input.

I can think of at least one exception: Dr. Kurt Wise who studied at Harvard under Stephen J. Gould - an experience he could simply not have gone through without acquiring a pretty profound understanding of evolution. Wise is nevertheless a young earth creationist who totally rejects evolution. (More fool him if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.)

You're right though - there are a great many Christian fundamentalusts who have no clue about evolution, but nevertheless pontificate about it. The trouble is they think they are qualified. They read Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" tract, listen to Kent Hovind's idiotic seminars and imagine that makes them experts. (And in case you're not familiar with Chick and Hovind, this is the equivalent of reading Dawkins' "The God Delision" and calling yourself an expert on religion.)

Some examples of anti-evolution arguments used by religious fudamentalists who know nothing about the subject:

* If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (This is a blatent strawman, but even if it were true you might as well ask why if Americans are descended from Europeans why there are still Europeans.)

* Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were both frauds. Therefore all evidence of evolution is a fraud. (So if I bury and dig up some bogus biblical artifacts which are subsequently exposed as a hoax, that disproves the Bible?)

* Heavy elements must have formed before stars could form. (No they mustn't - heavy elements were formed within stars - but this has nothing to do with evolution anyway.)

* There is no water in space - only on the Earth. (There is actually plenty of water in space - but so what? Again this has nothing to do with evolution.)

* The Moon is receding from the Earth. Extrapolating at the current rate of recession, it would have been touching the earth much more recently than evolutionary timescales allow. (Who says that the rate of recession was always the same?)

Edited October 1, 2013 by Jamie123

[prisonchaplain]

What seemed to be in vogue in the late 70s is to have an expert Creationist debater invite a local biology professor to a church to discuss Evolution vs. Creation. Of course, the professor was an expert scientist and lecturer, but not necessarily a skilled debater. The Creationist would usually "win" the debate, given the audience and the flat-footed scientist. I often wonder how those professors felt about our God and our people after such experiences. Ah well, we forgave Chrysler their K-cars, there may be hope for us too. :-)

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4777641162441482&w=155&h=188&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

Edited October 1, 2013 by prisonchaplain

[LittleWyvern]

Whenever Richard Dawkins talks about the Book of Mormon (which seems to be quite often) he always says it is "obviously and clearly a fraud". However the only justification he gives for saying this is that it's written in 16th Century English rather than the English of the early 19th Century.

Not that I believe in the book of Mormon any more than Dawkins does, but I've never understood how the style of language it's written in proves it is a fraud.

Oh no! Joseph Smith was influenced by the style of diction in the King James Bible his family owned! Whatever do we do?

[Traveler]

I can think of at least one exception: Dr. Kurt Wise who studied at Harvard under Stephen J. Gould - an experience he could simply not have gone through without acquiring a pretty profound understanding of evolution. Wise is nevertheless a young earth creationist who totally rejects evolution. (More fool him if you ask me, but that's just my opinion.)

You're right though - there are a great many Christian fundamentalusts who have no clue about evolution, but nevertheless pontificate about it. The trouble is they think they are qualified. They read Jack Chick's "Big Daddy" tract, listen to Kent Hovind's idiotic seminars and imagine that makes them experts. (And in case you're not familiar with Chick and Hovind, this is the equivalent of reading Dawkins' "The God Delision" and calling yourself an expert on religion.)

Some examples of anti-evolution arguments used by religious fudamentalists who know nothing about the subject:

* If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? (This is a blatent strawman, but even if it were true you might as well ask why if Americans are descended from Europeans why there are still Europeans.)

* Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were both frauds. Therefore all evidence of evolution is a fraud. (So if I bury and dig up some bogus biblical artifacts which are subsequently exposed as a hoax, that disproves the Bible?)

* Heavy elements must have formed before stars could form. (No they mustn't - heavy elements were formed within stars - but this has nothing to do with evolution anyway.)

* There is no water in space - only on the Earth. (There is actually plenty of water in space - but so what? Again this has nothing to do with evolution.)

* The Moon is receding from the Earth. Extrapolating at the current rate of recession, it would have been touching the earth much more recently than evolutionary timescales allow. (Who says that the rate of recession was always the same?)

As soon as someone says that they oppose evolution because they do not believe man evolved from monkeys - you can know for sure that such a person does not know what they are talking about and is completely misinformed concerning evolution. It is akin to saying that one does not believe in Christianity because Jesus preached war and hatred. One can know from such a statement that to believe such a thing one does not have a credible understanding of Christ. It is impossible to have a productive discussion on any subject with someone that has drawn conclusions based entirely on false information.

The Traveler

[Lakumi]

Oh no! Joseph Smith was influenced by the style of diction in the King James Bible his family owned! Whatever do we do?

...panic?

[prisonchaplain]

As soon as someone says that they oppose evolution because they do not believe man evolved from monkeys - you can know for sure that such a person does not know what they are talking about and is completely misinformed concerning evolution. The Traveler

Beware the dark side. We know the danger of satanic evolutionary science

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4777641162441482&w=155&h=188&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

[Traveler]

Beware the dark side. We know the danger of satanic evolutionary science

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4777641162441482&w=155&h=188&c=7&rs=1&pid=1.7

I like it!! The truth is that there has never been any evidence that man evolved from monkeys. The only reason that this is part of any discussion is because in the concluding chapter of Darwin's book "Origin of he Species" he made a statement something like - wouldn't it be interesting if man evolved from monkeys. This statement so offended the religious community that all of Darwin's work regarding biological adaptations was thrown out with a rush to deny any such possibility in creation. It was the religionists that demanded that G-d could not have been involved in such creation possibilities where any kind of biological adaptations took place. This left the evolutionists with the problem of showing evolution being viable without religious support. The result is an ever expanding war between science and religion.

I personally see this as a problem that religious thinkers have in holding on to their fear that the Bible may not have been understood correctly concerning creation. But if Christians just took a step back to consider the possibility that G-d has been involved in creation for billions of years and that evolution is a possible explanation of what he has done - all the thunder of anti religion elements purporting science is taken away and the morality of religion remains.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

As soon as someone says that they oppose evolution because they do not believe man evolved from monkeys - you can know for sure that such a person does not know what they are talking about and is completely misinformed concerning evolution. It is akin to saying that one does not believe in Christianity because Jesus preached war and hatred. One can know from such a statement that to believe such a thing one does not have a credible understanding of Christ. It is impossible to have a productive discussion on any subject with someone that has drawn conclusions based entirely on false information.

The Traveler

Hmmm... I wonder why people might think man evolved from monkeys? Could it be because in science books people see these images?

Yep, I am pretty sure the far left one looks like a "monkey," and I am pretty sure this was similar to an image in my science books.

[Lakumi]

a monkey has a tail, that's probably a member of the great ape family.**

Best as we can gather, from findings, is there were several different humanesque looking things that wandered round a few million years back, we basically rose above and either killed or bred out the others until we, homo sapiens, were the only ones left.

** unless you're a Sayian, then you turn into a great ape with a tail, or Ozaru

Edited October 1, 2013 by Lakumi

[Vort]

Hmmm... I wonder why people might think man evolved from monkeys? Could it be because in science books people see these images?

Yep, I am pretty sure the far left one looks like a "monkey," and I am pretty sure this was similar to an image in my science books.

Clearly, apes became human when they developed sufficient modesty to put their right leg forward.

[mordorbund]

Clearly, apes became human when they developed sufficient modesty to put their right leg forward.

Which the Bible confirms, "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked". Or as Mark Twain puts it, "Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to."

[prisonchaplain]

Your charts are incomplete. Evolution peaks, then reverts...

[Lakumi]

wrong topic...

I try and not to be all Gollum bent, and sit well:lol:

Edited October 2, 2013 by Lakumi