"Nothing has been revealed concerning evolution." Balderdash


Recommended Posts

re

On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 12:46 PM, person0 said:

Your logic would lead to the conclusion that evolution happens at a much faster rate than what science currently teaches.  Also, not me, but many believe in a local flood, which would immediately negate your premise.

 

Actually my logic and premise is that we are trying to solve a problem with too many unknows.  I tried very hard for much of my life to not believe in evolution but it is like believing that the earth is the center of the universe around which everything else revolves.  After a while there are too many things left unexplained and unanswered with that belief.  I think I can deal with questions that cannot be answered – but I have a problem with answers that cannot be questioned and those that refuse to consider any questions – especially if they cannot answer how they obtained their answer – beyond stuff like, “everybody knows” or “the scriptures say so”.   The economy of truth is an abundance of diverse evidence – it is the deceptions or misunderstanding that relies on a single source – interesting even the scriptures say that.

There are some serious problems with the idea that evolutions is random or is not fueled by intelligence.  In essence – often there are conclusions drawn before questions are asked.  For me, I can understand that there are questions that cannot be answered – but I refuse the notion that there are answers that cannot be questioned.

Quote

I agree with this, but most people I know almost never use the word 'evolution' in this context, including me.

Evolution most often refers to change and I believe that mostly evolutions most often refers to change that increases in complexity or higher order of things.  This is preciously why I used the example of a zygote - so that there is a very common example of evolution that explains the existence of humanity.  I think if evolution was used more often in the context of its actual meaning - fewer would refuse to consider it as such a viable possibility.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

For me, I can understand that there are questions that cannot be answered – but I refuse the notion that there are answers that cannot be questioned.

I accept that, however, despite what at face value appears to be a body of evidence, evolution is a theory that seeks to make sense of the body of evidence.  You and I and anyone can also use our minds and come up with alternative theories that could work with the same body of evidence, which might reject the notion of organic evolution as a naturally occurring event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2018 at 3:37 AM, vitaminwater120 said:

According to the October 2016 edition of New Era, "nothing has been revealed about evolution" and "the Church has no official position on evolution."

But the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith and the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson spoke plainly against evolution.  The Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith taught: 

"It has been truthfully said that organic evolution is Satan’s chief weapon in this dispensation in his attempt to destroy the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It is a contemptible plot against faith in God and to destroy the effective belief in the divine atonement of our Redeemer� There is not and cannot be, any compromise between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the theories of evolution. Were evolution true, there could be no remission of sin. In fact there could be no sin. (Ibid., p. 184)"

And the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson taught:

"Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. Our homes are not as strong unless we are using it to bring our children to Christ. Our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc."

If the teachings of our own prophets don't constitute an "official position" for a given topic, then the church doesn't have an official position on anything. 

I'm not going to read another debater here about the church's position on evolution, so what I say here might have been said already. @vitaminwater120 if you haven't already been advised to do so, I recommend that, instead of starting another debate about the church's position on evolution, you first read what has already been said on this topic in this forum. Perhaps doing so might answer your questions. You could start with the search button in the top right corner of the screen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, person0 said:

I accept that, however, despite what at face value appears to be a body of evidence, evolution is a theory that seeks to make sense of the body of evidence.  You and I and anyone can also use our minds and come up with alternative theories that could work with the same body of evidence, which might reject the notion of organic evolution as a naturally occurring event.

Gravity is also a theory - so are numbers.  Something being a theory does not mean that it has not been proven.  Evolution has been proven - but there are theories that attempt to apply evolution as a possible explanation of biological events that have no other viable explanation.  By the vary nature of a virus attacking a living organism we know that genetics can be changed - which is the definition of organic evolution and is currently a primary tool and method of genetic engineering.  To say there is no organic evolution is a kin to claiming mankind really has not discovered fire yet - let alone cooked meals with it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the New Era article which gives as a reference a talk by Elder Holland. I then read the talk by Elder Holland. I also read the other two references. Upon reading them I cannot figure out how the New Era article writer came to the conclusion he did in the article since what he gives as sources pretty much say the opposite from what is said in the article. I could go on but I’ll just ask you to read all the articles and see if you agree that what is written in the New Era article does not agree with the referenced articles. 

I’ll just post a couple of excerpts 

From the New Era article  

“The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution.”

From the referenced material  

“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.”

So the article says the church has no position then the referenced article gives the church’s position. Quite a contradiction. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

So the article says the church has no position then the referenced article gives the church’s position. Quite a contradiction.

People seem to expect the church's position on evolution to be either a straight Yes or straight No, and if it's neither, the church doesn't have a position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

. . . but there are theories that attempt to apply evolution as a possible explanation of biological events that have no other viable secular explanation.

My point exactly.

It is very simple.  God is a man with a physical body of flesh and bones.  If mankind already existed at the time God created this earth (it did), what use is there for organic evolution?  It is a waste of time and effort to try to build something that already exists and is able to duplicate itself.  God has so much work to do already, He has created worlds without number, why waste time by building from scratch something for which there is already a perfected process to build?  He wouldn't do that.  Even if organic evolution were a true process that existed at some point in eternity, it would have been a complete waste of time to use in in relation to the creation of live on our world.

Additionally, when God turned Moses' staff into a serpent, if we accept it as a true event, that alone proves that He is able to take raw elements and reorganize them into a life form immediately.  If He is capable of doing that, then once again, evolution, as a means of developing life forms and creating the earth becomes useless and unnecessary.

If all things truly exist spiritually before existing physically, then any living thing that is the result of human genetic manipulation would already be a known to God.  Genetic alteration is an effect of mortality; without death, organic evolution could not exist.

Quote

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.  (2 Ne. 2:22)

Anyway, I have to finish preparing a talk for sacrament meeting today, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, person0 said:

Additionally, when God turned Moses' staff into a serpent, if we accept it as a true event, that alone proves that He is able to take raw elements and reorganize them into a life form immediately.  If He is capable of doing that, then once again, evolution, as a means of developing life forms and creating the earth becomes useless and unnecessary.

I believe this are points often overlooked. The first miracle Christ performed (according to scripture) is water into wine. This gives evidence that God is able to command at the element and change one element into another.

The rod into a snake and then back into a rod is perfect example of how easily God can take matter create what he desires. Waiting millions of years to create a body through organic evolution would be a waste of time, when all God needed are the elements that make up a human body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
6 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I believe this are points often overlooked. The first miracle Christ performed (according to scripture) is water into wine. This gives evidence that God is able to command at the element and change one element into another.

The rod into a snake and then back into a rod is perfect example of how easily God can take matter create what he desires. Waiting millions of years to create a body through organic evolution would be a waste of time, when all God needed are the elements that make up a human body.

Two thoughts on this:

1. Biblically speaking, it seems that miracles were performed almost exclusively for the benefit (or destruction) of man. Whether it was to save the children of Israel, to reward the faithful, or to smite the wicked, there was always a direct human element involved. Presumably, the idea behind miracles is to test, reward, or inspire faith, right? More importantly, these miracles suspend and create exceptions to natural laws. What reason do you have to believe that God would forego natural laws and instead use miraculous means to create worlds? I see no human element behind that, and why have natural laws at all if all of existence itself was born from miraculous exceptions?

2. Millions of years is probably a drop in the bucket for an eternal being, so I have a hard time buying the "waste of time" argument.

Edited by Godless
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, person0 said:

My point exactly.

It is very simple.  God is a man with a physical body of flesh and bones.  If mankind already existed at the time God created this earth (it did), what use is there for organic evolution?  It is a waste of time and effort to try to build something that already exists and is able to duplicate itself.  God has so much work to do already, He has created worlds without number, why waste time by building from scratch something for which there is already a perfected process to build?  He wouldn't do that.  Even if organic evolution were a true process that existed at some point in eternity, it would have been a complete waste of time to use in in relation to the creation of live on our world.

Additionally, when God turned Moses' staff into a serpent, if we accept it as a true event, that alone proves that He is able to take raw elements and reorganize them into a life form immediately.  If He is capable of doing that, then once again, evolution, as a means of developing life forms and creating the earth becomes useless and unnecessary.

If all things truly exist spiritually before existing physically, then any living thing that is the result of human genetic manipulation would already be a known to God.  Genetic alteration is an effect of mortality; without death, organic evolution could not exist.

Anyway, I have to finish preparing a talk for sacrament meeting today, so I'll leave it at that for now.

There is a great deal of genetic diversity (organic evolution) in the human genome.   One samll example – what color are G-d’s eyes?  Brown, blue, hazel or green? – or perhaps some other color?  And his hair is white?  Not blond, brunet, red, black or something else?  The scriptures say that we will be resurrected with a “proper and perfect” frame.  That my friend is pure organic evolution plain and simple – I cannot think of a better way to describe it.  Can you?  Without making up some obscure concept that in essence means; organic evolution?

You have also mentioned Moses’ staff.  It is possible that there is symbolism involved.  Remember that the priests of Pharaoh initiated the staff to serpent trick.  Anciently the serpent was symbolic.  In ancient Egypt a serpent symbolized divine g-dlyness to be worshiped.  I submit that rather than a dual of, my snake is greater than you snake thing – that what was going on was a manifestation of who is the rightful representation of G-d – Moses or the priests of Pharaoh.

One last thing – I wish I could visit and hear your sacrament meeting talk – sorry I will not be there.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

Like what?

Like cows that produce more milk and plants that produce higher yields and have increased disease resistance. 

Not in my lifetime but noteworthy are the various breeds of dogs that have specialized abilities. 

Chickens that grow faster and produce more meat. Seedless oranges, watermelons and grapes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Like cows that produce more milk and plants that produce higher yields and have increased disease resistance. 

Not in my lifetime but noteworthy are the various breeds of dogs that have specialized abilities. 

Chickens that grow faster and produce more meat. Seedless oranges, watermelons and grapes. 

That's not evolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

Since BYU teaches evolution, it obviously can't be totally incompatible with church teachings. That's why you don't see BYU teaching classes on how to brew your own ale. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VERY IMPORTANT!

In a major new study conducted by geneticist David S.Thaler of the University of Basel and geneticist Mark Young Stoeckle of Rockefeller University, and after repeated retesting to be absolutely certain of the study’s accuracy, it has been determined that 90% of all the animals and animal species that have ever lived on this planet, including the human race, all appeared on the earth at the exact same time somewhere between 100,000 and no more that 200,000 years ago. These respected scientists were very reluctant to release the results of this study to the scientific community and the press because the findings contradict what they personally believe and because they feared the reaction of a world that largely believes the theory of evolution is a given. But they finally relented and decided to publish the study in the name of true, unbiased scientific inquiry. I admire their honesty, integrity and courage. Do a search under their names and “new genetic study” you’ll be able to read more about it.

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Grunt said:

That's not evolution

It’s not evolution by natural selection but it is an example of change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
1 hour ago, Grunt said:

That's not evolution

What he described is controlled micro-evolution. Same concept, but manipulated by man for our benefit, not the benefit of the evolved species. It happens in the natural world as well. Virtually all theists accept microevolution as a reality, but somehow can't grasp how that same process, uninhibited by man and left to play out over thousands/millions of years, can result in entirely new species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe that all of the same species that were on the earth at the time of Adam exist now and likewise not all that we have now existed then. I can’t name an example but I would imagine that new species emerge from time to time and of course species have gone extinct. 

I don't even try to make science and religion fit together but if I tried I’d have a hard time figuring out where species that existed before the time of Adam fit in. Not to mention early human like beings. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

@Jersey Boy A single study is enough to raise eyebrows but not enough to change your views. When the study’s findings have been replicated many times then it is time to rethink old theories.

I can assure that even if the results could be replicated 10,000 times the findings would still will be buried and/or ignored. In fact, even if the findings could be proven to be true beyond any shadow of a doubt the revelation would barely make a ripple in the scientific, academic and news media communities.  They are all too emotionally and philosophically invested in the status quo to give up on it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One last thing – I wish I could visit and hear your sacrament meeting talk – sorry I will not be there.

Thank you!  It actually went very well and was also on a very non-confrontational subject, faith!  Then again, obviously I wouldn't expect to be giving a talk about evolution in sacrament meeting.  😄

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

There is a great deal of genetic diversity (organic evolution) in the human genome.   One samll example – what color are G-d’s eyes?  Brown, blue, hazel or green? – or perhaps some other color?  And his hair is white?  Not blond, brunet, red, black or something else?  The scriptures say that we will be resurrected with a “proper and perfect” frame.  That my friend is pure organic evolution plain and simple – I cannot think of a better way to describe it.  Can you?  Without making up some obscure concept that in essence means; organic evolution?

See, to me, as I mentioned earlier, I do not view that as evolution.  I do not use the word evolution in relation to that.  I do not discount these things as real events, and I recognize that evolution may technically be an appropriate term to describe them (or perhaps mutation would be better, but technically mutation is evolution, so, whatever).  In my mind evolution in relation to a gospel discussion refers to one thing, the eventual conversion of one species into an entirely different, procreationally incompatible species (i.e. fish to frogs to monkeys to mankind).  That is the only thing I care about when speaking of evolution from a gospel perspective.

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

You have also mentioned Moses’ staff.  It is possible that there is symbolism involved.  Remember that the priests of Pharaoh initiated the staff to serpent trick.  Anciently the serpent was symbolic.  In ancient Egypt a serpent symbolized divine g-dlyness to be worshiped.  I submit that rather than a dual of, my snake is greater than you snake thing – that what was going on was a manifestation of who is the rightful representation of G-d – Moses or the priests of Pharaoh.

I don't understand why the argument of who rightfully represents God would matter to the discussion about evolution.  That said, if you are resorting to suggesting that Moses' (I forgot it was actually Aaron's) rod did not actually literally turn into a snake, then I am not sure we can go much further with this.  Clearly we will disagree and if that is figurative to you, then we are at an impasse.  That said, it is most definitely not the only example.  The Lord gave Moses leprosy on his hand, and then cured it.  That is God's literal ability to alter genetic and elemental structure, instantaneously.  Interestingly, according to your high-level encompassing definition of evolution, that was instantaneous evolution!  As @Anddenex brought up, Christ turned water to wine, not a living thing, but a similar principle.

Additionally, I find it interesting that you did not address the fact I have brought up multiple times about how much of a waste of time it would be to use macro-evolution in the process of creating our world, since even if it were a true principle, it would be unnecessary since it would have been completed eons ago on other worlds, even before God began creating the first creature, since God himself is already a man.  According to your logic, God's physical body of flesh and bones would have been the product of macro-evolution; even if that were actually true, then there would still be 0 reason for Him to repeat such a process from scratch, as it would be an unnecessary waste of time.

Despite our disagreement, I think I have sufficiently justified via logic and scripture that this statement by you was uncalled for:

On 7/27/2018 at 11:01 AM, Traveler said:

To believe that G-d does not create via evolution is pure ignorance and might I add unmigrated stupidity.

Clearly, when you use the word evolution, you use it in a different context than others.  Although I acknowledge your context to be accurate, it is certainly not colloquial.  As a result, I feel that this comment is inappropriate if for no other reason than the fact that you are essentially declaring yourself to be unequivocally right.  You have no room for respectful disagreement, because you have called others stupid and ignorant for not accepting your view, and your view has been postulated using your (accurate but not common usage) definition.  Hilariously, I feel like this is a @Vort calling out @Rob Osborn moment, on at least this one point.  😄

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Godless said:

Two thoughts on this:

1. Biblically speaking, it seems that miracles were performed almost exclusively for the benefit (or destruction) of man. Whether it was to save the children of Israel, to reward the faithful, or to smite the wicked, there was always a direct human element involved. Presumably, the idea behind miracles is to test, reward, or inspire faith, right? More importantly, these miracles suspend and create exceptions to natural laws. What reason do you have to believe that God would forego natural laws and instead use miraculous means to create worlds? I see no human element behind that, and why have natural laws at all if all of existence itself was born from miraculous exceptions?

2. Millions of years is probably a drop in the bucket for an eternal being, so I have a hard time buying the "waste of time" argument.

First thought, the bold portion, is an assumption regarding exceptions and suspensions to natural laws. It has been said that all miracles are laws which we do not have yet the knowledge of how they are performed. Whether these laws are Celestial, natural, or spiritual doesn't matter. They are all laws, not exceptions to any law. Water to wine would have been accomplished through the knowledge God has of known law, and his ability to command it to happen.

Second thought, God is pragmatic. The amount of time for an eternal being is irrelevant to the statement. What is more sensible: 1) I have the knowledge and power to create in a short period of time, or 2) Use a natural law that takes a longer time to accomplish the same task that could have been accomplished much much sooner?

If I am able to build a house in a day that functions the same as if it took a million years, which would I use to build my house? I would say the answer is pretty simple, build the house in a day (even if I am an eternal being).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BJ64 said:

I don't even try to make science and religion fit together

I do, because ultimately God is the source of both.
Science tends to focus on the "how". Religion tends to focus on the "why".
At some point these two sources, in their pure forms, will join together and give us the complete full picture.

Quote

D&C 101:

32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that aday when the Lord shall come, he shall breveal all things—

33 Things which have passed, and ahidden things which no man knew, things of the bearth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof—

34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven.

I always enjoy this video in case you have never seen it before:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

VERY IMPORTANT!

In a major new study conducted by geneticist David S.Thaler of the University of Basel and geneticist Mark Young Stoeckle of Rockefeller University, and after repeated retesting to be absolutely certain of the study’s accuracy, it has been determined that 90% of all the animals and animal species that have ever lived on this planet, including the human race, all appeared on the earth at the exact same time somewhere between 100,000 and no more that 200,000 years ago. These respected scientists were very reluctant to release the results of this study to the scientific community and the press because the findings contradict what they personally believe and because they feared the reaction of a world that largely believes the theory of evolution is a given. But they finally relented and decided to publish the study in the name of true, unbiased scientific inquiry. I admire their honesty, integrity and courage. Do a search under their names and “new genetic study” you’ll be able to read more about it.

Point of order, the study only makes the claim that all animal life known today appeared between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. It says nothing about previous species of animal, nor of bacteria or plant life.

This is a very new study (May 2018) that has yet to be validated using a methodology that is less than a decade old. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is a bit early to conclude either way.

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