Adam and Eve and Evolution


zlllch
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There really isnt evidence of intelligent human like creatures predating Adam and Eve. Science relies on so much conjecture that its not really evidence at all. Few fragments of bones do not qualify as evidence. Science created a story then went out to prove it. Their mountains of evidence they claim is actually less than a wheelbarrow full and questionable at best.

Ok now you're just denying facts. There's a lot more evidence than just "fragments of bone." For example, look up the Lascaux and Chauvet cave paintings, which are 15,000 and 30,000 years old. These are two examples among many. I'm not going to spend any time citing the rest of the "mountain of evidence" because you can easily look it up yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

There are a great many possibilities. Perhaps Adam and Eve were inserted into a world with genetically similar humans who developed the ecological/evolutionary niche for them. Perhaps Adam and Eve were created physically by that evolutionary process, and their spirits inserted into the bodies at the correct time. Perhaps this earth, being several billion years old, has hosted the human species in its past -- modern humans are thought to have been around for at least 200,000 years, while the scriptural history of mankind covers no more than about 7000 years -- and our first parents are a remnant of a past humanity. Perhaps (probably) all of these are incorrect or at least incomplete, and the truth is something else. In any case, the fact that we don't understand the relationship between the humans found in fossil evidence and our first parents does not imply that either (or both) are fictitious.

Well said, I totally agree. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, zil said:

Since you didn't seem to catch it....  Scripture teaches that we are the spiritual offspring of God, not physical.  Scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh - not Adam, not the rest of us, only Christ.

Yes, thank you. I was going to mention that Jesus is the only literal son of God, hence the title "Only Begotten." We are God's spirit children though, so that's pretty cool. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Ok now you're just denying facts. There's a lot more evidence than just "fragments of bone." For example, look up the Lascaux and Chauvet cave paintings, which are 15,000 and 30,000 years old. These are two examples among many. I'm not going to spend any time citing the rest of the "mountain of evidence" because you can easily look it up yourself. 

I dont believe in published dating procedures. I believe they are faulty. Strong evidence has shown that carbon dating is strongly unreliable. Evidence of dinosaur soft tissue proves it cant be millions of years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont believe in published dating procedures. I believe they are faulty. Strong evidence has shown that carbon dating is strongly unreliable. Evidence of dinosaur soft tissue proves it cant be millions of years old.

Ok that's fine, you're entitled to that belief, or disbelief rather. I'm not going to argue with you about it. Personally, I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields. Could they be wrong? Sure. However, I believe scientists are doing their best to discover the truth, and I respect that, and am very grateful for their efforts. They're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes or push some agenda.

"In the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion."
-- Dallin H. Oaks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zlllch said:

Ok that's fine, you're entitled to that belief, or disbelief rather. I'm not going to argue with you about it. Personally, I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields. Could they be wrong? Sure. However, I believe scientists are doing their best to discover the truth, and I respect that, and am very grateful for their efforts. They're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes or push some agenda.

"In the end, truth has only one content and one source, and it encompasses both science and religion."
-- Dallin H. Oaks

Just remember that the very Book of Mormon we claim to be historical the scholarly professionals have flat out rejected. 

The problem is in the very sloppy detective work they go by. I am rather embarrased that we can send supposedly gifted people to the best schools for many years and in the end believe a fabricated story that has no real path to prove its validity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One item I find interesting is how a person at one point will completely say, "Follow the prophets," and then disregard their words at another point (especially when lds.org points out this as official doctrine of the Church). As pertaining to Adam evolving from a "lower" order of species has been declared false in 1909 and was reiterated in 2002, as has been mentioned:

"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."  (emphasis added) As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church. The argument ends there for me.

As pertaining to what educated men/women seek to discover, it is the arm of flesh. I will always fall back to, "The theories of science and the theories of religion will often be at odds. The truth of science and the truth of religion will be one." I would believe 100%, the prophetic revelation over the arm of flesh any day. The boy Joseph new more about the nature of this world, its creation, then any other scholar during his time.

As pertaining to fossils, age of earth, etc... man's wisdom is so very limited to what now exists, and to what can be observed. The Book of Mormon is true. The experiences and stories in the Book of Mormon are true. Would you be able to name, from the the group of scientist/archeologists you study, who would claim by scientific evidence that it is true? Horses? I remember reading one member of the Church who said something to this nature, "When ever researches find horse remnants they toss it aside because they already know it wasn't during the time of the Book of Mormon."

In light of this, I find this statement, "I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields," in error; although, I respect your desire to believe as you may. As to the theory of evolution, I can totally see the evolution within kinds (e.g. horses evolved from one horse earlier on -- still a horse (kind)). The concept within the theory of evolution that changes "kind," at this moment I don't see any reason to believe it, nor have I read any convincing argument to do so. I look at it very similar to global warming research. These scientists, "a large group of intelligent people," are giving all kinds of evidence that proves global warming is a crisis!

One day all will be known. The science will be known. Until then, I trust more the prophetic rather than the arm of flesh. As pertaining to human fossils, we have members who once stated something to the nature of "replenish" being the earth was once populated and Adam and Eve replenish, re-populated the earth. We have others providing a different definition to replenish. I am good to wait for revealed truth, and fine to say "I don't know" (as others) with things that have not yet been revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

In regards to the wuestion if Adam evolved from a lower species the church is firm that Adam was the first man of all men and did not evolve from a lower order of animals.

What do you mean by "a lower order of animal"? Please cite the accepted Church teaching that the bodies of men did not evolve from other beings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

What do you mean by "a lower order of animal"? Please cite the accepted Church teaching that the bodies of men did not evolve from other beings.

"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." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

As pertaining to Adam evolving from a "lower" order of species has been declared false in 1909 and was reiterated in 2002, as has been mentioned:

Please simply point out exactly where this idea "has been declared false", as you claim. Just cite the exact words saying, "This here teaching is false." Please. Just cite it. Very simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

Please simply point out exactly where this idea "has been declared false", as you claim. Just cite the exact words saying, "This here teaching is false." Please. Just cite it. Very simple.

I just did, not sure how you can't see it. It is really simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

What do you mean by "a lower order of animal"? Please cite the accepted Church teaching that the bodies of men did not evolve from other beings.

"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." 

Anddenex, please point out above where the words "This idea is false", or their equivalent, is said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:
3 minutes ago, Vort said:

What do you mean by "a lower order of animal"? Please cite the accepted Church teaching that the bodies of men did not evolve from other beings.

"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." 

Anddenex, please point out above where the words "This idea is false", or their equivalent, is said.

Just now, Anddenex said:

I just did, not sure how you can't see it. It is really simple.

I guess I'm just slow. Humor me. Please, just point out the exact words that say what you claim. It's a simple enough request.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Anddenex, please point out above where the words "This idea is false", or their equivalent, is said.

I guess I'm just slow. Humor me. Please, just point out the exact words that say what you claim. It's a simple enough request.

I just did, simple request given, I can't help if you are unwilling to accept and ignore.

Edited by Anddenex
one to if
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Now, now. Don't play games. Nothing you quoted said, "That there idea is false." Quit pussyfooting around. Just point out where it says what you claim.

Quit ignoring facts, a littly irony, "Don't play games." hahaha

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anddenex said:

Quit ignoring facts, a littly iron, "Don't play games." hahaha

Which facts have I ignored, Anddenex? I'm seriously looking for evidence that a First Presidency statement has said, "The idea of organic evolution is false." So far, you haven't shown that, though you keep claiming it.

If it's so easy and obvious, why don't you just show where the First Presidency statement says, "The idea is false"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which facts have I ignored, Anddenex? I'm seriously looking for evidence that a First Presidency statement has said, "The idea of organic evolution is false." So far, you haven't shown that, though you keep claiming it.

If it's so easy and obvious, why don't you just show where the First Presidency statement says, "The idea is false"?

Already did Vort, I can't help what you are unwilling to accept and outright ignore. The quote has been given three times now, if you don't want to accept what they said, I can't help you, and no matter how clear the quote already shared is, and no matter how many times I share...it isn't going to change your mind.

I feel like I am speaking with an Jehovah Witness who keeps trying to tell me to show him where in the Bible that Jesus is Jehovah. And you show him verses of scripture that clearly show him as Jehovah, and he keeps denying it, because it doesn't say, "Jesus is Jehovah," in this verse. :hmmm:

EDIT - Also, now that you are misquoting me, I never said "organic evolution" is false. You are being disingenuous with this statement. I clearly stated, "As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church." Note the quote is specific to Adam and Eve not evolving from a lower order of specious/animal as was given here, ""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." Pretty clear statement regarding Adam and Eve not developing (evolving) from a lower order of the animal creation. Not sure how that is missed, but that is just me.

I also clearly stated, "As to the theory of evolution, I can totally see the evolution within kinds..." So your attempt to say I said that the First Presidency said, "The idea of organic evolution is false," is disingenuous, as I said no such thing. Again the irony of someone saying "Don't play games" and is the person playing games.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Which facts have I ignored, Anddenex? I'm seriously looking for evidence that a First Presidency statement has said, "The idea of organic evolution is false." So far, you haven't shown that, though you keep claiming it.

If it's so easy and obvious, why don't you just show where the First Presidency statement says, "The idea is false"?

Not sure how more clear it could be whats been amply repeated.

Let me ask- why is it that in order for our seed to continue in eternity we have to have physical bodies (intact with functioning sexual reproductive organs) and be married to someone of the opposite sex? Where is our "seed" found? 

Not really sure why this concept of procreating is so hard for people to navigate. We create children in our own image through our seed all the time. Its absolutely undeniable that our bodies cant create a body in our image through procreation. If we can create bodies that are in our image, and we are in the image of God, why is it hard to put it together that God and his wife have sexual reproductive organs themselves and were perfectly capable to create Adam and Eve through the only known process we know of that create physical bodies?

It truly baffles me that people could believe God would use some insane process spanning billions of years and countless copy errors to somehow finally end up with bodies that resemble His image to then introduce Adam and Eve into. Why? If God is merely a master chemist then why have working sexual reproductive organs and be eternally married? We couldnt really be the "seed" of God if he didnt use his literal seed to create us.

We learn in both scripture and the temple that sexual relations between eternally married couples continue in eternity and that through that intimacy our seed continues. So why then do people deny this truth in favor of a God that zaps lightning bolts in primordial soup that, after billions of trys and years, creates a life form that eventually evolves into something that resembles his seed?

I know Satan is the master deceiver but please, this is elementary trickery. Why are people so easily blinded by his false teachings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

One item I find interesting is how a person at one point will completely say, "Follow the prophets," and then disregard their words at another point (especially when lds.org points out this as official doctrine of the Church). As pertaining to Adam evolving from a "lower" order of species has been declared false in 1909 and was reiterated in 2002, as has been mentioned:

"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."  (emphasis added) As pertaining to our parentage, we did not evolve from a lower order of species -- this is clear -- and has been reiterated by the Church. The argument ends there for me.

As pertaining to what educated men/women seek to discover, it is the arm of flesh. I will always fall back to, "The theories of science and the theories of religion will often be at odds. The truth of science and the truth of religion will be one." I would believe 100%, the prophetic revelation over the arm of flesh any day. The boy Joseph new more about the nature of this world, its creation, then any other scholar during his time.

As pertaining to fossils, age of earth, etc... man's wisdom is so very limited to what now exists, and to what can be observed. The Book of Mormon is true. The experiences and stories in the Book of Mormon are true. Would you be able to name, from the the group of scientist/archeologists you study, who would claim by scientific evidence that it is true? Horses? I remember reading one member of the Church who said something to this nature, "When ever researches find horse remnants they toss it aside because they already know it wasn't during the time of the Book of Mormon."

In light of this, I find this statement, "I tend to trust the widely accepted consensuses reached by a large group of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to scientific studies in their specific fields," in error; although, I respect your desire to believe as you may. As to the theory of evolution, I can totally see the evolution within kinds (e.g. horses evolved from one horse earlier on -- still a horse (kind)). The concept within the theory of evolution that changes "kind," at this moment I don't see any reason to believe it, nor have I read any convincing argument to do so. I look at it very similar to global warming research. These scientists, "a large group of intelligent people," are giving all kinds of evidence that proves global warming is a crisis!

One day all will be known. The science will be known. Until then, I trust more the prophetic rather than the arm of flesh. As pertaining to human fossils, we have members who once stated something to the nature of "replenish" being the earth was once populated and Adam and Eve replenish, re-populated the earth. We have others providing a different definition to replenish. I am good to wait for revealed truth, and fine to say "I don't know" (as others) with things that have not yet been revealed.

I think you read a little too far into my statement. I said I "tend" to trust scientists, and directly afterwords admitted that they could easily be wrong. I trust far more in God than in the arm of flesh. I also trust far more in God than in his fallible prophets. Don't take that the wrong way, I love trust and support the prophets, and believe they are God's true prophets on the earth, but they are imperfect mortals. They make mistakes. I do not have blind faith in any imperfect mortal, to do so would be to trust in the arm of flesh. God doesn't want us to have blind faith in his prophets, he wants us to listen to the Spirit and find out for ourselves the truthfulness of their words. That being said, I fully support the official doctrine of the church on this subject, and every other subject for that matter. We appear to have a different understanding of what that doctrine is however, at least regarding this subject, which is totally fine, especially considering how unimportant it is to our salvation. 

Really, God hasn't revealed much on this subject. We don't know the details of the creation, only the reality of it. We have the creation story, but we don't know how much of it is figurative, and how much is literal, save a few parts of it that the church has declared as literal or figurative. For example church leaders have said that Eve being created from Adam's rib is meant to be understood figuratively. We also have the 1909 statement in which they say Adam was the first of all men and the primal parent of our race, a literal understanding of the text. I don't disagree with this. It is my opinion that human evolution is compatible with this truth, although for now we don't know exactly how. Certain church leaders also hold, and have held this opinion. Remember that that's all it is though, an opinion. 

The entire purpose of this thread was to seek others views about how evolution could be compatible with a literal historical Adam and Eve. It's all pure speculation and assumption. None of it is essential to salvation, and none of it is certain. I'm just interested in hearing others ideas on the subject, and they've been pretty interesting and satisfactory so far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zlllch said:

I think you read a little too far into my statement. I said I "tend" to trust scientists, and directly afterwords admitted that they could easily be wrong. I trust far more in God than in the arm of flesh. I also trust far more in God than in his fallible prophets. Don't take that the wrong way, I love trust and support the prophets, and believe they are God's true prophets on the earth, but they are imperfect mortals. They make mistakes. I do not have blind faith in any imperfect mortal, to do so would be to trust in the arm of flesh. God doesn't want us to have blind faith in his prophets, he wants us to listen to the Spirit and find out for ourselves the truthfulness of their words. That being said, I fully support the official doctrine of the church on this subject, and every other subject for that matter. We appear to have a different understanding of what that doctrine is however, at least regarding this subject, which is totally fine, especially considering how unimportant it is to our salvation. 

Really, God hasn't revealed much on this subject. We don't know the details of the creation, only the reality of it. We have the creation story, but we don't know how much of it is figurative, and how much is literal, save a few parts of it that the church has declared as literal or figurative. For example church leaders have said that Eve being created from Adam's rib is meant to be understood figuratively. We also have the 1909 statement in which they say Adam was the first of all men and the primal parent of our race, a literal understanding of the text. I don't disagree with this. It is my opinion that human evolution is compatible with this truth, although for now we don't know exactly how. Certain church leaders also hold, and have held this opinion. Remember that that's all it is though, an opinion. 

The entire purpose of this thread was to seek others views about how evolution could be compatible with a literal historical Adam and Eve. It's all pure speculation and assumption. None of it is essential to salvation, and none of it is certain. I'm just interested in hearing others ideas on the subject, and they've been pretty interesting and satisfactory so far. 

I believe God has revealed almost exactly all the details. Its all in what one wants to see though. Even the physical geneology of the human race is traced in the bible. When it gets to Adam it says specifically that Adam is descended from God the Father. Not really sure why people argue this fact that Adam was the very son of God and instead state Adam is the son of some lower creature.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read all the posts and not sure if I'm will. My off the top of my head thoughts are that I'm open to the possibility that everything that came before Adam and Eve was the result of evolution, perhaps guided evolution, guided by God, but perhaps not, and everything from Adam and after is a result of God's creation. Perhaps the idea that there was no death before Adam can be explained by the possibility that perhaps that which came before Adam never had a spirit of any form, since God was not involved in its creation, and since death is the seperation of the body and the spirit, if there never was a spirit in the first place, there could be no death - just a cessation of life. Without having thought about it at all, at the moment I can't see how either of these two ideas contradict the fundamental tenets of 1) creationism via God and 2) evolution as a naturally occuring event. 

As for the idea that Adam was the first man on the Earth, its not hard to re-define every man-like creature that came before Adam as something other than a man. After all, if these pre-Adamite man-like creatures lacked a spirit, and if a spirit is an essential component of a man, it would be entirely incorrect to define man-like creatures that lacked a spirit as a man.   

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zlllch said:

I think you read a little too far into my statement. I said I "tend" to trust scientists, and directly afterwords admitted that they could easily be wrong. I trust far more in God than in the arm of flesh. I also trust far more in God than in his fallible prophets. Don't take that the wrong way, I love trust and support the prophets, and believe they are God's true prophets on the earth, but they are imperfect mortals. They make mistakes. I do not have blind faith in any imperfect mortal, to do so would be to trust in the arm of flesh. God doesn't want us to have blind faith in his prophets, he wants us to listen to the Spirit and find out for ourselves the truthfulness of their words. That being said, I fully support the official doctrine of the church on this subject, and every other subject for that matter. We appear to have a different understanding of what that doctrine is however, at least regarding this subject, which is totally fine, especially considering how unimportant it is to our salvation. 

Really, God hasn't revealed much on this subject. We don't know the details of the creation, only the reality of it. We have the creation story, but we don't know how much of it is figurative, and how much is literal, save a few parts of it that the church has declared as literal or figurative. For example church leaders have said that Eve being created from Adam's rib is meant to be understood figuratively. We also have the 1909 statement in which they say Adam was the first of all men and the primal parent of our race, a literal understanding of the text. I don't disagree with this. It is my opinion that human evolution is compatible with this truth, although for now we don't know exactly how. Certain church leaders also hold, and have held this opinion. Remember that that's all it is though, an opinion. 

The entire purpose of this thread was to seek others views about how evolution could be compatible with a literal historical Adam and Eve. It's all pure speculation and assumption. None of it is essential to salvation, and none of it is certain. I'm just interested in hearing others ideas on the subject, and they've been pretty interesting and satisfactory so far. 

Just a side note, that 1909 statement was reiterated in 2011 with the published book, "Teachings of the President of the Church: Joseph F. Smith," which would have been accepted by the apostles and prophets as this was Church curriculum. This should give us a longer and more in-depth look as to how many times this proclamation from 1909 has been reiterated by the Church.

This is my mind and heart, whatever is truth is truth. At this moment, it seems pretty clear the stance of the Church regarding human evolution; however, I don't have any problem with people believing as they want to believe. Here is one quote from this same teaching of the prophets, "True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man."

And here is one of the questions proposed, "How does revealed truth about the origin of mankind differ from the theories of men on this subject?"

Yes, on this forum there are many great minds, very intelligent people who are read and provide great insight to many things with multiple thoughts. It is what attracted me here not so long ago.

And if an official statement came out, although I doubt it, that human evolution is true -- it wouldn't shake my testimony, and I would be similar to other members who then say, "Well, I was wrong." And move along.

 

 

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

I believe God has revealed almost exactly all the details. Its all in what one wants to see though. Even the physical geneology of the human race is traced in the bible. When it gets to Adam it says specifically that Adam is descended from God the Father. Not really sure why people argue this fact that Adam was the very son of God and not the son of some lower creature.

Ok so you have a very literal understanding of the creation story, which many people do. Can you quote the specific verses or church teachings you're referring to that say Adam is the literal physical son of God? All I can find is church teachings that say only Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father. 

"He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father." --Ezra Taft Benson 

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