A Question About The Creation

CrimsonKairos · January 4, 2008

Maybe God made it happen through the process of evolution.

I believe so. Here's one of my earlier posts dealing with this:

There are a number of things which are not taught or discussed among LDS Church members that bear consideration. The main problem most LDS members have with evolution is that it requires the occurence of the death of billions of organisms over millions of years to account for the fossil record in the strata of the earth's crust. Yet the scriptures say there was no death before the Fall of Adam (Moses 6:48, 59). How can these two seemingly contradictory teachings be harmonized?

There is a way for both views to be correct at the same time. The first clue is found in the Pearl of Great Price. Readers should note that the account of creation in the Book of Moses is a record of the spiritual creation of the earth and the life forms inhabiting it, etc... while the account of creation in the Book of Abraham is a record of the physical creation of the earth and the life forms inhabiting it, etc...

Abraham 5:3 says the Gods decided to sanctify the earth on the seventh day of the physical creation. Well okay, what does sanctify mean in this context? Does it just mean to designate it as a day of rest? Or could it mean something else entirely? Let's turn to D&C 77:12 for the answer:

"Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?

A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming."

I've put important bits in bold type. I'm not putting forth this idea as gospel truth (if you'll pardon the pun), but bear with me if you'd be so kind. This verse links the sanctification of the earth and all life on it on the seventh "day" of creation with the sanctification of the earth that will take place at the beginning of the Millennium, after Christ's Second Coming. Well I won't list all the scriptures but I'm sure we're all pretty familiar with the fact that during the Millenium there will be no death, the earth will be changed (valleys exalted, mountains brought low, etc...) and essentially "translated" into a more glorious state than it now occupies.

So we have sanctification being loosely defined as changing a telestial planet where death occurs into a more glorious planet where there is no death. Hmmm, a glorified earth without death...sound like the conditions of the earth during Adam and Eve's stay in the Garden of Eden prior to their Fall?

Well if you look at D&C 77:12 again, it not only says that the earth wasn't sanctified (which involves banishing death if we define sanctification according to the sanctification of the world during the Millennium) until the seventh "day" of creation, but it also says that on the seventh "day" of creation is when man was formed of the dust of the earth...basically, when Adam and Eve were placed in Eden.

So let's construct a few syllogisms, shall we?

Syllogism #1:

A. During the Millenium, there will be no death and the earth will become more glorious than it now is;

B. D&C 77:12 calls this change "sanctification;"

Therefore...

C. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death.

Taking the C from above and using it as the starting point for a new syllogism:

Syllogism #2:

A. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death;

B. D&C 77:12 says God sanctified the earth on the seventh "day" of its creation process;

Therefore...

C. For the first "six" days of the earth's creation process, it was unsanctified.

Taking the first and second syllogism's C's we form the next syllogism:

Syllogism #3:

A. For the first "six" days of the earth's creation process, it was unsanctified;

B. Sanctification can mean changing the planet into a more glorious state where there is no death;

Therefore...

C. Before the seventh "day" of creation when the earth was sanctified, there could have been death among the forms of life inhabiting it.

Note again how D&C 77:12 links the placement of man onto the earth with its sanctification. This sanctification can rightly be called "a beginning." It was the beginning of the earth's existence in a more glorious, death-free state, and it was the beginning of mankind's existence on this new death-free earth. So...

Syllogism #4:

A. The earth was sanctified on the seventh "day" of creation;

B. Adam and Eve were formed of the dust of the earth on the seventh "day" of creation;

Therefore...

C. There was no death on the earth after the arrival of Adam and Eve, until their Fall.

Hence, Adam truly did bring death into the world with his and Eve's transgression. This does not preclude the possibility that life forms inhabiting the earth could have died before the earth's seventh-"day"-sanctification. As we've seen, sanctification is linked with changing matter and life to a death-less state of existence (as per the Millennial change to come). So for first six "days" of the earth's creation process, all manner of life could have lived, multiplied, and died on the earth, leaving massive amounts of fossil data for us to uncover in our day. But, after the seventh "day" when the earth was sanctified and Adam and Eve were placed on it, there would have been no death if Adam and Eve hadn't partaken of the forbidden fruit.

With these concepts in mind, it is entirely possible to marry the seemingly contradictory ideas proposed by science and faith, namely:

First, the idea that organisms (simple and complex) lived and died for millions of years in this earth's ancient existence; and,

Second, the idea that there was no death prior to Adam's Fall after the earth was sanctified or made death-free on the seventh period of creation.

Remember, Abraham's account of the earth's physical creation refers to the seven periods as "times," not "days" as does Moses's account of the earth's spiritual creation. Furthermore, Abraham never states that the seven periods of time were equal in duration.

So one last syllogism:

Syllogism #5:

A. For six periods of time in the earth's creation process death could have existed among the many life forms living on it (since it was not yet sanctified);

B. The earth was sanctified or made death-free in the same period of time (seventh) when Adam and Eve were placed on the newly-sanctified earth;

Therefore...

C. After the earth was sanctified, there would have been no death from the time Adam and Eve arrived until their Fall, hence Adam did bring death into the world as the scriptures teach.

I'm not saying this is the gospel truth. I'm proposing a way of reading and interpreting scripture and scientific data that allows both to exist side-by-side without contradiction. I will leave you all to draw your own conclusions. My view about all of this is liquid and dynamic, open to change as new facts and/or revelations come to light. For now, I take the stance that death could have existed prior to the earth's seventh-day-sanctification, but not after Adam and Eve arrived on the earth until they transgressed.

These concepts are explored in greater depth in the excellent book "Earth in the Beginning," by LDS author Erik N. Skousen, Ph.D.

mmm12345 · January 4, 2008

Can someone tell me why a person who believes in an all-powerful God who has the ability to create life, lay down life and pick it up again couldn't have just created the world in 7 actual days like it says in Genesis?

I'm just interested in your point of view. I believe Genesis to be the literal account of Creation. I have absolutely no problems reconciling the whole kit-n-kabootle and raising my hands in awe and wonder at a mighty God!

CrimsonKairos · January 4, 2008

Well here are a few problems with that position.

To us, a day is 24 hours. Why?

We reckon time based on the earth's orbit around the sun, and based on the earth's rotating on its own axis.

Before the creation of the earth, there was no orbit around the sun or tilted axis to use to reckon time.

So why would God perform His creation in the amount of time we mortals would later designate as "24 hours"?

What is a day to us, anyway? A period of time marked by a discrete beginning (sunrise) and a discrete ending (sunset). In essence, a day is descriptive of a contained period of time.

If God was trying to explain the steps He took in preparing the earth and Eden and all that, why not use a term that a mortal like Moses would have comprehended easily, to wit, a "day"?

Did God really want Moses to think that God performed the seven steps of creation in seven 24 hour periods? Or was God explaining that the act of creation took place during seven discrete periods of time? I think the latter, but maybe that's because of the latter-day scriptures I accept in addition to the Bible. :)

AnthonyB · January 4, 2008

Can someone tell me why a person who believes in an all-powerful God who has the ability to create life, lay down life and pick it up again couldn't have just created the world in 7 actual days like it says in Genesis?
I'm just interested in your point of view. I believe Genesis to be the literal account of Creation. I have absolutely no problems reconciling the whole kit-n-kabootle and raising my hands in awe and wonder at a mighty God!

mmm12345,

I believe that God could have created the world in six seconds if he chose. I don't insist on a literal reading of the hebrew word that is translated into "day", which would mean that the "day" existed before the sun, earth and moon.

Secondly God tends to work with the rules that He created for the universe and not just ignore them. If something can be explained through a scientific theory then why create a more complex or challenging solution.

mmm12345 · January 4, 2008

But the table of time that evolutionists use to dismiss the Creator is based on 24 hr periods, they just use billions and millions of them. I mean, why is it so hard to believe that God simply created man and set the world in motion? Take a watch, for example, one that takes one day to put together. We wouldn't say it took millions of years to make that watch, just a few hours. All the components needed to assemble that watch were present and accounted for at the moment that watch started ticking. But if the watch was assembled at 3:00 on January 2nd then we'd say it took a few hours or perhaps "a day" to make. I'm merely saying that whatever God did before or after he set our time space capsul in motion has nothing to do with the fact that he created us. He created us and we exist. Why couldn't he have done it in a day when he had and has everything necessary for creation within himself? I don't think he started us simmering a few billions years ago, then fashioned us into slime, watched us progress and then poof gave us all the mental and emotional components necessary to fall from grace. I have no problem believing he created us in a moment in a perfect place and the rest is written history.

<div class='quotemain'>
Can someone tell me why a person who believes in an all-powerful God who has the ability to create life, lay down life and pick it up again couldn't have just created the world in 7 actual days like it says in Genesis?
I'm just interested in your point of view. I believe Genesis to be the literal account of Creation. I have absolutely no problems reconciling the whole kit-n-kabootle and raising my hands in awe and wonder at a mighty God!

mmm12345,

I believe that God could have created the world in six seconds if he chose. I don't insist on a literal reading of the hebrew word that is translated into "day", which would mean that the "day" existed before the sun, earth and moon.

Secondly God tends to work with the rules that He created for the universe and not just ignore them. If something can be explained through a scientific theory then why create a more complex or challenging solution.

But I don't think that the scientific theory of evolution explains creation, there are too many missing pieces and too much guessing without actual proof.

CrimsonKairos · January 4, 2008

I don't think he started us simmering a few billions years ago, then fashioned us into slime, watched us progress and then poof gave us all the mental and emotional components necessary to fall from grace.

I dunno...I've always thought it'd be kinda' cool to have gills or wings or scales instead of skin.

sgallan · January 4, 2008

They simply looked at whether it was legal to introduce a theory that supports a religion and since somehow we have become a nation that refuses to even discuss God, we can't look at the science that might actually support the theory that there is one. And oh, does the science ever support the Creation theory.

If you get your Christian based creation theory then I get my Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. And I have about 11 other religious creation theories I can throw out there as well.

There is a reason the absolute best secondary educational system in the world doesn't have even one accredited institution of higher learning teaching any kind of creationalism in it's science departments..... it's not considered science, it is considered humanities. That kind of academic discipline is what keeps us number one.

Now if you want it as a humanities, or you want to believe in it as part of your religious beliefs, then knock yourself out. But luckily we live in a nation where psudeoscience and religious beliefs is kept out of legitimate education..... as has been illustrated by the ruling of a very conservative Judge, and has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and has been decided by the voters (like the ones in Kansas who came to their senses when the educational future of their children became in jeopardy). Otherwise we may be just like those religious schools in some Islamic nations. And that part of the world is hardly on the forefront of learning nor technology.

mmm12345 · January 4, 2008

But the table of time that evolutionists use to dismiss the Creator is based on 24 hr periods, they just use billions and millions of them. I mean, why is it so hard to believe that God simply created man and set the world in motion? Take a watch, for example, one that takes one day to put together. We wouldn't say it took millions of years to make that watch, just a few hours. All the components needed to assemble that watch were present and accounted for at the moment that watch started ticking. But if the watch was assembled at 3:00 on January 2nd then we'd say it took a few hours or perhaps "a day" to make. I'm merely saying that whatever God did before or after he set our time space capsul in motion has nothing to do with the fact that he created us. He created us and we exist. Why couldn't he have done it in a day when he had and has everything necessary for creation within himself? I don't think he started us simmering a few billions years ago, then fashioned us into slime, watched us progress and then poof gave us all the mental and emotional components necessary to fall from grace. I have no problem believing he created us in a moment in a perfect place and the rest is written history.
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
Can someone tell me why a person who believes in an all-powerful God who has the ability to create life, lay down life and pick it up again couldn't have just created the world in 7 actual days like it says in Genesis?
I'm just interested in your point of view. I believe Genesis to be the literal account of Creation. I have absolutely no problems reconciling the whole kit-n-kabootle and raising my hands in awe and wonder at a mighty God!

mmm12345,

I believe that God could have created the world in six seconds if he chose. I don't insist on a literal reading of the hebrew word that is translated into "day", which would mean that the "day" existed before the sun, earth and moon.

Secondly God tends to work with the rules that He created for the universe and not just ignore them. If something can be explained through a scientific theory then why create a more complex or challenging solution.

But I don't think that the scientific theory of evolution explains creation, there are too many missing pieces and too much guessing without actual proof.

And isn't Evolution a bit more complex and challenging than the simple explanation that God created man just as he is? I mean, cave men could simply be men who lived in caves before the invention of aluminum siding, right. Prehistoric tools simply tools that man was forced to use before the invention of the knife or discovery of present metals. Cave paintings could simply be paintings in caves done by men and women who lived there before the condo era or the first craft store was built.

I mean, isn't it simpler to say that God created men, they were happy in a perfect garden and then were banished into a world that no longer was perfect in temperature or temperment so they then had to fend for themselves and learn how to live without the constant company and favor of God.

Creationists believe that the ice age was the result of the flood. We believe that Adam and Eve were kicked out of a perfectly protected garden due to sin and then had to fend for themselves in a world, that just like they, had fallen. I don't think it makes it more confusing to believe that we were created as men to be men. it's seems more confusing to me that God would create single cells to be complex beings.

Evolution requires a lot of trial and error over a long period of time. There has to be mutation and quantum leaps and all kinds of major fluctuations in the whole gene pool for you and I to finally pop out. I don't think God needed to make apes in order to get men. I believe He knew exactly what he wanted and all that we see is exactly the way he meant it to be...no counting the stuff that came out of the fall, though, i.e, cancer, T18 babies, etc. I believe he allowed that more than he wanted it all.

sgallan · January 4, 2008

To be fair here is some more creationalist theories that should get equal time in a fair world PS - I can come up with a lot of these - all of which if one has at least a rudimentry knowledge of science - can be made to look sciencetifically and historically palusble).....

The term 'Ancient Astronauts' generally refers to extraterrestrials who

came to Earth and were in some way responsible for seeding the human race.

There are references to these entities in the bible, in ancient art and other texts. They are all linked with myths about creation found in all ancient civilizations.

As we search to find the truth behind the illusion, who created the human race, or biogenetic experiment, we look to those who came from the stars, ancient astronauts, creational gods, for our answers. All is theory, virtual reality, consciousness, and for the most part not provable, subject to the interpretation of the researcher or experiencer.

Most of us would love to find evidence of ancient astronauts, be visited by friendly aliens who could enlighten us to our true creational blueprint. Throughout the history of the human drama, we find all sorts of evidence that makes us think, believe, and quest for the greater truth. They are all just myths, legends, and theories...

Theories about Atlantis often link sightings of ancient astronauts to Atlantean space ships. This goes to the ancient gods called the Zep Tepi.

In China we find theories about an alien race called the Dropa who left behind fascinating discs.

The Popol Vuh, sacred to the Mayans, unequivocally states, "Men came from the stars, knowing everything, and they examined the four corners of the sky and the Earth's round surface."

Brazilian UFO researcher Jean Alencar has noted that the mythology of this country is replete with descriptions and statuettes of beings endowed with the power of flight. The legends of Brazilian natives, like those of other countries, detail experiences of gods or travelers from the sky who descended to earth when humans were little more that animals to instruct them in the arts of agriculture, astronomy, medicine, and other disciplines. Alencar points out one figure in particular, Bep-Kororoti, a space warrior worshipped by the tribes of the upper reaches of the Xing River. Not unlike the heroes of India's Mahabarata, Bep-Kororoti possessed a flying vehicle capable of destroying anything in its path. His aspect terrified the primitive natives, until he stepped out of his "raiment" and revealed himself to be fair-skinned, handsome, and kind. He amused the natives with his "magic" until he grew restless for his land in the sky and returned there.

The Chilam Balaam, is even more explicit and states "Beings descended from the sky in flying vessels...white men in flying rings, who can touch the sky."

There are indications that something very strange took place on our very own continent hundreds of thousands of years ago, before humans arrived on this continent (according to the canon of anthropology). Santa Maria Canyon holds evidence pointing toward the existence of a culture of intelligent beings who raised cattle, built weapons, and practiced funeral rites -- one million years ago. If we decide to stick with what academia has to say, in no way could these beings have been humans. Were they survivors of a Race of Aliens? This brings to mind theories of marooned spacemen, or colonists trying to tame a new planet? During the Prehistory Conference held during 1962 in Rome, Dr. W. Matthes presented the oldest carvings known to exist, created by a forgotten artist two hundred thousand years ago, when humans had allegedly just discovered the use of fire.

Discovered by the 19th century French explorer Henri Lhote, these figures were so unusual he dubbed them Martians, explaining their contour is simple, unartistic, and with rounded heads; their only detail is the double oval at the figure's center, which evokes the image we currently have of Martians.

In 1989, years just before I met Zecharia Sitchen, I did not knew about his theories about an alien race called the Anunnaki, and an ancient civilization called Sumer As a psychic medium, I talked with a Reptilian alien who called himself Dilmun. I also did not realize at the time that Dilmun is associated with ancient sites on the islands of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. Reptilians, snakes, dragons, are all metaphors for human DNA, as a biogenetic experiment.

Dilmun told me about a civilization that was destroyed, its inhabitants leaving on a planetoid named Nibiru and coming to Earth. [Tales of destruction of an alien planet, whose inhabitants came to Earth and seed a race, are common in the grid program of our reality. They are just myths and metaphors.] Dilmun said he was six hundred years old as we measure time. [6=flower of life metaphor] His people were warriors, conquering planets for gold and riches. [gold, alchemy of time and consciousness] He did say he would return one day, as all myths speculate. It was years later that I would discover that I was connecting with the grid system, matrix, akashic records, hall of records through which we virtually experience in linear time.

mmm12345 · January 4, 2008

They simply looked at whether it was legal to introduce a theory that supports a religion and since somehow we have become a nation that refuses to even discuss God, we can't look at the science that might actually support the theory that there is one. And oh, does the science ever support the Creation theory.
If you get your Christian based creation theory then I get my Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. And I have about 11 other religious creation theories I can throw out there as well.
There is a reason the absolute best secondary educational system in the world doesn't have even one accredited institution of higher learning teaching any kind of creationalism in it's science departments..... it's not considered science, it is considered humanities. That kind of academic discipline is what keeps us number one.
Now if you want it as a humanities, or you want to believe in it as part of your religious beliefs, then knock yourself out. But luckily we live in a nation where psudeoscience and religious beliefs is kept out of legitimate education..... as has been illustrated by the ruling of a very conservative Judge, and has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and has been decided by the voters (like the ones in Kansas who came to their senses when the educational future of their children became in jeopardy). Otherwise we may be just like those religious schools in some Islamic nations. And that part of the world is hardly on the forefront of learning nor technology.

I can't think of one solitary contribution the theory of evolution has made to our great educational system over these past 50 or however many years since the scopes monkey trials other than maybe funding the building of museums. We are a great educational nation because we are a great nation. We were a great nation before the scopes monkey trials and we will remain so even if evolution stands side by side with creationism in our colleges and universities. Science is science. Whether God created the world or we climbed out of a bucket of slop, physics will not stop being physics and math will not change due to it. That's my whole point. God created physics and botany and biology. All the laws of nature are His. Creationists don't deny science, we embrace it. We are simply saying that people should open up their eyes and look at what we are saying the science points to. Why is the religion of Evolution given that consideration but the religious people who believe in Creation aren't given that same respect. As I said, Evolution has not contributed AT ALL to our educational institutions. The pursuit of knowledge was in full swing long before Darwin came on board.

<div class='quotemain'>
They simply looked at whether it was legal to introduce a theory that supports a religion and since somehow we have become a nation that refuses to even discuss God, we can't look at the science that might actually support the theory that there is one. And oh, does the science ever support the Creation theory.
If you get your Christian based creation theory then I get my Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. And I have about 11 other religious creation theories I can throw out there as well.
There is a reason the absolute best secondary educational system in the world doesn't have even one accredited institution of higher learning teaching any kind of creationalism in it's science departments..... it's not considered science, it is considered humanities. That kind of academic discipline is what keeps us number one.
Now if you want it as a humanities, or you want to believe in it as part of your religious beliefs, then knock yourself out. But luckily we live in a nation where psudeoscience and religious beliefs is kept out of legitimate education..... as has been illustrated by the ruling of a very conservative Judge, and has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, and has been decided by the voters (like the ones in Kansas who came to their senses when the educational future of their children became in jeopardy). Otherwise we may be just like those religious schools in some Islamic nations. And that part of the world is hardly on the forefront of learning nor technology.

I can't think of one solitary contribution the theory of evolution has made to our great educational system over these past 50 or however many years since the scopes monkey trials other than maybe funding the building of museums. We are a great educational nation because we are a great nation. We were a great nation before the scopes monkey trials and we will remain so even if evolution stands side by side with creationism in our colleges and universities. Science is science. Whether God created the world or we climbed out of a bucket of slop, physics will not stop being physics and math will not change due to it. That's my whole point. God created physics and botany and biology. All the laws of nature are His. Creationists don't deny science, we embrace it. We are simply saying that people should open up their eyes and look at what we are saying the science points to. Why is the religion of Evolution given that consideration but the religious people who believe in Creation aren't given that same respect. As I said, Evolution has not contributed AT ALL to our educational institutions. The pursuit of knowledge was in full swing long before Darwin came on board.

And it just dawned on me that most of the great discoveries that lead to our later discoveries were pursued and made while standing on the shoulders of great men who believed that God created them. They had no problem pursuing knowlege in the face of God. You see, that's the problem with the narrow-minded evolutionist community. They think that the introduction of God at this point in time will dumb us all down. Well, actually, I think we were all a bit smarter before we took Creation and God out of the schools.

To be fair here is some more creationalist theories that should get equal time in a fair world PS - I can come up with a lot of these - all of which if one has at least a rudimentry knowledge of science - can be made to look sciencetifically and historically palusble).....
The term 'Ancient Astronauts' generally refers to extraterrestrials who
came to Earth and were in some way responsible for seeding the human race.
There are references to these entities in the bible, in ancient art and other texts. They are all linked with myths about creation found in all ancient civilizations.
As we search to find the truth behind the illusion, who created the human race, or biogenetic experiment, we look to those who came from the stars, ancient astronauts, creational gods, for our answers. All is theory, virtual reality, consciousness, and for the most part not provable, subject to the interpretation of the researcher or experiencer.
Most of us would love to find evidence of ancient astronauts, be visited by friendly aliens who could enlighten us to our true creational blueprint. Throughout the history of the human drama, we find all sorts of evidence that makes us think, believe, and quest for the greater truth. They are all just myths, legends, and theories...
Theories about Atlantis often link sightings of ancient astronauts to Atlantean space ships. This goes to the ancient gods called the Zep Tepi.
In China we find theories about an alien race called the Dropa who left behind fascinating discs.
The Popol Vuh, sacred to the Mayans, unequivocally states, "Men came from the stars, knowing everything, and they examined the four corners of the sky and the Earth's round surface."
Brazilian UFO researcher Jean Alencar has noted that the mythology of this country is replete with descriptions and statuettes of beings endowed with the power of flight. The legends of Brazilian natives, like those of other countries, detail experiences of gods or travelers from the sky who descended to earth when humans were little more that animals to instruct them in the arts of agriculture, astronomy, medicine, and other disciplines. Alencar points out one figure in particular, Bep-Kororoti, a space warrior worshipped by the tribes of the upper reaches of the Xing River. Not unlike the heroes of India's Mahabarata, Bep-Kororoti possessed a flying vehicle capable of destroying anything in its path. His aspect terrified the primitive natives, until he stepped out of his "raiment" and revealed himself to be fair-skinned, handsome, and kind. He amused the natives with his "magic" until he grew restless for his land in the sky and returned there.
The Chilam Balaam, is even more explicit and states "Beings descended from the sky in flying vessels...white men in flying rings, who can touch the sky."
There are indications that something very strange took place on our very own continent hundreds of thousands of years ago, before humans arrived on this continent (according to the canon of anthropology). Santa Maria Canyon holds evidence pointing toward the existence of a culture of intelligent beings who raised cattle, built weapons, and practiced funeral rites -- one million years ago. If we decide to stick with what academia has to say, in no way could these beings have been humans. Were they survivors of a Race of Aliens? This brings to mind theories of marooned spacemen, or colonists trying to tame a new planet? During the Prehistory Conference held during 1962 in Rome, Dr. W. Matthes presented the oldest carvings known to exist, created by a forgotten artist two hundred thousand years ago, when humans had allegedly just discovered the use of fire.
Discovered by the 19th century French explorer Henri Lhote, these figures were so unusual he dubbed them Martians, explaining their contour is simple, unartistic, and with rounded heads; their only detail is the double oval at the figure's center, which evokes the image we currently have of Martians.
In 1989, years just before I met Zecharia Sitchen, I did not knew about his theories about an alien race called the Anunnaki, and an ancient civilization called Sumer As a psychic medium, I talked with a Reptilian alien who called himself Dilmun. I also did not realize at the time that Dilmun is associated with ancient sites on the islands of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf. Reptilians, snakes, dragons, are all metaphors for human DNA, as a biogenetic experiment.
Dilmun told me about a civilization that was destroyed, its inhabitants leaving on a planetoid named Nibiru and coming to Earth. [Tales of destruction of an alien planet, whose inhabitants came to Earth and seed a race, are common in the grid program of our reality. They are just myths and metaphors.] Dilmun said he was six hundred years old as we measure time. [6=flower of life metaphor] His people were warriors, conquering planets for gold and riches. [gold, alchemy of time and consciousness] He did say he would return one day, as all myths speculate. It was years later that I would discover that I was connecting with the grid system, matrix, akashic records, hall of records through which we virtually experience in linear time.

Apparently you mock me. God vs. No God. God in 7 days vs. God in millions of years. Those are the points I thought we agreed on. I believe one, you I thought the other. Secular evolutionists dismiss the God part.

sgallan · January 4, 2008

Well if you get your creationalist theory than I want all of mine. Or is your Christian based one the only one that counts.

Oh, education and especially science education has changed a great deal since Scopes. If it hadn't our life spans (medicine and evolutionary based biology is very much science) would not have increased a great deal since Scopes.

Finally, to teach Creationalism with a science department in a Secondary Institution means you lose your job. The school has a chance to lose it's accredidation. For a State to attempt to foist these standards in their Priimary educational system means those kids within that system have the odds stacked against them as far as getting very competitive slots in the better academic institutions..... especially if we are talking about science issues (trust me on this one I used to do that job).

Bottom line..... the best and the brightest within the best educational system in the world have already dsecided this issue. As have the judicial system in that country - see the Pennsylvania decision. You have lost this issue because what you espeouse has been determined by the vast majority of scientists to be nothing more than religious dogma.... and not science. You can bemoan it all you want. But to belabor it - if you are in the science field - means your career is in jeopardy. To teach it within a primary educational system, or as a homeschooler, means you are risking the academic future - with regards to science fields - of those kids. Like it or not this is the real world and has been for way more than a generation.

sgallan · January 4, 2008

One more thing on this issue....... and to show you how much of a "slam dunk" this issue is with regards to creationalism..... there are many hundreds of fully accredidated Colleges and Universities in this nation. Not a single one of them teaches anything remotely akin to creationalism within their science departments. Not a single one. We are talking about hundreds of institutions, with thousands of Professors and Scientistis, teaching millions of students..... and yet not a single one teaches creationalism within it's science department. Which says to me that creationalism within that venue is about as credible as is Voodoo or the Occult within the same Venue. It has it's place.... within humanities or the social sciences.... but has been determined - by the best minds in those fields in the whole world - not to belong in legitimate science. It is considered psudeoscience.

Apparently you mock me.

And apparently you mock all of those who do not believe as you do.

My religious beliefs, or lack thereof, are not germaine to legitimate science. I know many a true believing scientist who believe exactly as I do on this issue. Including many LDS scientists, as I learned when I used to lurk (I lurked because they were real scientists and I just enjoyed learning from them) on a discussion board they had.

One more important addition..... that Judge in Pennsylvania who all but killed any chance for Creationalism being taught in Primary education was very conservative, and very Christian. But he wrote a very comprehensive and thorough decision against Creationalism nonetheless.

Whether God created the world or we climbed out of a bucket of slop, physics will not stop being physics and math will not change due to it. That's my whole point. God created physics and botany and biology. All the laws of nature are His. Creationists don't deny science, we embrace it. We are simply saying that people should open up their eyes and look at what we are saying the science points to. Why is the religion of Evolution given that consideration but the religious people who believe in Creation aren't given that same respect. As I said, Evolution has not contributed AT ALL to our educational institutions. The pursuit of knowledge was in full swing long before Darwin came on board.

That would be theocracy. That would be bringing the "supernatural" into the field of science. The reason the Judge ruled against the Pennsylvania board - in such a strident way - is that theocratic views have no place in a Democratic Republic. And trust me on this one..... you don't want it that way either. Because most of the people who share your views on this issue would, if they could in a theocracy, outlaw your religion as a cult.

Alaskagain · January 4, 2008

Sorry for the delayed response, but I'm just plain slow.

How is ancient dust, which you say is worthless, any different from contemporary dust, which is also a worthless?
In other words, is the "ancient dust" Adam was created from any different than the contemporary dust we see today? If that answer is yes, what properties of the "ancient dust" are different?
Elphaba

and:

Apparently I've been put on ignore by Traveler. Does anyone else know what he meant by "ancient dust," or "symbolic dust"? Or Traveler, when you read this post, as I know you will, would you mind coming out just to answer this one question?
Elphaba

Since no one has jumped in to answer your question, I will make an attempt to clarify for you, Elphaba.

In the original post referring to dust, Traveler stated:

. . . The scriptures tell us that G-d does not always create from nothing – for example man was created from dust. Anciently dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value.

Now, re-read it.

Traveler does not say "Ancient dust meant a substance . . . "

What he states is "Anciently dust meant a substance . . . "

or, perhaps it will make a little more sense if I just put a wee bit of punctuation in there:

"Anciently, [the word] 'dust' meant a substance that is worthless and has no value."

Does that help, Elphaba?

Moksha · January 4, 2008

If you get your Christian based creation theory then I get my Flying Spaghetti Monster theory.

Scott, I was wondering if you could present to us the basics of the Creation Story as related by the FSM? :)

CrimsonKairos · January 4, 2008

Precisely, Alaskagain.

As for the other discussion, God cannot be measured in a test-tube, or measured with a ruler, or photographed with a space telescope.

If Creationists truly do believe in the same rules and laws of science that evolutionists do (I'm talking laws of physics, et al), but they just argue that a Supreme Being acted within those laws to create us and our world, then that part of their position rightly belongs in a class on religious studies.

Faith is not a science. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Faith is not the things that can't be seen by us.

How do you measure or quantify or test something you can't see or touch in the traditional methods?

While I firmly believe that God created the world through His Son Jesus Christ, I do not believe that position is or should be a matter of science. Did God utilize the same laws of physics that we have discovered? I believe so, and I also believe He knows a great many more laws than we do.

But I don't think my beliefs should be taught in a science class. I think what should be taught is electro-magnetism and thermodynamics and quantum mechanics and biology and all that other jazz.

Annabelli · January 4, 2008

I was following you there for a while CrimsonKairos but then I realized that this is the science data that has led to researching Mars. Which by the way is really not panning out from theory to fact. And it is also similar to the data used for investigating the moon which also did not pan out to this conclusion.

Scientist have discovered in the recent ten years that the universe as we know it has been magnified or made larger. This course of study would have a greater yield of knowledge as to the creation as we would want to understand it.

There are species that should have become extinct by nature alone but they still exist which blows a whole in evolution as we understand it.

Elphaba · January 4, 2008

I‘ve read your post and can only respond by saying your post is full of nonsense. Foremost, you know nothing about scientific theory whatsoever. You dismiss it out of hand, assuming “theory“ means something it does not. You say you are not a scientist, and you are right--you are not. It‘s astounding the assumptions you make about science when even you admit you know nothing about it, when you say: “I don't have enough scientific education to speak to this. . . .”

In scientific circles a “theory” is not a “guess or opinion.” As used in science, theory does not mean the same thing as it does in everyday life. A theory is not a guess, hunch, hypothesis, or speculation — it's much more full-blown.

Thus we have Newton's theory of gravity and the motion of planets, Einstein's theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, the cell theory of organisms, plate tectonics (theory of the motion of land masses), the valence theory of chemical compounds, and theories of evolution in biology, geology, and astronomy. These “theories” are not anyone’s “opinion,” “guess,” “hunch,” or “bright idea.”

Until you understand what “theory” means in the scientific community, you will never have any credibility when you discuss your beliefs. Never.

You say: Well, when it comes to evolution, that is debatable. They don't have any science to prove their theory, that's why it's still only a theory.

This is exactly what I am talking about.

The “theory” of evolution is not someone’s opinion. It is a scientific theory in the same sense that Einstein’s theory of relativity is a theory, or that Newton’s theory of gravity is a theory. Again, until you understand that, you will not be taken seriously by anyone who understands the theory of evolution or scientific theory.

You may have some very good points of view, but as long as you keep calling evolution someone’s “theory,” as if it were someone’s “opinion,” no one is going to take you seriously.

I was going to stop here, but I couldn’t let this one go by:

Here's just one little tidbit, dinosaurs. Evolution claims that they were extinct millions of years before man. We claim they walked with man. Now, scientists are finding bones and footprints and all kinds of things that lean towards the fact that man and Dino actually did hang together. We've know that for thousands of years. The Bible told us so.

You are seriously suggesting that human beings were alive at the same time dinosaurs walked on the earth?

I was going to ask you for a reference for this, but I decided not to because even if you had one it would be utter nonsense.

I assure you human beings were not alive when dinosaurs walked the earth. There are no bones, footprints or any other things from human beings from the various periods of the dinosaurs. Human beings did not walk on the planet until millions of years later!

It is fine to believe in the Bible and say so. It is outrageous to believe in the Bible and claim there is proof of all of its claims, because there is not. And frankly, if you continue to do so, you will be telling untruths.

There are no credible studies that say human beings lived during the time of the dinosaurs. That is absolutely nonsense. If you continue to claim there were, you will be perpetuating lies.

Kiddo, you need to stop being so defensive about scientists. They are not out to destroy the Bible. They are not out to tell you what you can or can’t believe. They do not have an agenda to fill your head with evil lies. They are only seekers of truth, and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is also nothing wrong with you believing every word of the Bible is true, and telling people of your belief. However, it is wrong to claim that science is nothing but someone’s “theory,” as if it is only someone’s “opinion,” when you know that is not what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is a scientific fact. There may come a day when that “fact” is replaced with new information, and updated.

But Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a fact. Newton’s Theory of Gravity is a fact. And the Theory of Evolution is a fact. We do not understand it completely, and no one claims to understand it completely. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

The bottom line is no one is out to take your beliefs away. Don’t make it out to be worse than it really is by using the wrong definitions for scientific words. You only hurt your own credibility.

Elphaba

mmm12345 · January 4, 2008

<div class='quotemain'>