DennisTate

Are LDS open to Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

Are LDS open to the idea of Theistic Evolutionary Theory?  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Are Latter day Saints open to some variation of Theistic Evolutionary Theory?

    • No
      4
    • Yes
      5
    • Perhaps... but that will depend on the wording for the explanation.
      5


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Fossil records are not evidence for macro-evolution

So, it isn't so much that evolutionists fail to present evidence for their theory, it's that creationists reject the evidence that has been presented. I suppose the thing that we disagree on is why fossil evidence can or cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution.

Wikipedia has a fairly extensive summary article on the evidences for evolution. It includes evidence from the fossil record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

I would like to note that I have mostly enjoyed this discussion, as it has mostly avoided the worst of the contentions that often bring more heat than light to this debate. I don't expect either side to convince the other in a lowly forum like this, but it is nice for once to have the debate go on without accusations of apostasy or similar.

Edited by MrShorty
fix typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

So, it isn't so much that evolutionists fail to present evidence for their theory, it's that creationists reject the evidence that has been presented. I suppose the thing that we disagree on is why fossil evidence can or cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution.

Wikipedia has a fairly extensive summary article on the evidences for evolution. It includes evidence from the fossil record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

I would like to note that I have mostly enjoyed this discussion, as it has mostly avoided the worst of the contentions that often bring more heat than light to this debate. I don't expect either side to convince the other in a lowly forum like this, but it is nice for once to have the debate go one without accusations of apostasy or similar.

So, it isn't so much that evolutionists fail to present evidence for their theory, it's that creationists reject the evidence that has been presented.

Not necessarily. That would be yes and no. If the evidence we present isn't actually evidence for something then we are actually harming progression. All presented evidence for can be rejected by anyone. For example, I can say the earth is evidence of a creator. An evolutionist (or Atheist) can reject that claim. Anyone should be able to reject any claim that is unable to be verified without conjecture (science related). Science I keep hearing is "all" based in facts (not faith). If so, then you better be able to show evidence (if it is actually evidence for) without conjecture. Otherwise, anyone has the right to reject said evidence for, which may or may no be.

I suppose the thing that we disagree on is why fossil evidence can or cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution.

My readings and understandings of the arguments for "macro-evolution" stem from this site. When I enjoyed YouTube debating (don't anymore) every time I argued against I was directed toward this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/.

They also provide all their supporting evidence for "macro-evolution." They provide fossil records. It wasn't until I was listening to other commentators that someone made a clear and precise statement, "Fossils are not evidence for macro-evolution. They are factual evidence that an animal existed." Without conjecture, hypothesis, or theory the fossil is only evidence for the animal existing. That is clear, even from the link I provided you, every time I read anything about fossils as evidence for macro-evolution it always brings up theories, hypothesis, and conjecture.

For example, let's take the very first sentence of the wiki article, "Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor."

This isn't proven. This is conjecture. We do not know life stemmed from a single ancestor -- at all. This is a theory that isn't factual by itself. This therefore can easily be rejected, just as any speculation can be rejected. We are working with limited knowledge, and from that limited knowledge comes statements like this quote from the article. So, at this point, these articles lose my interest. A more factual statement would be, "Evolutionists theorize from the following given evidence (which may or may not be true) that all life stemmed from a single ancestor." I wouldn't argue with that, because that is a factual statement. Life though has not been demonstrated to come from a single ancestor without conjecture -- implying meaning that may or may not be true according to our limited knowledge. When it comes to science, I am more accepting of science when "evidence" is actually evidence for "X" without conjecture. If the evidence is based in conjecture then it shouldn't be called a fact (in the realm of science that all to often I hear how it isn't based in faith).

The conjecture can be based in "facts" (I.e. fossils) but if there were more "open speech" regarding "evidence" I think the whole concept would be less volatile. Example, if everyone holds a ball everyone on earth will experience the ball dropping. In that light, no one can argue that a fossil doesn't exist. The fossil is there. The fossil is evidence that this creature existed. Outside of that, the fossil isn't evidence for anything else without conjecture.

Another example of conjecture rather than fact, "Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time." Science doesn't know if that animal was actually created at a period of time, or if it developed from another creature. It can only say that this animal existed at this time (assuming our dating methods are actually accurate). The word "developed" is automatically a conjecture from limited knowledge, and they expect everyone to accept -- not reject -- their conjecture (their implied meaning of what exists). I don't have to accept this conjecture as it can't be proven as fact. The author of this wiki can not prove this animal was developed at anytime, or that it stemmed from a creature that lived millions of years before it. We can only factually say -- without conjecture -- that the animal existed. We can say it probably had parents. We can say it probably had offspring (assuming it mated before it died).

So, I accept what is observable as fact. Not something that requires a belief in conjecture (within the realm of science) according to what we know exists (I think the word evidence is all to often misused). Evidence does not equate with "fact for my theory." We can supply evidence for "X" that isn't evidence for "X." (i.e. a guy who spent 17 years in jail for rape -- having had all the evidence presented that convicted him as the rapist -- only to discover by DNA 17 years later that the semen found wasn't his).

I would like to note that I have mostly enjoyed this discussion, as it has mostly avoided the worst of the contentions that often bring more heat than light to this debate. I don't expect either side to convince the other in a lowly forum like this, but it is nice for once to have the debate go one without accusations of apostasy or similar.

True. This has been good. I assume this is about as clear as I can be. I will probably bow out of this conversation from here.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vort said:

There is a vast quantity of evidence in the fossil record that establishes the idea of organic evolution.

I previously asked you all of those very broad evolution questions, because I had a hard time distinguishing your beliefs from mainstream evolution. I mean, I assumed you believed God played a part in it somewhere. But, you're losing me a bit when you say modern humans have been around for 100-200k years. That is wildly inconsistent with any statistical model. Did you have any response to the population pardox that I presented?

Also, I still can't fathom the idea that all living creatures share a common ancestor.  From my perspective, it defies logic that a tiny insect and a blue whale could possibly share a common ancestor. And, of course, there's no evidence for this either. And how about something like a termite? Termites chew on wood, and swallow it. But, they can’t digest it. There are tiny critters inside the intestines of termites that digest the cellulose. The critters can’t live without those termites. And the termites can’t live without those critters. So, which one evolved first?   

Edited by ldsguy422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

@ldsguy422 > This topic comes up at least twice a year and it is always the same people defending macro-evolution without any factual evidence to provide for macro-evolution (all provided is always speculation and conjecture of what exists).

Just maybe, if they would actually start providing some evidence for macro-evolution it might stop this continual argument. But, as you can see, anyone arguing for macro-evolution could not provide a single shred of evidence for it (that is observable, repeatable, or testable).

 

Right! I mean, no one here is denying that evolution exists. Simply that there are limits to how much variation can occur within each kind (i.e. original ancestor of a group). A common ancestor for all living beings blows my mind. Just look at insects. Scientists say they've been around for 350 million years - and with very minimal changes. So how far back do we have to go back before they share a common ancestor with a dinosaur? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

Right! I mean, no one here is denying that evolution exists. Simply that there are limits to how much variation can occur within each kind (i.e. original ancestor of a group). A common ancestor for all living beings blows my mind. Just look at insects. Scientists say they've been around for 350 million years - and with very minimal changes. So how far back do we have to go back before they share a common ancestor with a dinosaur? 

The big problem is the difference between the terms evidence and proof.  The deniers are very selective and call any evidence that they cannot otherwise explain as speculation.   The final denial of evidence is that it is not proof.  Deniers will say they believe in micro evolution with limits - but never clearly define the limits.

When Darwin first published his book "Origins of the Species" the religious community was certain that evolution would disprove G-d and remove a need for the existence of G-d.  There is not likely any other religious claim that has driven more students of science to atheism and agnosticism than this stance against evolution.  Since Darwin the evidence of evolution has mounted.  All the evidence discovered has closed the religious imposed so-called evolutionary gaps.  To my knowledge there is no evidence that suggests the the origins of our current day species all happened around the same time.  And to say that the 350 years of evolution of insects has produced minimal changes is absurd.  For example, there was once a dragonfly type of insect with a 2 1/2 foot wingspan.  To call such a drastic change from any living insect today as minimal seem to come from a prejudice of evidence.  Here is a question for religious deniers of evolution - Do you really believe that there fruit trees and grass still on earth today that was created before the sun and moon were created in our solar system - as explained in Genesis?

I believe there is a problem in the theology of most religions concerning their definition and understanding of G-d.   It is that G-d and his works are something man cannot understand - so if something can be explained - they think it is proof that G-d does not exist - so in fear of loosing their religion they reject any explanations of truth or evidence that challenges their current notions from their religious traditions rooted in the Dark Ages.

Isaiah declared that truth from G-d is revealed line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Which, interestingly is what has happened concerning evolution since Darwin first published his book.  Science is currently at the level of genetic engineering and cloning.   Things the religious community at the time of Darwin said G-d would never allow man to accomplish.  And so it is that the evolution of evolution continues - even within the religious community that insists to lag behind truth and resist learning for as long as they can.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The big problem is the difference between the terms evidence and proof.  The deniers are very selective and call any evidence that they cannot otherwise explain as speculation.   The final denial of evidence is that it is not proof.  Deniers will say they believe in micro evolution with limits - but never clearly define the limits.

When Darwin first published his book "Origins of the Species" the religious community was certain that evolution would disprove G-d and remove a need for the existence of G-d.  There is not likely any other religious claim that has driven more students of science to atheism and agnosticism than this stance against evolution.  Since Darwin the evidence of evolution has mounted.  All the evidence discovered has closed the religious imposed so-called evolutionary gaps.  To my knowledge there is no evidence that suggests the the origins of our current day species all happened around the same time.  And to say that the 350 years of evolution of insects has produced minimal changes is absurd.  For example, there was once a dragonfly type of insect with a 2 1/2 foot wingspan.  To call such a drastic change from any living insect today as minimal seem to come from a prejudice of evidence.  Here is a question for religious deniers of evolution - Do you really believe that there fruit trees and grass still on earth today that was created before the sun and moon were created in our solar system - as explained in Genesis?

I believe there is a problem in the theology of most religions concerning their definition and understanding of G-d.   It is that G-d and his works are something man cannot understand - so if something can be explained - they think it is proof that G-d does not exist - so in fear of loosing their religion they reject any explanations of truth or evidence that challenges their current notions from their religious traditions rooted in the Dark Ages.

Isaiah declared that truth from G-d is revealed line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Which, interestingly is what has happened concerning evolution since Darwin first published his book.  Science is currently at the level of genetic engineering and cloning.   Things the religious community at the time of Darwin said G-d would never allow man to accomplish.  And so it is that the evolution of evolution continues - even within the religious community that insists to lag behind truth and resist learning for as long as they can.

 

The Traveler

The limits have already been defined. Variation within a kind. Kind meaning every species that can be traced back to the original ancestor of a group. Thousands of species can come from the same kind. But, not all species share a common ancestor. 

And yes, most animal life dates back to the Cambrian Period when there was an explosion of complex animals.

And fossil records don't prove anything. If you find a fossil the dirt, all you know is, it died. You don’t know that it had offspring. And you sure as heck don’t know that it had any different types of offspring. There are no missing links - the whole chain is missing. Where is the missing link for a woodpecker? A woodpecker’s tongue goes all the way around the back of its head and comes on top of its left eyebrow. What fossils or intermediate species have been found with its tongue going all the way around its head? What evidence is there for this type of evolution?

In regards to the Big Bang, if all the particles and matter contained within a dot were expelled from a spinning dot, they would spin out in the same direction. This is consistent with the conservation of angular momentum. Yet, Venus and Uranus spin backwards. And some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backwards around their planets. 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

The Big Bang, by itself, appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics. You have to take on A LOT of assumptions to justify it otherwise. 

If the Big Bang were true, matter would be evenly distributed. There are clusters of stars – and there are great voids.

In regards to stellar evolution, which I alluded to earlier, astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into supernova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 dead stars (supernovas)? There should be several hundred million of them.

 

Edited by ldsguy422

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

The limits have already been defined. Variation within a kind. Kind meaning every species that can be traced back to the original ancestor. Thousands of species can come from the same kind. But, not all species share a common ancestor. 

And yes, most animal life dates back to the Cambrian Period when there was an explosion of complex animals.

And fossil records do nothing to prove anything. If you find a fossil the dirt, all you know is, it died. You don’t know that it had offspring. And you sure as heck don’t know that it had any different types of offspring. There are no missing links - the whole chain is missing. Where is the missing link for a woodpecker? A woodpecker’s tongue goes all the way around the back of its head and comes on top of its left eyebrow. What fossils or intermediate species have been found with its tongue going all the way around its head? What evidence is there for this type of evolution?

In regards to the Big Bang, if all the particles and matter contained within a dot were expelled from a spinning dot, they would spin out in the same direction. This is consistent with the conservation of angular momentum. Yet, Venus and Uranus spin backwards. And some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backwards around their planets. 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

The Big Bang, by itself, appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics. You have to take on A LOT of assumptions to justify it otherwise. 

If the Big Bang were true, matter would be evenly distributed. There are clusters of stars – and there are great voids.

In regards to stellar evolution, which I alluded to earlier, astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into supernova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 dead stars (supernovas)? There should be several hundred million of them.

 

I have no idea what you mean by kind - For example there were no mammals with origins from the Cambrian period.  Also your statement "And fossil records do nothing to prove anything" concerns me.  This is why I started my previous post about the problem in the use of the terms evidence and proof.  It can be most difficult to have a discussion with someone concerning scientific principles when they attempt to use science to "demonstrate" that science is unreliable. 

The Big Band is not a singular theory - for example one theory (highly regarded) is that the Big Bang was a collapse of an eleven dimensional universe.  And for the record, a theoretical Black Hole (especially a Super Massive Black Hole) violates all known physics - including both laws of thermodynamics. 

Here is something you may find interesting - lot so long ago, with the use of the Hubble telescope and a couple of super computers, an effort was made to map the universe.  It was discovered that our Milky Way Galaxy is part of a super-cluster that has been name Laniakda  as shown with this picture.

images.jpg.6799834332b38c720fb4f7e025875573.jpg

The red dot represents our Milky Way Galaxy.  There are a number of "things" that are interesting about this.  One is that this super-cluster is much larger than what anyone thought was the size of the universe - just 100 year ago and there are thousands of known super-clusters.  One such super-cluster is moving the wrong direction (towards us) in our expanding universe.  This has given rise to what we now call "Dark Matter" that according calculations would comprise 20% of our currently known universe.  But it has also been found that 75% or our known universe is comprised of what we call "Dark Energy".

You referenced supernovas.  A supernova is an exploding star.  I have no idea where you got the idea that anyone thinks there are only 300 such events in our universe.  Most of the elements we know of come from exploding stars - including oxygen.  A point I would like to make is that there has been a great deal of scientific discoveries since the beginning of the restoration and the days of Joseph Smith that has greatly changed what we think and understand of our empirical environment.    My question or you - what has religion contributed to science and our understanding of our empirical environment in the last 4,000 years?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

But, you're losing me a bit when you say modern humans have been around for 100-200k years. That is wildly inconsistent with any statistical model.

Your "statistical" argument presented above appears to boil down to this:

There is no such thing as a stable population. Populations either grow exponentially or else go extinct.

This is false. There is no reason a paleolithic human population of, say 150,000 could not have existed more or less in perpetuity, certainly for a hundred thousand years. For that matter, a population of 15,000 could do it.

7 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

From my perspective, it defies logic that a tiny insect and a blue whale could possibly share a common ancestor.

Yes, I understand this. But despite your perspective, it does not defy logic in any sense, any more than the fact that beings such as you and I might share a common destiny with a being like God somehow defies logic.

7 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

And, of course, there's no evidence for this either.

There is massive, undeniable evidence for this. Or do you think it mere coincidence that our DNA is structurally and chemically identical with that of chimpanzees, dogs, salmon, ladybugs, and bread yeast?

7 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

And how about something like a termite? Termites chew on wood, and swallow it. But, they can’t digest it. There are tiny critters inside the intestines of termites that digest the cellulose. The critters can’t live without those termites. And the termites can’t live without those critters. So, which one evolved first?

They are symbiotes. At this point, their evolutionary histories are intertwined. Originally, it seems pretty obvious that cellulose-digesting microflora found themselves in the digestive tract of some insect where they both (1) survived and thrived with the insect's incidental cellulose intake and (2) didn't kill their host, and in fact returned to their host digestible substance in the form of their cellulose waste. That greatly increased the survivability of the insect, who then reproduced more successfully, passing on its genetic makeup to large numbers of descendants. Et voilá!

I expect you will reject this. And that's fine. As far as I know, Saint Peter does not give you a molecular biology test at the Pearly Gates to determine entrance. But the conundrum you pose is no conundrum at all. There are in fact many unknown areas and holes in our knowledge regarding organic evolution, but not on the order of the "Which came first?" scenario you propose. That one is really obvious.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

In regards to the Big Bang, if all the particles and matter contained within a dot were expelled from a spinning dot, they would spin out in the same direction. This is consistent with the conservation of angular momentum. Yet, Venus and Uranus spin backwards. And some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backwards around their planets. 6 of the 63 moons spin backwards. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions.

Angular momentum is conserved in a closed system. If you're considering the angular momentum post-Big Bang, then you need to consider the total angular momentum of the universe, not just that of the solar system.

3 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

The Big Bang, by itself, appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics.

How so?

3 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

If the Big Bang were true, matter would be evenly distributed.

Why do you say that?

3 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

In regards to stellar evolution, which I alluded to earlier, astronomers have observed that about every 30 years a star dies and explodes into supernova. If the universe is billions of years old, how come there are less than 300 dead stars (supernovas)? There should be several hundred million of them.

Where do you get the idea that there are fewer than 300 "dead stars (supernovas)"?

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ldsguy422 said:

The limits have already been defined. Variation within a kind. Kind meaning every species that can be traced back to the original ancestor of a group. Thousands of species can come from the same kind. But, not all species share a common ancestor. 

This got me to thinking -- let me see if I can explain.

The main objection to evolution here is that it must be "limited" in some way. But, we have had difficulty defining those boundaries across which life cannot evolve. I recall my own progression from creationist who didn't believe in cross-"type" evolution to now and, I think a good way of expressing that process is one of breaking down those barriers. Dogs and cats have to be a different type gives way to Mammalian carnivores probably have a common ancestor.
Horses and cows have to be different gives way to ungulates probably have a common ancestor.
Ungulates and whales must be different types gives way to whales and ungulates are common
Reptiles, birds, and mammals must be different types gives way to reptiles, birds, and mammals seem to have a common reptilian ancestor.
Vertebrates and Invertebrates must be different types gives way to Vertebrates may be descended from invertebrates.
Humans must be a special creation separate from everything else gives way to humans and apes seem to have a common ancestry
And so on....

It's probably not an exact description of the history of the science, but it seems like a reasonable explanation of the science to be, starting with the idea that microevolution occurs, but there must be boundaries between different "types", and the development of the science kind of feels to me like breaking down those evolutionary boundaries between assumed types.

I went further in my thought train to include the idea that, if creationists are correct and there must be some hard boundaries that prevent one type from evolving into another type, then creationists could be (are) pursuing research to identify those boundaries. Such research will rely on fossil, anatomical, DNA, etc. (just as standard evolutionary theory, so it's probably not a good idea to broadly reject the types of evidence evolutionary biologists use). The problems will be the same as evolutionary biology runs into (spotty fossil records, speculation and extrapolation, and so on). However, just maybe when all is said and done, the reconciliation of evolutionary biology and creation biology is to identify the hard boundaries between types. My own unprofessional interpretation is that there are no apparent hard boundaries between types (vertebrates and invertebrates could conceivably be the same "type" or descend from the same "seed" organisms, same for plants and animals, etc.).

Just a thought -- may need to think more on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2020 at 7:42 AM, ldsguy422 said:

Do they all essentially evolve from a rock?

One scriptural addition (since there is enough concordism in this thread to not feel too bad about adding one). Genesis 2:7 (KJV) -- "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Suggesting that man at least could have "evolved" (evolved and formed being essentially synonyms here) from rocks. Are we the only living things with a connection to rocks?

Edited by MrShorty
fix typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
22 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Fossil records are not evidence for macro-evolution. 

There is plenty of evidence including fossil records.   Also, fossil records are indeed evidence of evolution.

Junk DNA is one non-fossil evidence.  Without just looking it up and finding something on the farcical sites such as Anwers in Genesis, what is your explanation for junk DNA shared between humans and other primates?   

Without just looking it up and cutting and pasting something, expain why the same junk DNA is present in both humans and other primates if they didn't share a common ancestor.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  

Quote

 You cannot prove the fossil record is a past ancestor of any creature or that another creature stemmed from it without conjecture.

You can prove that creatures were more primitive the earlier you go back in the fossil records.

Whether or not you believe in the accuracy of dating methods, you can still prove that life forms get more advanced as layers get newer.

Take for example, a cross section of the Grand Canyon, which is a perfect text book natural geology musuem.  

Geology of Grand Canyon National Park - Geologic Wonders

Even if you don't believe in accuracy the dating, it is obvious that the oldest rocks are at the bottom and they get yonger as you go up.

In the oldest rocks in the Grand Canyon are the oldest rocks by far.   There are no evidence of life because these are metemorphic rocks, so lets start with the sedimenrary rocks which start in the precabrian (the Grand Canyon Supergroup are the oldest sedementary rocks in the Grand Canyon, but are only present in some parts of the Grand Canyon).

The Tapeats Sandstone (Cambrian)  is the oldest sedimentary layer that is present throughout the entire canyon (though in part of Marble Canyon, it isn't exposed on the surface).  

You won't find dinosaurs or mammals in the Tapeats Sandstone; it is too old.  You will find trilobites.  Why don't you find any evidence of mammals, dinosaurs, etc. in the Tapeats Sandstone or any other rock with similar age, worldwide?  It is because they didn't exist yet, though life definitely did exist.  There is plenty of fossil evidence showing primitive life forms during this time period.

Let's move up a little into some younger rock layers.  Moving into the Bright Angel Shale, you still find triolobites, but other forms of life start to appear.  Mollusk and brachiopods start to appear in this layer.

The Redwall Limestone is younger than the Bright Angel Shale or Tapeats Sandstone.  Fossils start to get more complicated.  There are a lot of corals, gastopods, and even primitive sharks in this layer.

Moving up to the Supai Group, the life forms get more advanced.  You start to see fossil ferns and footprints of four legged animals.

Moving up to the Hermit Shale, you start to see things like fossilized pine trees.

Moving up to the Coconino Sandstone, you start to see things such as animal burros and larger reptiles that hadn't been previously seen.

Move up to the Kaibab Limestone and you start to see things like fish with teeth, sea lilies and complete reef systems.

Although this the youngest layer in the Grand Canyon, much younger layers are present to the north in an almost open textbook form all the way to Bryce Canyon.

1024px-Grand_Staircase-big.jpg

The next layer up from the Kaibab Limestone is the Moenkopi Formation.  Now we start to see things such as Eocyclosaurus.

Move up to formations such as the Kayenta and you have dinosaur footprints all over the place.  In the Morrison Formation you see plenty of dinosaurs (though still too old for dinosaurs such as the T-Rex; that comes much later).

Well, you get the idea.   The fossil record does more than prove that these animals existed.  It also shows that the farther you go back in time, the more primitive the life forms were.   It shows that as you move ahead in time, lifeforms get more advance and complex.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2020 at 12:30 PM, Vort said:

Come on, ldsguy. Do you really believe the ancient Hebrews knew the planetary nature of the Earth and had a grasp of the rudiments of continental drift? The division of the earth in the days of Peleg obviously refers to a political division: In Peleg's days, the earth was divided up between the various factions or races that at that time inhabited the known world.  (emphasis added)

So you disagree with @ldsguy422's interpretation, and then proceed to provide an equally unprovable interpretation?  Is it really obvious?  Seems to me that based on the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses, at least a few people knew of such things.

Quote

And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit of God.
And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.
And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.
(Moses 1:27-29 - emphasis added)

Isn't Moses the author of Genesis which included the oft disputed phrase about what happened in the days of Peleg?  Doesn't the Book of Mormon refer to mass seismic and similar events that changed the face of the earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Vort said:

any more than the fact that beings such as you and I might share a common destiny with a being like God somehow defies logic.

Not sure that follows the insect/whale comparison.  Are we not the same species as God (i.e. Man)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, the idea of mankind having evolved into their current state simply doesn't compute.

1st off, their are some major doctrinal discrepancies that come up. The theory of evolution tells us species came about throught countless generations of genetic mutations. If that's the case, where do Adam and Eve fit in? How can they be our first parents? We know also through revealed doctrine, that before the fall, there was neither birth, nor death: the 2 things that evolution requires to function.

But more important than doctrinal discrepancies, are the spiritual implications. We know ourselves to be sons and daughters of God. Adam, our first father, is the primal patriarch of our race. Through him, all humans come together as one family. Each one of us made in the image of God, for He is our Father. Our destiny is to grow up unto His full stature.

These are spiritual truths. Try to cram in evolution, and it takes all these things away.

But I do not oppose the theory. It is, by scientific standards, sound, and ought to be studied. I do not fear it, because it cannot disprove the voice of the Lord which speaks to you and me. I know that Christ lives and loves me, and that Joseph Smith is his prophet of the restoration. 

So let the theory be studied and explored. It poses no danger to the Church, so long as the members if the church remember to keep their priorities straight: spiritual truths first, secular truths second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MrShorty said:

The problems will be the same as evolutionary biology runs into (spotty fossil records, speculation and extrapolation, and so on).

If we agree that it cannot be truly proven either way, then we are merely arguing who's theory is more plausible based on our individual interpretations of the facts.  So. . . chocolate ice-cream is the best flavor of ice-cream because it tastes the best!  Just look at all the EEG scans of people when they were eating chocolate ice-cream; the readings are clear!

My perspective:  I will adhere as closely to erring on the religious side of the churches 'official' position, which states both of the following things:

Quote

The Church has no official position on the theory of evolution.
. . .
We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, our first parents, who were created in God’s image. There were no spirit children of Heavenly Father on the earth before Adam and Eve were created. In addition, “for a time they lived alone in a paradisaiacal setting where there was neither human death nor future family.”
(What does the Church believe about evolution? - 2016)

Two things of note:

1)  Emphasis on the word 'official'.  It is clear that from the majority of Church resources (even those that are recent), that Church publications clearly steer people away from evolutionary theory and toward a more gospel-centric interpretation of the origins of life.

Quote

In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from. . .

"I think those people who hold to the view that man has come up through all these ages from the scum of the sea through billions of years do not believe in Adam. Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent—absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both." . . .

“The word itself merely means ‘change,’ and on the basis of this definition, evolution is a fact. However, most people understand evolution to mean progressive change in time from simplicity to complexity, from primitive to advanced. This definition of evolution is not based on fact. The study of inheritance has revealed principles and facts that can prove evolution—if we understand the word evolution to mean ‘change.’ But the obvious minor changes occurring to living things today give no basis for concluding that limitless change has happened in the past."
(Old Testament Student Manual Genesis–2 Samuel - 2003 edition) emphasis added

    It is obvious from the above excerpt that the Church takes no issue with continuing to promote and steer individuals toward a more religious interpretation of the origins of life and the earth and away from any sort of dependence upon the philosophies of men.  This is done by presenting individual opinions as such, while at the same time claiming no official stance.

2)  In the very same statement about 'no official position on the theory of evolution' the Church reiterates that, at the minimum, there were no children of God on earth before Adam, and that he and Eve were non-mortal and non-reproductive until after they became mortal.

Personally, I prefer to err on the side of what is demonstrably the 'unofficial' position of the Church and to seek explanations that align with that and available scriptural/authoritative sources.  Should revelation come from the Lord that directs us more toward a macro-evolutionary understanding of creation, I will happily accept it.  Would you accept a revelation to the contrary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scott said:

There is plenty of evidence including fossil records.   Also, fossil records are indeed evidence of evolution.

Junk DNA is one non-fossil evidence.  Without just looking it up and finding something on the farcical sites such as Anwers in Genesis, what is your explanation for junk DNA shared between humans and other primates?   

Without just looking it up and cutting and pasting something, expain why the same junk DNA is present in both humans and other primates if they didn't share a common ancestor.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.  

You can prove that creatures were more primitive the earlier you go back in the fossil records.

Whether or not you believe in the accuracy of dating methods, you can still prove that life forms get more advanced as layers get newer.

Take for example, a cross section of the Grand Canyon, which is a perfect text book natural geology musuem.  

Geology of Grand Canyon National Park - Geologic Wonders

Even if you don't believe in accuracy the dating, it is obvious that the oldest rocks are at the bottom and they get yonger as you go up.

In the oldest rocks in the Grand Canyon are the oldest rocks by far.   There are no evidence of life because these are metemorphic rocks, so lets start with the sedimenrary rocks which start in the precabrian (the Grand Canyon Supergroup are the oldest sedementary rocks in the Grand Canyon, but are only present in some parts of the Grand Canyon).

The Tapeats Sandstone (Cambrian)  is the oldest sedimentary layer that is present throughout the entire canyon (though in part of Marble Canyon, it isn't exposed on the surface).  

You won't find dinosaurs or mammals in the Tapeats Sandstone; it is too old.  You will find trilobites.  Why don't you find any evidence of mammals, dinosaurs, etc. in the Tapeats Sandstone or any other rock with similar age, worldwide?  It is because they didn't exist yet, though life definitely did exist.  There is plenty of fossil evidence showing primitive life forms during this time period.

Let's move up a little into some younger rock layers.  Moving into the Bright Angel Shale, you still find triolobites, but other forms of life start to appear.  Mollusk and brachiopods start to appear in this layer.

The Redwall Limestone is younger than the Bright Angel Shale or Tapeats Sandstone.  Fossils start to get more complicated.  There are a lot of corals, gastopods, and even primitive sharks in this layer.

Moving up to the Supai Group, the life forms get more advanced.  You start to see fossil ferns and footprints of four legged animals.

Moving up to the Hermit Shale, you start to see things like fossilized pine trees.

Moving up to the Coconino Sandstone, you start to see things such as animal burros and larger reptiles that hadn't been previously seen.

Move up to the Kaibab Limestone and you start to see things like fish with teeth, sea lilies and complete reef systems.

Although this the youngest layer in the Grand Canyon, much younger layers are present to the north in an almost open textbook form all the way to Bryce Canyon.

1024px-Grand_Staircase-big.jpg

The next layer up from the Kaibab Limestone is the Moenkopi Formation.  Now we start to see things such as Eocyclosaurus.

Move up to formations such as the Kayenta and you have dinosaur footprints all over the place.  In the Morrison Formation you see plenty of dinosaurs (though still too old for dinosaurs such as the T-Rex; that comes much later).

Well, you get the idea.   The fossil record does more than prove that these animals existed.  It also shows that the farther you go back in time, the more primitive the life forms were.   It shows that as you move ahead in time, lifeforms get more advance and complex.  

And yet you still did not provide any factual evidence that fossils are evidence for macro-evolution without conjecture, only proving my point. Thank you. Couldn't God easily have created animals at different periods in time, which would account for different fossils at different periods? Yes, yes, he could, but if you want to deny that possibility purely up to you.

Not every animal is less complex at different levels, unless you think a dinosaur was somehow less complex than our reptiles today? I mean, isn't the crocodile supposed to be something living during a much earlier time which isn't more complex than other reptiles? More conjecture, not factual.

This is more conjecture, and assumes that we have every living creature that lived at different time periods. What happens to the theory if a more complex creature is found lower?

Well, you get the idea.   The fossil record does more than prove that these animals existed.

I can clearly see also from this statement you clearly missed the point. Let me try to be more clear, Fossil records are not evidence for macro-evolution without conjecture which is what you just gave evidence for.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moonbeast32 said:

For me, the idea of mankind having evolved into their current state simply doesn't compute.

1st off, their are some major doctrinal discrepancies that come up. The theory of evolution tells us species came about throught countless generations of genetic mutations. If that's the case, where do Adam and Eve fit in? How can they be our first parents? We know also through revealed doctrine, that before the fall, there was neither birth, nor death: the 2 things that evolution requires to function.

But more important than doctrinal discrepancies, are the spiritual implications. We know ourselves to be sons and daughters of God. Adam, our first father, is the primal patriarch of our race. Through him, all humans come together as one family. Each one of us made in the image of God, for He is our Father. Our destiny is to grow up unto His full stature.

These are spiritual truths. Try to cram in evolution, and it takes all these things away.

But I do not oppose the theory. It is, by scientific standards, sound, and ought to be studied. I do not fear it, because it cannot disprove the voice of the Lord which speaks to you and me. I know that Christ lives and loves me, and that Joseph Smith is his prophet of the restoration. 

So let the theory be studied and explored. It poses no danger to the Church, so long as the members if the church remember to keep their priorities straight: spiritual truths first, secular truths second.

Something VERY controversial that I've thought upon but do not know what to think on it (no real opinion formed yet).  It's born of some Christians trying to equate creationism with that of our theories of evolution, the universe, and scientific ideas of how the universe, this earth, and life on it occurred.

There is an idea (and there is a similar one for the Book of Mormon as well) of WHY the Children of Israel were the chosen people of the Lord.  They were his literal offspring (or, in otherwords, the real children of Adam).

In this idea, there were MEN and then there were the Children of Heaven.  I gather this is ALL from one verse found in Genesis 6, verse 2.  It says that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them of wives all which they chose.  The idea is that there were men on the earth already, but they were NOT the actual children of Adam.  Thus, what happened was intermingling.

This allows for evolution to have occurred, but also the creation and fall of Adam.  Thus, those that are the actual children of Adam are the ones that are gathered and saved under the umbrella of the Lord's atonement.  With the spread of the seed of Abraham throughout the world, it would encompass MANY in this world, but only those that are true children heed the call of Christianity and the Lord and follow him, while those that are not do not necessarily follow this call.

This means that evolution occurred, and when Adam fell, he came into the mortal world among these mortal beings that had evolved from Apes...but Adam himself...did NOT evolve from Apes but was of a Father in Heaven.

Now, I am under the impression this is NOT that much of an accepted idea in the Church or my faith.  I'm not sure where I stand on it.  It COULD explain a good many things (why there were a special and select group of Children and People of the Lord rather than ALL people being his children...though there are also other explanations to it, as well as how genetically we were diverse enough to continue as a species...scientifically speaking...two individuals do not have enough genetic variability to really keep a species going without a GREAT DEAL of interaction with scientific items that were probably not around in the primitive societies prior to 100 years ago...etc...etc...etc).  However, I think that it is not something that would be really accepted in our faith by most.

However, I think it is an example of people of faith trying to figure out how science and religion may both be accurate and true, without the one contradicting the other.

(PS: And for those wondering, though I think it's come up on these forums before, is the idea that Lehi's family had a similar experience.  There were other inhabitants on the American continent, and that the families of Laman and Lemuel and possibly some of the sons of Ishamael intermingled with them, and possibly the Nephites, though it sounds more like they could have been more pure in that they did not intermingle their bloodlines, and thus created the genetic variability as well as the numbers to have wars and other items in the short span that they apparently did.  Very similar to the Adam and Eve with evolutionary theory ideas I've heard, but obviously slightly different as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 1:35 AM, MrShorty said:

So, it isn't so much that evolutionists fail to present evidence for their theory, it's that creationists reject the evidence that has been presented. I suppose the thing that we disagree on is why fossil evidence can or cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution.

Wikipedia has a fairly extensive summary article on the evidences for evolution. It includes evidence from the fossil record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

I would like to note that I have mostly enjoyed this discussion, as it has mostly avoided the worst of the contentions that often bring more heat than light to this debate. I don't expect either side to convince the other in a lowly forum like this, but it is nice for once to have the debate go on without accusations of apostasy or similar.

To give you a little background of why I began this discussion it is relevant that I attended the local ward of the Latter day Saints four times in 2019, (New Glasgow, N. S., Canada).  I haven't gotten there yet in 2020 but there was one Sunday when I had planned to... but then snow was predicted so I decided against the drive that is an hour and a half one way.  

I was truly impressed with the missionaries that I met and I did truly pray and ask to be shown by Messiah Yesua - Jesus if He wanted me to become LDS or not?

Within a matter of months I got what I felt was one of the strongest answers to pray that I have ever gotten.....  It was like Messiah Yeshua - Jesus clearly told me that what I must do is...... attend a Jewish synagogue in Mississauga or somewhere in Toronto when we get there....... At least as a Noahide... but very possibly as a full fledged Proselyte to Judaism.  

Latter day Saints.... and specifically the State of Utah are in a position to produce textbooks that go into another angle on Theistic Evolutionary Theory which.... could make LDS schools and universities some of the most popular in the world.  

I actually did campaign for the office of M.L.A. here in Canada and I know that education is under provincial jurisdiction.   Textbooks on a variation of Theistic Evolutionary Theory are desperately needed at this time IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE GENERAL VALUATION PLACED ON HUMAN LIFE, (and also much cattle)!

This topic relates to sincerely attempting to prevent the world from going into a Bear Market, another 1929.

A significant surge in the valuation placed on real estate in rural America....  can become the metaphorical gold that in a sense backs up a plan that I feel that Messiah Yeshua - Jesus began to lead me toward beginning in 1972 when I first began to watch world events in order to pray about them.  

You Latter day Saints are uniquely set up to do meetings on Saturdays that focus on the question of Latter day Saints taking one or two or three or four or more significant steps toward Judaism.............  I've listened to many, many, many, many lectures by Rabbi Alon Anava and scheduling him for meetings in Utah........... that are filmed and put out all over youtube would be one very interesting opening gambit in the direction of stabilization of the world economy and....."The Great Wealth Transfer from the Wicked To The Righteous."

(My apologies if that is off topic...... but this is important and timely because the situation as of today May 18, 2020 is precarious indeed!

 

Quote

"There will be a sudden rush to buy farms, ranches, and homes in the country. 

Thousands will attempt to flee from cities, hoping that a return to the land and 

nature will provide security. There will be a growing urge to "get away from it 

all"---and much money will be invested in land and acreage in rural areas by 

people who have secret dreams of raising their own food and cattle and of 

becoming self-supporting. The price of open rural land will continue to soar. 

Acreage within 100 miles of most major cities will skyrocket out of reach to 

all but syndicates." (David Wilkerson, The Vision, page 18,19).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel strongly that you Latter day Saints are the most prepared of any large Christian church to fulfill the two stick prophecy of Ezekiel chapter thirty seven.  Latter day Saints scholars could be quoting Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. a lot in those textbooks on Theistic Evolutionary Theory.  

In our world people like to over specialize.... but the two or three steps in logic between LDS textbooks on Theistic Evolutionary Theory and a Global Economic Reset that will fit with Isaiah chapter 45.... is not that difficult to do.  

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-white-horse-president-prophecy-and-saving-the-usa-constitution-and-dollar.570833/page-2

The White Horse President prophecy and saving the USA constitution and dollar.

Quote

IN MY OPINION ANY CENTRAL BANKING POLICY THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF COMPOUND INTEREST OVER TIME SPIRALLING OUT OF CONTROL LIKE MOSES DID WHEN HE WAS GIVEN THE JUBILEE YEAR AND THE ANNUAL SABBATHS SYSTEM...... is somewhat of a practical joke played on an ignorant population!

 

For the record.....  messages on public discussion forums can be copied, pasted, and quoted by anybody legally.......

Yes... there is a lot to this but.... even if you do not have the free time to do anything specific with this basic idea... .you may know a friend or family member who might be very interested in attempting to set up a series of films where...... textbooks on Theistic Evolutionary Theory are not merely textbooks......

but they are also "props" in a proposed series of semi-reality films set in an alternative universe 2012 - 2020 in which what sure looks like a possible economic crisis is addressed?!

THEISTIC EVOLUTIONARY THEORY... elaborated on in LDS textbooks where Jewish scholars and thinkers are quoted... could lead to nothing less than a significant LDS takeover of the American and Canadian educational systems......... (it is highly unlikely that you will know instantly exactly what I mean by that statement........ I was led to this over forty seven of my sixty years)!

Based on what I saw at the local ward of the LDS I can easily imagine a huge percentage of parents wanting to send their kids to an LDS school.......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Something VERY controversial that I've thought upon but do not know what to think on it (no real opinion formed yet).  It's born of some Christians trying to equate creationism with that of our theories of evolution, the universe, and scientific ideas of how the universe, this earth, and life on it occurred.

There is an idea (and there is a similar one for the Book of Mormon as well) of WHY the Children of Israel were the chosen people of the Lord.  They were his literal offspring (or, in otherwords, the real children of Adam).

In this idea, there were MEN and then there were the Children of Heaven.  I gather this is ALL from one verse found in Genesis 6, verse 2.  It says that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them of wives all which they chose.  The idea is that there were men on the earth already, but they were NOT the actual children of Adam.  Thus, what happened was intermingling.

This allows for evolution to have occurred, but also the creation and fall of Adam.  Thus, those that are the actual children of Adam are the ones that are gathered and saved under the umbrella of the Lord's atonement.  With the spread of the seed of Abraham throughout the world, it would encompass MANY in this world, but only those that are true children heed the call of Christianity and the Lord and follow him, while those that are not do not necessarily follow this call.

This means that evolution occurred, and when Adam fell, he came into the mortal world among these mortal beings that had evolved from Apes...but Adam himself...did NOT evolve from Apes but was of a Father in Heaven.

Now, I am under the impression this is NOT that much of an accepted idea in the Church or my faith.  I'm not sure where I stand on it.  It COULD explain a good many things (why there were a special and select group of Children and People of the Lord rather than ALL people being his children...though there are also other explanations to it, as well as how genetically we were diverse enough to continue as a species...scientifically speaking...two individuals do not have enough genetic variability to really keep a species going without a GREAT DEAL of interaction with scientific items that were probably not around in the primitive societies prior to 100 years ago...etc...etc...etc).  However, I think that it is not something that would be really accepted in our faith by most.

However, I think it is an example of people of faith trying to figure out how science and religion may both be accurate and true, without the one contradicting the other.

(PS: And for those wondering, though I think it's come up on these forums before, is the idea that Lehi's family had a similar experience.  There were other inhabitants on the American continent, and that the families of Laman and Lemuel and possibly some of the sons of Ishamael intermingled with them, and possibly the Nephites, though it sounds more like they could have been more pure in that they did not intermingle their bloodlines, and thus created the genetic variability as well as the numbers to have wars and other items in the short span that they apparently did.  Very similar to the Adam and Eve with evolutionary theory ideas I've heard, but obviously slightly different as well).

Wow!!!

I read a fictional book by Johnny Bluestar a few years ago that addressed this.  I think it was called The Thrice Born..... and it is a book that I would vastly prefer to see my kids taught in an English class rather than the Harry Potter series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
12 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Not every animal is less complex at different levels, unless you think a dinosaur was somehow less complex than our reptiles today? I mean, isn't the crocodile supposed to be something living during a much earlier time which isn't more complex than other reptiles? More conjecture, not factual.

Dinosaurs are relatively recent in the geologic timeline.

Show us any animal even as complex as a dinosaur in the Cambrian or Pre cambrian.

Also, from our previous conversations, it seems that you don't understand things like viruses, DNA, etc.

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, person0 said:

1)  Emphasis on the word 'official'.  It is clear that from the majority of Church resources (even those that are recent), that Church publications clearly steer people away from evolutionary theory and toward a more gospel-centric interpretation of the origins of life.

I can kind of agree that most of Church resources unfortunately seem to steer people away from evolutionary theory, and I think it is because we have this false dichotomy in our collective heads -- that evolutionary theory cannot be gospel-centric. I don't know why published Church materials seem so reluctant to give any kind of nod towards theistic evolution, but there are plenty of us who believe in evolution without undercutting the pillars of creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2020 at 12:55 PM, Vort said:

Your "statistical" argument presented above appears to boil down to this:

There is no such thing as a stable population. Populations either grow exponentially or else go extinct.

This is false. There is no reason a paleolithic human population of, say 150,000 could not have existed more or less in perpetuity, certainly for a hundred thousand years. For that matter, a population of 15,000 could do it.

Yes, I understand this. But despite your perspective, it does not defy logic in any sense, any more than the fact that beings such as you and I might share a common destiny with a being like God somehow defies logic.

There is massive, undeniable evidence for this. Or do you think it mere coincidence that our DNA is structurally and chemically identical with that of chimpanzees, dogs, salmon, ladybugs, and bread yeast?

They are symbiotes. At this point, their evolutionary histories are intertwined. Originally, it seems pretty obvious that cellulose-digesting microflora found themselves in the digestive tract of some insect where they both (1) survived and thrived with the insect's incidental cellulose intake and (2) didn't kill their host, and in fact returned to their host digestible substance in the form of their cellulose waste. That greatly increased the survivability of the insect, who then reproduced more successfully, passing on its genetic makeup to large numbers of descendants. Et voilá!

I expect you will reject this. And that's fine. As far as I know, Saint Peter does not give you a molecular biology test at the Pearly Gates to determine entrance. But the conundrum you pose is no conundrum at all. There are in fact many unknown areas and holes in our knowledge regarding organic evolution, but not on the order of the "Which came first?" scenario you propose. That one is really obvious.

Your assumptions on population growth are not accurate. I’d even go far as to say that of all the statements that have been made in this thread, the belief that humans have been on earth for 100k-200k years is the easiest one to dispel. My contention is not so much that an ancient tribe would go extinct (although that is a very real possibility if it takes you 6-9 millennia to double in size), but rather that the human population would be MUCH, MUCH greater than it is today if we’ve been inhabiting the planet for some 200,000 years.

The scientific consensus also says that there were roughly 4 million people living in 10,000 BC. If that were the case, population would be doubling, on average, every 8,950 years. Remember, pre-1900, there was little to no birth control. And there was a multitude of wars, famine, diseases, holocausts, and natural disasters which have already been factored into the ending average of 8,950 years. So, if the average time it takes to double is almost 9,000 years – and if we’ve been doubling roughly 75 years for the past two centuries, that means there were LONGER periods where it took the population to double. Probably, some 10,000 years in certain eras, just to double.

Lesotho has the highest death rate in the world at 15.1 deaths per 1,000. The birth rate is 26.63/1000.  The annual growth rate would then be 1.153% (26.63-15.1)/(1,000)). When managing and projecting exponential growth, the rule of 70 is applied. Simply take 70 and divide it by the annual growth rate. So, 70 / 1.153 = 60.7 years before the country of Lesotho is projected to double.

Lesotho would be the closest nation to resembling any ancient tribe. The death rate is high due to aids and other diseases - and birth control would be relatively minimal. I’m willing to grant ancient tribes may have taken longer to double in population. Maybe 300 or 400 years? Heck, let’s even say 800 years. Sure. Fine. But, that’s a far cry from 6,000 years or 9,000 years.

Look at the time period between 1000 AD and 1800 AD. The population boomed from about 300 million to roughly 1 billion. So, it more than tripled in less than eight centuries. And this in an era that was dealing with the bubonic plague, which wiped out 75-200 million people, or 20-40% of the world. On top of that, wars, genocides, colonization, famine, and many other variables would have made population growth difficult. It’s hard to believe that the world could endure so much calamity in a short period, and triple in size. And yet, a small tribe of 100 or 200 individuals would take 6, 7, or 10,000 years to double? Please.

... And mentioning DNA doesn't really help your organic evolution argument. The genetic code for DNA is amazingly complex. The human genome contains some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Bill Gates has said, “The code in the chromosomes is more complex and holds more information than all the computer programs ever written by man combined.” So, the notion that DNA could evolve, or self-assemble on the primitive sea floor of the earth, with the enormous tides, with huge currents, and with boiling hot seas, defies logic and comprehension.

On 5/17/2020 at 12:50 PM, Traveler said:

My question or you - what has religion contributed to science and our understanding of our empirical environment in the last 4,000 years?

 

How about the foundation for schools, universities, and hospitals?

And obviously the separation of church and state has made it very difficult for religion to get its foot in the door. Evolution is tax supported.  Science is an atheistic enterprise. I get it. Lawrence Krauss mentioned that all scientists should be militant atheists. And it makes sense why. They're wired and trained to question everything; they're trying to understand the workings of the universe and of nature. And you can’t simplify any explanation or theory with simply, “God made it that way.”  Appeal to authority is anathema in the scientific community. Just seems strange that many believers of science tend to form their own canonized dogma. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
50 minutes ago, ldsguy422 said:

The scientific consensus also says that there were roughly 4 million people living in 10,000 BC. If that were the case, population would be doubling, on average, every 8,950 years.

According to what?   In hunter gatherer cultures even today, population is kept down by nursing children until they are much older than they are in agricultural societies.

Quote

And yet, a small tribe of 100 or 200 individuals would take 6, 7, or 10,000 years to double?

As mentioned above, hunter gatherer tribes always have very slow rates of growth.  There are several hunter gather tribes still left (though that number is shrinking) and even without outside diseases their population growth has been very slow over thousands of years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now