Do you believe in organic evolution?

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I say "necessarily" because theology is in many ways a subjective pursuit, and I think that's the root of the conflict between science and faith.

Science is just as subjective. My college degree in Family Life Science and Psychology with all the journal articles that take the same findings and interpret the findings to support their theory is subjective. What a person chooses to follow, despite articles printed in journal, is also subjective.

One of the most informative classes I took was delving further into behaviorism and the different theories (all based in research and evidence), and how differently (subjective) they interpret the findings and evidence put forth.

Our teacher had us read an argument that was published (peer reviewed and accepted) for one theory. The information seemed to give more credence toward "free will." A researcher, organic behaviorist (one who believed all actions were controlled by genetics -- no free will), interpreted all the supporting evidence in favor of organic behaviorism. The exact same information he used to support his subjective belief, which was published in support of free will.

But if people want to think their belief in published articles isn't subjective, then answer the question, "How does a theory last 100 years with the majority saying its right, only to find out it is wrong"?

[Anddenex]

9 hours ago, person0 said:

Another problem is found in asking what causes macro-evolution to stop?  If we recognize that God is a man, and that He is 'more intelligent than they all', would that not indicate a clear end to evolution once man is achieved?  Yet the principles of macro-evolution would dictate that mankind, subject to the right circumstances, could continue to evolve into a greater class of being than we are at present.

There is a popular physicist (He is Asian) who once said that human evolution has stopped, which is a conundrum for one who professes and believes in evolution as fact. Evolution isn't something that "stops." Evolution is something that natural occurs and never stops for any species (flesh and blood - organic), otherwise evolution is not a fact and is false.

For the reason you have provided, "macro-evolution would dictate that mankind, subject to the right circumstances (in order to survive or adapt), [would] continue to evolve." I have watched scientific theories saying in 100 years humans will have bigger eyes and smaller cheek and jaw bones. I don't remember the "why," it was intriguing though.

Those who profess to believe in evolution, macro, as fact would be better to say, "At this moment human evolution is less likely because we control our environment and 'organic change' isn't required for us to survive or adapt."

Edited August 4, 2018 by Anddenex

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

If your claim above is true, then you need to ramp up your critical reading skills and your specificity in writing. You were responding to Godless, who was clearly talking about organic evolution, not abiogenesis. And your very first sentence was, "Yeah, it's all a fairytale." NO reasonable reader who was paying attention would have understood your "yeah" response was for a completely different topic from the one you were responding to.

If you had been reading all my posts in regards to this discussion I have always been speaking of the same thing.

[Anddenex]

6 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Millions of years seems so much more plausible to me than God just poofing everything here.

Oh my, here we go again with God "poofing" everything into existence. A false dichotomy: 1) Either God created life through evolution over millions of years, or 2) He "poofed" things into existence.

The other option, as God knows the elements he is able to command the elements to create, no different than turning water into wine (which wasn't a "poof" and there we have wine). It was accomplished through natural or Celestial laws that God is aware of and command. Just as easily as he turned water to wine, God easily could command the elements to create a human body that would become the temples of the Spirit, which wouldn't require millions of years.

[Vort]

34 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

There is a popular physicist (He is Asian) who once said that human evolution has stopped, which is a conundrum for one who professes and believes in evolution as fact.

Great illustration as to why you should listen to physicists for physics information, not for biological, philosophical, or religious understanding.

[Lost Boy]

7 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Oh my, here we go again with God "poofing" everything into existence. A false dichotomy: 1) Either God created life through evolution over millions of years, or 2) He "poofed" things into existence.

The other option, as God knows the elements he is able to command the elements to create, no different than turning water into wine (which wasn't a "poof" and there we have wine). It was accomplished through natural or Celestial laws that God is aware of and command. Just as easily as he turned water to wine, God easily could command the elements to create a human body that would become the temples of the Spirit, which wouldn't require millions of years.

Yes, what you are explaining is to me proofing stuff into existence. 

I have no issue with God being able to rearrange matter. But it does not make any sense at all that he did. Why would he create dinosaur fossils? To me that would be like lying to his children. 

Then take light from other stars.  If the stars are 100 million light years away, how did the light get here in several thousand years time.  But not just here, it would have had to been done the same way for the other countless worlds God created. 

It makes far more sense that the Bible was written according to knowledge understandable by primative man. 

And why did it take 6 days for him to do this? Why not just snap his fingers and have it done in an instance? 

God to me is a God of order. Billions of years in the making explains an orderly progression. 

[Anddenex]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Yes, what you are explaining is to me proofing stuff into existence. 

I have no issue with God being able to rearrange matter. But it does not make any sense at all that he did. Why would he create dinosaur fossils? To me that would be like lying to his children. 

Then take light from other stars.  If the stars are 100 million light years away, how did the light get here in several thousand years time.  But not just here, it would have had to been done the same way for the other countless worlds God created. 

It makes far more sense that the Bible was written according to knowledge understandable by primative man. 

And why did it take 6 days for him to do this? Why not just snap his fingers and have it done in an instance? 

God to me is a God of order. Billions of years in the making explains an orderly progression. 

Nothing of what I shared is poofing anything into existence. Water to wine, is rearranging matter/elements, not poofing. The Savior calming a storm, wasn't poofing a storm to stop. That should have taken longer, I mean all the principles involved and time to create a storm naturally it should have stopped in a more natural way with the same amount of time. Miracles aren't poofing anything. It was done through law and order, not poofing.

So, now Adam and Eve were primitive humans -- OK. Moses was primitive man? A man who was translated is a primitive man, and was able to see more than you have ever seen in this life, and his writings and visions were primitive -- below us? Talk about arrogance. We now, in the modern world, we're so much more intelligent than primitive Moses, Enoch, Adam, Noah, etc... Ok, you keep telling yourself this.

"And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered." Arlight, if you think Lost Boy has a better understanding than primitive Moses (the author of the first books of the Bible) regarding the creation of this world and men upon it, well, I suppose that is for you to believe.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

Great illustration as to why you should listen to physicists for physics information, not for biological, philosophical, or religious understanding.

Well, to a point I think we agree; however, a theoretical physicist could easily have just as much knowledge as you or I with religious understanding. I wouldn't say, because you are an expert in one field doesn't mean you know nothing about another field of study.

Michio Kaku, found his name, is an individual that has entered into many debates on evolution (with theists) and other scientific topics. And like most scientific people, it appears his theories on God are changing.

[person0]

Since DNA doesn't change, macro-evolution requires a series of mutational accidents, and then for those accidents to be passed on because they are beneficial.  Many mutational accidents are not sufficiently beneficial to be passed on large-scale, such as having six fingers:

Question of the day, does God have 5 fingers, or 6?  Many people with 6 fingers view it as an advantage; will they have 6 fingers after being resurrected?

There are many diseases which are rooted in mutations and even are hereditary.  Relying on evolution as a means of creation is not only needlessly long and drawn out, but also problematic; it would require the suffering of countless creatures as natural selection eliminated useless mutations and fostered those that were beneficial.  It makes more sense to me to believe that useless/harmful mutations are the result of our natural fallen world, and not that they are the intentional result of our Heavenly Father's plan.

[Lost Boy]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Nothing of what I shared is poofing anything into existence. Water to wine, is rearranging matter/elements, not poofing. The Savior calming a storm, wasn't poofing a storm to stop. That should have taken longer, I mean all the principles involved and time to create a storm naturally it should have stopped in a more natural way with the same amount of time. Miracles aren't poofing anything. It was done through law and order, not poofing.

So, now Adam and Eve were primitive humans -- OK. Moses was primitive man? A man who was translated is a primitive man, and was able to see more than you have ever seen in this life, and his writings and visions were primitive -- below us? Talk about arrogance. We now, in the modern world, we're so much more intelligent than primitive Moses, Enoch, Adam, Noah, etc... Ok, you keep telling yourself this.

"And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered." Arlight, if you think Lost Boy has a better understanding than primitive Moses (the author of the first books of the Bible) regarding the creation of this world and men upon it, well, I suppose that is for you to believe.

What you shared is what I refer to as proofing. Changing water to wine follows some Devine law, but it is not a natural thing to occur on earth. It happened through devine intervention... Poofing. 

As for Moses, he saw a lot, but that did not give him understanding of all he saw. Lost boy is arrogant, but not because he believes Moses had a primative understanding. We have a primative understanding of things compared to those in the future. 

[Guest Scott]

Quote

There is a popular physicist (He is Asian) who once said that human evolution has stopped, which is a conundrum for one who professes and believes in evolution as fact. Evolution isn't something that "stops."

This isn't true.   Evolution is dependent on which organisms survive to pass on genes.  When medical technology makes it possible for a person of almost any genetic makeup to survive long enough to pass on genes, evolution stops, or nearly stops.

A lot of people seem to misunderstand what evolution is.  Evolution is a complex genetic equation of which there is much evidence for, even though it isn't all understood.   It's more mathematical then anything else.  

It can be observed even in short time periods.

For example, around London before the industrial revolution most moths were white, with very few black moths. The reason is that black moths were easier for predatory birds to see and pick off. White moths had a much greater chance of survival and were thus much more prevalent.   During the industrial revolution, trees became more and more coated in soot.  As this happened over the years and decades, it was black moths who became much more abundant than white moths.   This is because the black moths became more camouflaged and thus has a greater chance of survival.  White moths became less common because predatory birds could see them easier since trees were darkened with soot.

 

Quote

Why would G-d command all living things to multiply and replenish the earth AFTER THEIR OWN KIND

Apparently you do not understand evolution.  Organisms reproducing with their own kind is what causes evolution. 

[Vort]

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

a theoretical physicist could easily have just as much knowledge as you or I with religious understanding.

Sure. But in that case, his background as a theoretical physicist is utterly irrelevant. You might just as well say that Ms. X, a sewer digger, says thus-and-such, or that Mr. Y, an albino Chinese dwarf, says that so-and-so was right or wrong.

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Michio Kaku, found his name, is an individual that has entered into many debates on evolution (with theists) and other scientific topics. And like most scientific people, it appears his theories on God are changing.

Perhaps so. I'm passingly familiar with Dr. Kaku. He is a physics/science populizer in the tradition of Carl Sagan, similar to Neil DeGrasse Tyson but more listenable and less insufferable. He's a QM guy, academically solid but not a leading researcher or Nobel Prize laureate (or candidate). He has published on superstring theory and gravitation, among other things. He's not exactly a heavyweight in theoretical physics, but his background is certainly solid.

What Dr. Kaku has to say about physics should be listened to, especially by lay folk like you and me. What he has to say about science in general is usually well-informed and should be given deference, though he suffers from the same popular modern disease as many other "experts" in that he wants to insert himself into political conversations and use his academic background to bolster his political credentials. What he has to say about moral and spiritual topics is much less relevant than what your average run-of-the-mill active Latter-day Saint has to say about these topics; I would guess the typical fifteen-year-old seminary student has a better foundation to understand such topics than does Dr. Kaku. So what he has to say may be of passing interest, but is almost certainly of no real consequence (except to himself and, perhaps, to anyone who actually puts faith in his words).

[LePeel]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

similar to Neil DeGrasse Tyson but more listenable and less insufferable.

[MaryJehanne]

(I'm just finding this thread now, so I'm sorry if I'm saying what someone else has already said!)

I think there are a couple of points that are important in thinking through evolution... First, the distinction between macro and micro evolution. Micro evolution certainly does happen, as is evident by Darwin's famous island birds, and multiple species on earth, including humans. Micro evolutions are these small changes that, in the greater scheme of things, don't change the creature significantly. There's nothing contrary to Christianity in that.

Secondly, there's the question of whether Macro evolution (an animal eventually turning into an entirely different animal) is really contrary to Christianity... the first three chapters of Genesis are a different literary genre - not one that's literal. Macro evolution could have taken place, and God chose to infuse the human soul only at a certain point in time. The only time the theory of Macro Evolution becomes problematic is when it includes a denial of the human soul and the Hand of God, which are not necessary to it.

So, I'm not too committed to either theory, as I believe either could logically be true without contradicting God and His Church. It's a point where Catholics are allowed to reasonably differ, based on the evidence found, as long as no theory denies the human soul, Hand of the Creator, etc. I'm not completely sure whether Macro evolution is true, not true, or true on a smaller scale than some empirical scientists think (which is maybe the more likely theory?), but regardless, these aren't necessarily contrary to the Catholic faith, anyway, so it doesn't make me too concerned!

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

This isn't true.   Evolution is dependent on which organisms survive to pass on genes.  When medical technology makes it possible for a person of almost any genetic makeup to survive long enough to pass on genes, evolution stops, or nearly stops.

A lot of people seem to misunderstand what evolution is.  Evolution is a complex genetic equation of which there is much evidence for, even though it isn't all understood.   It's more mathematical then anything else.  

It can be observed even in short time periods.

For example, around London before the industrial revolution most moths were white, with very few black moths. The reason is that black moths were easier for predatory birds to see and pick off. White moths had a much greater chance of survival and were thus much more prevalent.   During the industrial revolution, trees became more and more coated in soot.  As this happened over the years and decades, it was black moths who became much more abundant than white moths.   This is because the black moths became more camouflaged and thus has a greater chance of survival.  White moths became less common because predatory birds could see them easier since trees were darkened with soot.

 

Apparently you do not understand evolution.  Organisms reproducing with their own kind is what causes evolution. 

Evolution is dependent on which organisms survive to pass on genes.

Well, duh, thus the definition I provided regarding evolution occurs within populations -- why -- because of the passing on genes to offspring.

When medical technology makes it possible for a person of almost any genetic makeup to survive long enough to pass on genes, evolution stops, or nearly stops.

Thus the provided statement, "Those who profess to believe in evolution, macro, as fact would be better to say, "At this moment human evolution is less likely because we control our environment and 'organic change' isn't required for us to survive or adapt." 

Evolution doesn't stop, it becomes less likely. Your point of "nearly stops" only gives evidence to the the statement "This isn't true" as false.

A lot of people seem to misunderstand what evolution is.  Evolution is a complex genetic equation of which there is much evidence for, even though it isn't all understood.   It's more mathematical then anything else.  

This is where you pretend to know more. Ok, we get it, you know more and "a lot" of people don't know what you know. Sorda like the Mormon who has left and says, "If you only knew what I knew you would leave the religion also." You know more, we get it, and if we knew as much as you do we would believe micro and macro evolution.

Quote

Why would G-d command all living things to multiply and replenish the earth AFTER THEIR OWN KIND

Apparently you do not understand evolution.  Organisms reproducing with their own kind is what causes evolution. 

Well, @Traveler, according to Scott you apparently don't understand evolution. Traveler you must be one of the "a lot" of people he was referring to. I am assuming your understanding of evolution is equal to if not greater than Scott's, but you would know your knowledge better than myself, and can give argument to your knowledge and skills better than myself.

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

13 hours ago, person0 said:

Since DNA doesn't change, macro-evolution requires a series of mutational accidents, and then for those accidents to be passed on because they are beneficial.  Many mutational accidents are not sufficiently beneficial to be passed on large-scale, such as having six fingers:

Question of the day, does God have 5 fingers, or 6?  Many people with 6 fingers view it as an advantage; will they have 6 fingers after being resurrected?

There are many diseases which are rooted in mutations and even are hereditary.  Relying on evolution as a means of creation is not only needlessly long and drawn out, but also problematic; it would require the suffering of countless creatures as natural selection eliminated useless mutations and fostered those that were beneficial.  It makes more sense to me to believe that useless/harmful mutations are the result of our natural fallen world, and not that they are the intentional result of our Heavenly Father's plan.

Well just think of the additional guitar cord he could create that no one else could duplicate, or that a small percentage of people could duplicate without an additional digit.

[Bill "Papa" Lee]

On July 31, 2018 at 10:22 PM, Scott said:

I'm just curious about the numbers.   There are already plenty of other threads to debate it out on.  Feel free to vote.  None of this will be used against you or be used as scientific information.   I promise not to sell your personal information to FB either.  😏

I have a rather odd take (well odd to many), I believe that the earth is as reported, around 580 billion years old. I believe that all life came from the sea, other than plant life, until the earth was ready for man. Then man was created when the earth was ready, that the five creative days, or periods, were to make it ready for man, and man on the sixth day. It was then that man was created in the express image of God. I have no evidence to back this up, only my understanding of scripture, natural law, evolution. 

Many argue the ex-nilo account of creation, and we more the "organizing of existing matter". But if God just spoke all things into existence, why not do it all at the same time. The Genesis account make clear that God needed both time and order to create all things. This does not mean that God cannot do all things, as he certainly can, but as most Latter-day Saints believe. My 2 cents anyway.   

[Jersey Boy]

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I have a rather odd take (well odd to many), I believe that the earth is as reported, around 580 billion years old. I believe that all life came from the sea, other than plant life, until the earth was ready for man. Then man was created when the earth was ready, that the five creative days, or periods, were to make it ready for man, and man on the sixth day. It was then that man was created in the express image of God. I have no evidence to back this up, only my understanding of scripture, natural law, evolution. 

Many argue the ex-nilo account of creation, and we more the "organizing of existing matter". But if God just spoke all things into existence, why not do it all at the same time. The Genesis account make clear that God needed both time and order to create all things. This does not mean that God cannot do all things, as he certainly can, but as most Latter-day Saints believe. My 2 cents anyway.   

The Book of Moses puts a wrinkle in your understanding of the creation narrative. After the six day creation story set forth in Moses 2, in Moses 3 the Lord  explains to us the six day period of creation is when all animals and men were first created spiritually, not naturally on the face of the earth (i.e. in the flesh). In fact, Moses 3 tells us it wasn’t until what could be described as a seventh creative period, after God rested from his labors on the 7th day, that the first man with a body of flesh and bone was finally created...

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken (in chapter 2), spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word. (Moses3)

Edited August 5, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[NeedleinA]

On 8/5/2018 at 1:11 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

But if God just spoke all things into existence, why not do it all at the same time. The Genesis account make clear that God needed both time and order to create all things.

For what it is worth, thanks for sharing this thought.

[person0]

On 8/5/2018 at 2:11 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

But if God just spoke all things into existence, why not do it all at the same time?

Here is why:

Quote

And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.  (Abraham 4:18)

Even if God commands it, the elements being commanded still have to make the appropriate movements to execute His commands.  Since time is clearly already required, organization is prudent.

[Traveler]

On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 10:12 PM, Anddenex said:

Evolution is dependent on which organisms survive to pass on genes.

Well, duh, thus the definition I provided regarding evolution occurs within populations -- why -- because of the passing on genes to offspring.

When medical technology makes it possible for a person of almost any genetic makeup to survive long enough to pass on genes, evolution stops, or nearly stops.

Thus the provided statement, "Those who profess to believe in evolution, macro, as fact would be better to say, "At this moment human evolution is less likely because we control our environment and 'organic change' isn't required for us to survive or adapt." 

Evolution doesn't stop, it becomes less likely. Your point of "nearly stops" only gives evidence to the the statement "This isn't true" as false.

A lot of people seem to misunderstand what evolution is.  Evolution is a complex genetic equation of which there is much evidence for, even though it isn't all understood.   It's more mathematical then anything else.  

This is where you pretend to know more. Ok, we get it, you know more and "a lot" of people don't know what you know. Sorda like the Mormon who has left and says, "If you only knew what I knew you would leave the religion also." You know more, we get it, and if we knew as much as you do we would believe micro and macro evolution.

Apparently you do not understand evolution.  Organisms reproducing with their own kind is what causes evolution. 

Well, @Traveler, according to Scott you apparently don't understand evolution. Traveler you must be one of the "a lot" of people he was referring to. I am assuming your understanding of evolution is equal to if not greater than Scott's, but you would know your knowledge better than myself, and can give argument to your knowledge and skills better than myself.

 

 

The fundamental principles of biological evolution are actually quite simple – similar to the binary principle of computers.  However, even from simple Boolean logic come sophisticated artificial intelligence that will soon rival human intelligence.  Similar to what we are now grasping as possible complexities of artificial intelligence; biological evolution is entering an era of complexity far beyond science that will touch and change our human understanding not just of what we are as living entities but things we thought were only possible for a G-d - perhaps even more than that.

There are many, and this is perhaps what @Scott may be thinking about, that are stuck in the past era of Darwinian evolution when the science of evolution was grasping desperately for new answers.  The science of evolution is itself evolving very rapidly.  The knowledge gained from the science of evolution is changing the medical and dental professions.  We have evolved from the artificial heart of Barney Clark to heart transplants using knowledge learned from the study of evolution.  But now we are capable of biologically engineering new organs to replace genetically defective ones.  We are even growing new teeth and bones.  Things already being done experimentally for non-human life forms.  Our agriculture is already producing genetically altered foods that is changing how we eat and provide nutrition for populations that literally scare social scientists and even religious folks that are starting to understand that biological evolution is changing a great more than ideas printed in books as previously expected and feared in religious circles.

In past posts I have referenced those that refuse to accept the preponderance of empirical evidence to someone standing in the bright light of noon day – declaring it night.   To everyone with eyes open they will realize the stupidity of such denials – but those in denial refusing to open their eyes will only continue to think they are the champions of something that in reality is fading into oblivion.  To be honest – I have often wondered how it was possible for a third part of heaven (the most intelligent and sophisticated society in the entire universe) to follow after Lucifer in rejection of light and truth that advances everyone that excepts it.  And yet regardless of all other factors – as the saying goes – you can lead a horse to the waters of intelligence but you cannot make it think.  Do I understand the complexities of evolution – hardly – I would compare such as standing by an ocean thinking to catch a wave in a cup.

 

The Traveler

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 8/3/2018 at 5:44 PM, Godless said:

I dunno, 3 billion (with a B) years seems like an awfully long time to me.

You spelled "scientists" wrong. There are many theist scientists, including some BYU professors, who accept organic evolution as a reality.

You seem to be talking about abiogenesis here, which is a highly theoretical field of study that has, in fact, spawned some weird ideas.

Just because a professor at BYU accepts something does not make it true. Some of the biggest closet Atheists wrap themselves in the BYU robes of the false priesthood.

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

The fundamental principles of biological evolution are actually quite simple – similar to the binary principle of computers.  However, even from simple Boolean logic come sophisticated artificial intelligence that will soon rival human intelligence.  Similar to what we are now grasping as possible complexities of artificial intelligence; biological evolution is entering an era of complexity far beyond science that will touch and change our human understanding not just of what we are as living entities but things we thought were only possible for a G-d - perhaps even more than that.

There are many, and this is perhaps what @Scott may be thinking about, that are stuck in the past era of Darwinian evolution when the science of evolution was grasping desperately for new answers.  The science of evolution is itself evolving very rapidly.  The knowledge gained from the science of evolution is changing the medical and dental professions.  We have evolved from the artificial heart of Barney Clark to heart transplants using knowledge learned from the study of evolution.  But now we are capable of biologically engineering new organs to replace genetically defective ones.  We are even growing new teeth and bones.  Things already being done experimentally for non-human life forms.  Our agriculture is already producing genetically altered foods that is changing how we eat and provide nutrition for populations that literally scare social scientists and even religious folks that are starting to understand that biological evolution is changing a great more than ideas printed in books as previously expected and feared in religious circles.

In past posts I have referenced those that refuse to accept the preponderance of empirical evidence to someone standing in the bright light of noon day – declaring it night.   To everyone with eyes open they will realize the stupidity of such denials – but those in denial refusing to open their eyes will only continue to think they are the champions of something that in reality is fading into oblivion.  To be honest – I have often wondered how it was possible for a third part of heaven (the most intelligent and sophisticated society in the entire universe) to follow after Lucifer in rejection of light and truth that advances everyone that excepts it.  And yet regardless of all other factors – as the saying goes – you can lead a horse to the waters of intelligence but you cannot make it think.  Do I understand the complexities of evolution – hardly – I would compare such as standing by an ocean thinking to catch a wave in a cup.

 

The Traveler

And yet, nothing you say has any bearing whatsoever on showing anything empirical about Darwinian evolution. Most of what you say actually bolsters Intelligent Design theory.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 8/4/2018 at 8:42 AM, person0 said:

Since DNA doesn't change, macro-evolution requires a series of mutational accidents, and then for those accidents to be passed on because they are beneficial.  Many mutational accidents are not sufficiently beneficial to be passed on large-scale, such as having six fingers:

Question of the day, does God have 5 fingers, or 6?  Many people with 6 fingers view it as an advantage; will they have 6 fingers after being resurrected?

There are many diseases which are rooted in mutations and even are hereditary.  Relying on evolution as a means of creation is not only needlessly long and drawn out, but also problematic; it would require the suffering of countless creatures as natural selection eliminated useless mutations and fostered those that were beneficial.  It makes more sense to me to believe that useless/harmful mutations are the result of our natural fallen world, and not that they are the intentional result of our Heavenly Father's plan.

"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to...Oh, wait. You are just a kid. Sorry."

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 8/3/2018 at 5:44 PM, Godless said:

I dunno, 3 billion (with a B) years seems like an awfully long time to me.

You spelled "scientists" wrong. There are many theist scientists, including some BYU professors, who accept organic evolution as a reality.

You seem to be talking about abiogenesis here, which is a highly theoretical field of study that has, in fact, spawned some weird ideas.

Sorry about the misspelling, Scientist and Atheist have become so synonimis that I sometimes write one instead of the other.