Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Exactly - but that is just the tip of the iceberg.

The Traveler

"but"???

"And".  I was making a point.  I made it.  I didn't intend to create a Doctoral Thesis on the matter.

[prisonchaplain]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You do realize what you just said?  - If there was any living thing like Adam and Eve before Adam and Eve - there is no need for a creation from noting. 

 

The Traveler

Remember...traditionalists believe that God is spirit, with no corporeal essence. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

You do realize that I teach college science?  And yes, "what is science" is literally covered the first week of class.  And yes, I routinely fail people who refuse to learn.

I dont care if you were the head chief of NASA, you cant run around saying someone elses beliefs arent science when you dont really know. ID theory is science. You can personally say it isnt, thats fine, but it is science.

[Rob Osborn]

52 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Sad..

Found here http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Pre-Adamites#cite_ref-1

After listening to argument from both sides this is what the First Presidency of the Church declared of the matter.

If we consider our selves faithful saints we should follow and emulate the wisdom of the First Presidency and not claim that we know better then them what is true about the subject

 

"In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year.

Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this subject will be timely and productive of good.

In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation....

 

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

[estradling75]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

"In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters. A reprinting of this important First Presidency statement will be helpful as members of the Church study the Old Testament this year.

Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this subject will be timely and productive of good.

In presenting the statement that follows we are not conscious of putting forth anything essentially new; neither is it our desire so to do. Truth is what we wish to present, and truth—eternal truth—is fundamentally old. A restatement of the original attitude of the Church relative to this matter is all that will be attempted here. To tell the truth as God has revealed it, and commend it to the acceptance of those who need to conform their opinions thereto, is the sole purpose of this presentation....

 

"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was “the first man of all men” (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

That is from 1909 I quoted the most recent from 1931...  Unless you only believe in modern revelation when it is suits you

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

That is from 1909 I quoted the most recent from 1931...  Unless you only believe in modern revelation when it is suits you

Did you read it- ""In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."

[Rob Osborn]

Btw, Fairmormon is knowingly bias towards evolution so they cant be used as getting to the truth.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Did you read it- ""In the early 1900s, questions concerning the Creation of the earth and the theories of evolution became the subject of much public discussion. In the midst of these controversies, the First Presidency issued the following in 1909, which expresses the Church’s doctrinal position on these matters."

Did you read it-- —First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931.

[Guest]

@estradling75, @Rob Osborn,

Your statements don't contradict each other.

[estradling75]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Btw, Fairmormon is knowingly bias towards evolution so they cant be used as getting to the truth.

btw the way Rob Osborn is knowingly bias against evolution so they can't be used at getting to the truth..

A Presidency Memo of instruction to the General Authorities is binding no matter what source unless you can prove they made memo up or otherwise altered it.

 

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Did you read it-- —First Presidency, Memorandum to General Authorities, April 1931.

The article I quoted is from 2002 by the First Presidency who state it is the church doctrine. The 1931 statement doesnt come into play because of this 2002 statement.

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@estradling75, @Rob Osborn,

Your statements don't contradict each other.

He seems to think so... and no matter how you slice it mine is more current

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

btw the way Rob Osborn is knowingly bias against evolution so they can't be used at getting to the truth..

A Presidency Memo of instruction to the General Authorities is binding no matter what source unless you can prove they made memo up or otherwise altered it.

 

Fairmormon is a biased private thinktank. Nothing more, nothing less.

[estradling75]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

The article I quoted is from 2002 by the First Presidency who state it is the church doctrine. The 1931 statement doesnt come into play because of this 2002 statement.

Which it clearly states is a reprint   Straight form the top....  " From Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, 75–81; capitalization, punctuation, paragraphing, and spelling standardized.“

It is the church preserving historical documents and making it accessible 

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

He seems to think so... and no matter how you slice it mine is more current

1931 is not more current than 2002

[Jane_Doe]

30 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont care if you were the head chief of NASA, you cant run around saying someone elses beliefs arent science when you dont really know. ID theory is science. You can personally say it isnt, thats fine, but it is science.

But it's not science... I don't know why you keep trying to call a cat a dog.  All this does it hurt your pro-ID argument.  

Edited January 19, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[estradling75]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Fairmormon is a biased private thinktank. Nothing more, nothing less.

So you confess you can not counter the First Presidency Memo I posted...  The best you got is you don't like the people who made it available

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

But it's not science...

But it is...

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

But it is...

*sigh* If you wan to claim that, it's yours to prove.  Personally, I see such instance on ignoring the very definition of what science is as silly and hurtful to the pro-ID cause (which again, I am pro-ID).

Edited January 19, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

So you confess you can not counter the First Presidency Memo I posted...  The best you got is you don't like the people who made it available

Please read the 2002 Feb. First presidency message. It states that the 1909 statement represents the current official teachings of the church in regards to evolution. I not only countered, I did it with the First Presidency.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

*sigh* If you wan to claim that, it's yours to prove.  Personally, I see such instance on ignoring the very definition of what science is as silly and hurtful to the pro-ID cause (which again, I am pro-ID).

Heres one random one I found that was actually published in a "peer reviewed" publication.

 

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

[Vort]

Honestly, folks, Rob Osborn's mind is not merely shut. It's hermetically sealed. None of your arguments will change his mind, because he already knows The Truth®. Let him believe what he wants. No skin off anyone else's nose. Who knows? He might yet have something of value to offer on other topics. In the meantime, let him be content in his sure knowledge that he knows Science. Whatever.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Honestly, folks, Rob Osborn's mind is not merely shut. It's hermetically sealed. None of your arguments will change his mind, because he already knows The Truth®. Let him believe what he wants. No skin off anyone else's nose. Who knows? He might yet have something of value to offer on other topics. In the meantime, let him be content in his sure knowledge that he knows Science. Whatever.

Please read the link I posted above. Thanks.

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Heres one random one I found that was actually published in a "peer reviewed" publication.

 

http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

The link doesn't have a peer reviewed article in it.  The link in the link doesn't.  The link in the link in the link doesn't.  And I'm not going to chase this rabbit any further.  If you want me to take you serious here, please provide some actual evidence.  Until then this is going no where and I should be focusing on work.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Honestly, folks, Rob Osborn's mind is not merely shut. It's hermetically sealed. None of your arguments will change his mind, because he already knows The Truth®. Let him believe what he wants. No skin off anyone else's nose. Who knows? He might yet have something of value to offer on other topics. In the meantime, let him be content in his sure knowledge that he knows Science. Whatever.

Please read the link I posted above. Thanks.