Doctrine regaurding evolution?

[Hemidakota]

Well - no, that's not it. You can check yourself: Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Study it from both sides? Perhaps you know something I don't but it doesn't appear to have both sides. The worlds entire scientific community accepts evolution. I am not aware of any legitimate scientist who is not motivated by religious dogma who disputes evolution. Are you. If there are any, they'd must be very few and very far between or crackpots.

Do any modern universities (not motivated by religious dogma) teach any alternatives to evolution instead of evolution to describe the issues?

In science, there is no 'other side.' The other side exists only outside of science, primarily with those influenced by religious dogma who then pick and choose tidbits of science to support their pre-established conclusions - the opposite of how the scientific process works.

Remember the perpetual lie is always being added too. Wait for the truth, or, if you are ready, received the information for yourself to attest to both ‘what was’.

[Hemidakota]

You do not understand what a "fact" and a "theory" are in the realm of science.

In science, "a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment, or otherwise verified through empirical observation.”

Other scientific “theories” are the theory of relativity, the theory of electromagnetics, and the theory of evolution.

According to the National Academy of Sciences:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.”

If you want to continuing discussings scientific issues, hopefully you now understand a "theory" is not an "assumption," but a scientific explanation so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter it.

Elphaba

I wish that many of the universities and HS where my children attend would teach it properly as listed in your own statement vice factual proof.

[Elphaba]

I wish that many of the universities and HS where my children attend would teach it properly as listed in your own statement vice factual proof.

Why? How is what they teach different from what I described in my post?

Elphaba

[Snow]

Quoting and saying, there is proof [or proven] that the earth 4.5 Billion is a feebly foolish concept when not even those who are Seers, seeing the event can attest to a timeline. You need to keep in mind, that all materials are eternal had been around a lot longer than we really think is possible.

Feebly foolish? According to whom? The world's scientific community and greatest scientific minds? Not hardly.

Feebly foolish according to whom? People unfamiliar with science or those persuaded by unsupported dogma? That's a safe wager.

[Snow]

Remember the perpetual lie is always being added too. Wait for the truth, or, if you are ready, received the information for yourself to attest to both ‘what was’.

That's not a rebuttal of anything.

[Snow]

An athiest, Richard Milton, wrote a book that you need to read: "shattering the myths of darwinism."

Life's too short to spend time studying crop circles, bigfoot sightings, astral projection and Milton's silliness.

As for your assertion that I am ignorant unless I consider both sides - I do and am willing to consider all sides of scientific issues - provided they are legitimate and ethical and sound. Milton is none of these.

[Elphaba]

and that you would deem me not a real scientist because privately I do not subscribe to macroevolution is telling, wouldn't you think? . . . .but while completing my doctorate, and actually came to understand the field, the evidence, and possessed the skill set to evaluate scientific observations and publications on my own, I came to realize how much is based upon assumption.

As I have explained before, you don't even know what a "theory" means in science. That is Biology 101. If you don't know what a theory is, then all of the rest of your "skill set" is useless.

You can type you're "in the field" as many times as you want, but it won't make it so.

Otherwise, I'd be a skinny blonde with a Pulitzer in one pocket, a Nobel in the other, sitting on the windsill of a room overlooking an Italian Pallazo while being serenaded by Paulo. . . .

Nevermind. You ain't one, and I ain't one either.

Elphaba

[gwozz]

Life's too short to spend time studying crop circles, bigfoot sightings, astral projection and Milton's silliness.

As for your assertion that I am ignorant unless I consider both sides - I do and am willing to consider all sides of scientific issues - provided they are legitimate and ethical and sound. Milton is none of these.

You're rediculous. If you were going to judge the Book of Mormon based on what others say about it on the internet, especially "scientists," you'd never read it--life's too short, right? Milton speaks nothing of the issues you've mentioned. You are ignorant. Read the book. Its not too long of a read--and a new york times best seller (which means nothing in my opinion personally, but some consider that a barometer of quality).

[Hemidakota]

Our testimony should be based on the same methodology as Joseph Smith used in approaching the Godhead for the correct answer or truth. We are then corrected over time with our viewpoints in our academics field of studies.

[gwozz]

As I have explained before, you don't even know what a "theory" means in science. That is Biology 101. If you don't know what a theory is, then all of the rest of your "skill set" is useless.

You can type you're "in the field" as many times as you want, but it won't make it so.

Otherwise, I'd be a skinny blonde with a Pulitzer in one pocket, a Nobel in the other, sitting on the windsill of a room overlooking an Italian Pallazo while being serenaded by Paulo. . . .

Nevermind. You ain't one, and I ain't one either.

Elphaba

to Elphaba and Snow:

You guys need to think outside of the box a little more--you know, a little for yourself. You've cited "gravity" as your support for the soundness of scientific theory. Well, what of gravity? Do you believe that Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you believe that Moroni when he appeared to Joseph Smith was levatating above the ground? Well, but gravity is the "natural law," the "proven law." So, either gravity is not the whole explanation, and there are flaws in it that we don't understand--just as newtonian physics was incomplete until the theory of relativity came around.

So, what of tectonic plate movements. Scientists have proof for the theory of their slow and steady movement to account for all the mountains, valleys and other geographic features. Well, what about great and marvelous changes that took place upon the earth in 3nephi7-9, where valleys became mountains, and mountains leveled into valleys, cities sunken into the earth and the sea, and the "whole face of the earth" was changed in a matter of days if not hours? All these happened in a matter of days, not billions of years. What about mount Zerin that the brother of Jared moved in a matter of minutes if not seconds? --oh, those are just figurative stories. They can't be real because science has "proof" that things just can't happen like that.

The great underlying assumption of science: The conditions of the earth as we observe it now can be extrapolated both forward and backwards. In other words, if the tectonic plates currently move a few centimeters per year, then they have never moved faster or slower since "the beginning."

What about D&C 133, in referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ:

23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the aislands shall become one land;

24 And the aland of Jerusalem and the land of bZion shall be turned back into their own place, and the cearth shall be like as it was in the days before it was ddivided.

25 And the Lord, even the Savior, shall astand in the midst of his people, and shall breign over all flesh.

well, go ask your "scientist" buddies in whom you seem to place so much trust, and they'll tell you this is impossible! It would take the same billion number of years to reverse the effects of the last 4.5 billion years.

These same types of assumptions are what macroevolution are based upon: The first is dating. Science assumes that radioactive elements have always been the same level, more or less. They try to verify Carbon levels using tree rings, and microparticles in icecaps, but trees only go back so far, and microparticles in icecaps necesitates us to establish the current rate of ice creation, which again necesitates that we assume that the rate is constant over the last billion years. Mathmatics can calculate it, but the whole calculation is wholly dependent upon whether or not the underlying assumptions are true.

As for uranium dating, why don't you answer me this question: what is the basis for assuming that all the radioactive lead (206 and 207) is a decay product of Uranium (the assumption science makes in order to date our earth at 4.5 billion years)? Especially since that assumption would require the release of a proportionate number of helium atoms into the atmosphere (which if the earth really is 4,600 million yrs old as uranium dating estimates, then there should be 2800 times more helium in the atmosphere than what has been currently measured)? I consider that a "gaping hole" personally.

Going back to geological layers, another gaping hole--what is the basis for assuming that there is a constant rate of sedimentation over billions of years? Just for example, the Cretaceous period, is said to have lasted 65 million years, having a rock layer that is 15,000 meters thick, and an average annual sedimentation rate during this period 0.2 millimeters per year. In this same layer, however, there are also fossilized forests and large animals. With a constant sedimentation rate of 0.2 millimeters per year, it would be impossible for plants and animals to be fossilized at all. As such, why then do scientists assume constant sedimentation rates? Especially since there is no evidence of any life being fossilized currently using the "constant sedimentation" theory.

Why do scientists assume constant sedimentation rates, extrapolate current carbon14 levels backwards millions of years, and assume all lead 206/7 came from uranium? Because they must in order for it to fit their theory. Without such a long time frame with life living and dying on this earth, it wouldn't be logical or plausible to assume an evolutionary process. Oh wait, but "scientific theories are proven fact" (which is more or less what you're trying to say). I'm so dumb, I really need to learn what a theory is...

Have you ever considered that there really ARE false theories of men mixed with scripture that are very popular and widely accepted, which teach false and vain and foolish teachings which conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Why don't you name a few for me... I'll give you one: Macroevolution (go read the BD under "fall of Adam" and tell me macroevolution doesn't conflict with gospel teachings).

I'd like to hear how you've accounted for these holes. Merely overlooking them and saying that they do not exist is ignorant. Claiming that "scientists" have complicated answers for them which you don't understand, but you trust that they understand would be a great manifestation of your trust in the arm of flesh. I'm in the field, I understand the evidence, and there are no logical science based answers to account for the holes. The answer to such arguments is to merely point out something else and say "its our best guess." Now that, I have no problem with. Scientists can make educated guesses, and say its the best we've got right now. Thats fine, but the problem here is that you're claiming it isn't a guess, its a full fledged proven fact. And it is far far from that (completely setting aside the fact that inasmuch as science asserts that there was death upon the earth prior to the fall, it conflicts with the gospel).

Why don't you go read the book dude, check out the other side, and educate yourself a little bit. If you don't like milton, fine. But pick someone else on the other side of the aisle and read about it. I just picked milton for you b/c he's an athiest, and you said you don't like reading works of people who you assume have a religious agenda.

Oh, and just to sum something up you apparently missed in Bio 101: a hypothesis by definition cannot be proven true. You fail to prove it false, and thus it remains. The point of the scientific method is to make a statistical case to reject the null hypothesis, relying on probabilities that your results prove the hypothesis false, not true (the reason why low p values are good--means its a low probability that your null is true, not a high probability that your alternative hypothesis is true). Where did you get your scientific education? You seem so sure of yourself on this stuff.

[Redbeard]

Yay! A whole post to fix! lol

to Elphaba and Snow:

You guys need to think outside of the box a little more--you know, a little for yourself. You've cited "gravity" as your support for the soundness of scientific theory. Well, what of gravity? Do you believe that Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you believe that Moroni when he appeared to Joseph Smith was levatating above the ground? Well, but gravity is the "natural law," the "proven law." So, either gravity is not the whole explanation, and there are flaws in it that we don't understand--just as newtonian physics was incomplete until the theory of relativity came around.

So gravity doesn't really exist? How are you going to test that? The cool thing with science is anyone can test the theories. If you want to see whether or not gravity exists, you can personally go over to a cliff and drop an apple. Please report back here when the apple floats in mid air, or shoots towards the sky instead of falling towards the ground.

So, what of tectonic plate movements. Scientists have proof for the theory of their slow and steady movement to account for all the mountains, valleys and other geographic features. Well, what about great and marvelous changes that took place upon the earth in 3nephi7-9, where valleys became mountains, and mountains leveled into valleys, cities sunken into the earth and the sea, and the "whole face of the earth" was changed in a matter of days if not hours? All these happened in a matter of days, not billions of years. What about mount Zerin that the brother of Jared moved in a matter of minutes if not seconds? --oh, those are just figurative stories. They can't be real because science has "proof" that things just can't happen like that.

Um... maybe you should go check out geology again... yes the plates do move slowly, but on occasion they move very quickly... have you ever heard of an earthquake? Yeah, that's plates moving quickly. Cities falling into the oceans, or mountains drastically rising can all be explained through tectonic plates slipping. Please try again.

The great underlying assumption of science: The conditions of the earth as we observe it now can be extrapolated both forward and backwards. In other words, if the tectonic plates currently move a few centimeters per year, then they have never moved faster or slower since "the beginning."

Nope, we thoroughly believe that plates can slip and drastically change the face of the earth quickly.

What about D&C 133, in referring to the second coming of Jesus Christ:

23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the aislands shall become one land;

24 And the aland of Jerusalem and the land of bZion shall be turned back into their own place, and the cearth shall be like as it was in the days before it was ddivided.

25 And the Lord, even the Savior, shall astand in the midst of his people, and shall breign over all flesh.

well, go ask your "scientist" buddies in whom you seem to place so much trust, and they'll tell you this is impossible! It would take the same billion number of years to reverse the effects of the last 4.5 billion years.

Nope, still no problems... Have you even looked into plate tectonics? That's all part of the basic understanding, they usually move slowly, but have been recorded slipping (earthquakes) millions of times.

These same types of assumptions are what macroevolution are based upon: The first is dating. Science assumes that radioactive elements have always been the same level, more or less. They try to verify Carbon levels using tree rings, and microparticles in icecaps, but trees only go back so far, and microparticles in icecaps necesitates us to establish the current rate of ice creation, which again necesitates that we assume that the rate is constant over the last billion years. Mathmatics can calculate it, but the whole calculation is wholly dependent upon whether or not the underlying assumptions are true.

Nope, we have all types of evidence to prove macro evolution, please keep up on modern science as it is clear you are using dated material.

Please start here --> The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs

It will be very obnoxious for me to have to point out every falicy with the links on that page, so please do us all a favor and read up before you post again. Science has made HUGE leaps and bounds on the evolutionary scale in the last dozen years. As for macro evolution, let me link you directly:

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

As for uranium dating, why don't you answer me this question: what is the basis for assuming that all the radioactive lead (206 and 207) is a decay product of Uranium (the assumption science makes in order to date our earth at 4.5 billion years)? Especially since that assumption would require the release of a proportionate number of helium atoms into the atmosphere (which if the earth really is 4,600 million yrs old as uranium dating estimates, then there should be 2800 times more helium in the atmosphere than what has been currently measured)? I consider that a "gaping hole" personally.

Once again your information is extremely outdated, there is no argument in the scientific community as to the accuracy of our MULTIPLE dating methods. Please check your facts with CURRENT data prior to posting, once again, let me lead you a little:

The Talk.Origins Archive: The Age of the Earth FAQs

Or more specifically for you:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Isochron Dating

A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments

Seriously, your arguments date back to the early 1900s and have been debunked many many times.

Going back to geological layers, another gaping hole--what is the basis for assuming that there is a constant rate of sedimentation over billions of years? Just for example, the Cretaceous period, is said to have lasted 65 million years, having a rock layer that is 15,000 meters thick, and an average annual sedimentation rate during this period 0.2 millimeters per year. In this same layer, however, there are also fossilized forests and large animals. With a constant sedimentation rate of 0.2 millimeters per year, it would be impossible for plants and animals to be fossilized at all. As such, why then do scientists assume constant sedimentation rates? Especially since there is no evidence of any life being fossilized currently using the "constant sedimentation" theory.

Why do scientists assume constant sedimentation rates, extrapolate current carbon14 levels backwards millions of years, and assume all lead 206/7 came from uranium? Because they must in order for it to fit their theory. Without such a long time frame with life living and dying on this earth, it wouldn't be logical or plausible to assume an evolutionary process. Oh wait, but "scientific theories are proven fact" (which is more or less what you're trying to say). I'm so dumb, I really need to learn what a theory is... .

All of these arguments are answered on the links, please check your facts and return to discussion.

And really, you are trying to fit the facts to your beliefs... scientists are simply looking at the evidence and trying to figure out what they mean, meanwhile you look at the evidence to try and make it fit your young earth theory. Science is constantly improving, while your methods are trying to poke holes in theory to make your ideals work. That's not how real science is done. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Have you ever considered that there really ARE false theories of men mixed with scripture that are very popular and widely accepted, which teach false and vain and foolish teachings which conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ? Why don't you name a few for me... I'll give you one: Macroevolution (go read the BD under "fall of Adam" and tell me macroevolution doesn't conflict with gospel teachings).

I'm sorry, I'm fairly certain that the LDS church has come out and said specifically that they have no stance on evolution because it has no sway on the salvation of souls...

I'd like to hear how you've accounted for these holes. Merely overlooking them and saying that they do not exist is ignorant. Claiming that "scientists" have complicated answers for them which you don't understand, but you trust that they understand would be a great manifestation of your trust in the arm of flesh. I'm in the field, I understand the evidence, and there are no logical science based answers to account for the holes. The answer to such arguments is to merely point out something else and say "its our best guess." Now that, I have no problem with. Scientists can make educated guesses, and say its the best we've got right now. Thats fine, but the problem here is that you're claiming it isn't a guess, its a full fledged proven fact. And it is far far from that (completely setting aside the fact that inasmuch as science asserts that there was death upon the earth prior to the fall, it conflicts with the gospel).

All of your "holes" have been accounted for, and linked to research papers, and accepted by the scientific community. The burden of proof lies in your hands now, if you still believe you are correct please go through the website and show how all of the rebuttles to your claims are wrong. Please show your support (research papers by accredited groups). Otherwise you are just giving your opinion which does not prove anything wrong.

Why don't you go read the book dude, check out the other side, and educate yourself a little bit. If you don't like milton, fine. But pick someone else on the other side of the aisle and read about it. I just picked milton for you b/c he's an athiest, and you said you don't like reading works of people who you assume have a religious agenda.

I've researched both sides plenty. I've read both sides, and the young earth side tries to poke holes in the accepted side, and hopes that by doing so it will prove them right. Science does not work that way. Sorry. The young earth side also uses the same arguments that they have been using for well over 100 years, they have been refuted multiple times, but they just keep coming back worded differently. Your arguments are old... please stop using them.

Oh, and just to sum something up you apparently missed in Bio 101: a hypothesis by definition cannot be proven true. You fail to prove it false, and thus it remains. The point of the scientific method is to make a statistical case to reject the null hypothesis, relying on probabilities that your results prove the hypothesis false, not true (the reason why low p values are good--means its a low probability that your null is true, not a high probability that your alternative hypothesis is true). Where did you get your scientific education? You seem so sure of yourself on this stuff.

Wrong, a hypothesis is a precurser to a theory, a hypothesis can be changed to theory with enough evidence, and a theory can be changed to a law. Basic SCIENCE (not just biology) for you. Hypothesis first, than theory, than law, got it?

You should start here: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Make sure to click on all the nice little sublinks as well.

Any other questions feel free to ask.

[gwozz]

Yay! A whole post to fix! lol

So gravity doesn't really exist? How are you going to test that? The cool thing with science is anyone can test the theories. If you want to see whether or not gravity exists, you can personally go over to a cliff and drop an apple. Please report back here when the apple floats in mid air, or shoots towards the sky instead of falling towards the ground.

Um... maybe you should go check out geology again... yes the plates do move slowly, but on occasion they move very quickly... have you ever heard of an earthquake? Yeah, that's plates moving quickly. Cities falling into the oceans, or mountains drastically rising can all be explained through tectonic plates slipping. Please try again.

Nope, we thoroughly believe that plates can slip and drastically change the face of the earth quickly.

Nope, still no problems... Have you even looked into plate tectonics? That's all part of the basic understanding, they usually move slowly, but have been recorded slipping (earthquakes) millions of times.

Nope, we have all types of evidence to prove macro evolution, please keep up on modern science as it is clear you are using dated material.

Please start here --> The Talk.Origins Archive: Evolution FAQs

It will be very obnoxious for me to have to point out every falicy with the links on that page, so please do us all a favor and read up before you post again. Science has made HUGE leaps and bounds on the evolutionary scale in the last dozen years. As for macro evolution, let me link you directly:

Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent

Once again your information is extremely outdated, there is no argument in the scientific community as to the accuracy of our MULTIPLE dating methods. Please check your facts with CURRENT data prior to posting, once again, let me lead you a little:

The Talk.Origins Archive: The Age of the Earth FAQs

Or more specifically for you:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Isochron Dating

A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments

Seriously, your arguments date back to the early 1900s and have been debunked many many times.

All of these arguments are answered on the links, please check your facts and return to discussion.

And really, you are trying to fit the facts to your beliefs... scientists are simply looking at the evidence and trying to figure out what they mean, meanwhile you look at the evidence to try and make it fit your young earth theory. Science is constantly improving, while your methods are trying to poke holes in theory to make your ideals work. That's not how real science is done. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

I'm sorry, I'm fairly certain that the LDS church has come out and said specifically that they have no stance on evolution because it has no sway on the salvation of souls...

All of your "holes" have been accounted for, and linked to research papers, and accepted by the scientific community. The burden of proof lies in your hands now, if you still believe you are correct please go through the website and show how all of the rebuttles to your claims are wrong. Please show your support (research papers by accredited groups). Otherwise you are just giving your opinion which does not prove anything wrong.

I've researched both sides plenty. I've read both sides, and the young earth side tries to poke holes in the accepted side, and hopes that by doing so it will prove them right. Science does not work that way. Sorry. The young earth side also uses the same arguments that they have been using for well over 100 years, they have been refuted multiple times, but they just keep coming back worded differently. Your arguments are old... please stop using them.

Wrong, a hypothesis is a precurser to a theory, a hypothesis can be changed to theory with enough evidence, and a theory can be changed to a law. Basic SCIENCE (not just biology) for you. Hypothesis first, than theory, than law, got it?

You should start here: Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Make sure to click on all the nice little sublinks as well.

Any other questions feel free to ask.

Yikes. Is as if I'm talking to a wall pointing to a website. I went there, looked through the articles. Its nothing new that I haven't already read (well, at least I didn't see anything new, but in all honesty, didn't dig too deep as they're consistently the same arguments on both sides--unless you know of something new in the last 6 months, let me know.).

1--of course gravity is objectively proven. I was never claiming it wasn't, just that it is not complete, and there is much more involved of which we have no clue (ie how jesus could ascend with a body up to heaven). Do you agree or no?

2--I'm familiar with tectonic plate teachings. Reading the scriptures I cited in D&C and 3Nephi however, and the changes they describe, I do not believe the current explanation/understanding of tectonic plate movement (ie always relatively small movements--and those "slips" that causes earthquakes are still relatively small movements) can fully account for it. Do you agree or disagree?

You mentioned you have no problem with it, so does that mean you would have no problem believing that the rocky mountains could have been created in 30 minutes?

3--As for you referencing this online blog as your source (which I've looked at), why don't we do this. You seem to be so convinced that science has proved macroevolution, so why don't you tell me the 5 most convincing aspects of macroevolution to you, and we'll start there.

4--as for the scientific method, here is a quote from your wiki reference that highlights the point I was trying to get across: "Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[citation needed]) It doesn't seem like you believe this. Do you?

5--just to clarify, I'm not pushing for a "young earth." Who knows how long a creative "period" was. I don't think its relevant at all. What I do think is relevant is how long DEATH has been on the earth. This is where the gospel-science conflict exists. Not age of the earth (see Bible Dictionary "fall of Adam").

[Hemidakota]

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. by Albert Einstein Einstein quotes...good point.

[Redbeard]

Yikes. Is as if I'm talking to a wall pointing to a website. I went there, looked through the articles. Its nothing new that I haven't already read (well, at least I didn't see anything new, but in all honesty, didn't dig too deep as they're consistently the same arguments on both sides--unless you know of something new in the last 6 months, let me know.).

I just don't want to take credit for something I didn't write, not to mention copying and pasteing would take up WAAAAAYYYYY to much room. Everything that you have claimed so far (inaccuracies of dating methods etc...) has been refuted on that site. So unless you have a couter to that information it has is so far the most accurate info available.

1--of course gravity is objectively proven. I was never claiming it wasn't, just that it is not complete, and there is much more involved of which we have no clue (ie how jesus could ascend with a body up to heaven). Do you agree or no?

On a non-theistic scale I disagree, I will not get into arguing the bible, I'm disputing scientific information in this topic. If you want to talk about how jesus flew up you will have to do that with a member. Non-theists don't see the bible as literal, and so we have no reason to believe that jesus defied gravity, make sense?

2--I'm familiar with tectonic plate teachings. Reading the scriptures I cited in D&C and 3Nephi however, and the changes they describe, I do not believe the current explanation/understanding of tectonic plate movement (ie always relatively small movements--and those "slips" that causes earthquakes are still relatively small movements) can fully account for it. Do you agree or disagree?

You mentioned you have no problem with it, so does that mean you would have no problem believing that the rocky mountains could have been created in 30 minutes?

Disagree, we have seen massive slips of the plates which have caused massive geological change, for example, remember the Tsunamis of 2004? Look what happened in the ocean to cause that--

(From 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Tectonic plates

The earthquake was unusually large in geographical extent. An estimated 1,600 km (994 mi) of faultline slipped about 15 m (50 ft) along the subduction zone where the India Plate slides under the Burma Plate. The slip did not happen instantaneously but took place in two phases over a period of several minutes. Seismographic and acoustic data indicate that the first phase involved a rupture about 400 km (250 mi) long and 100 km (60 mi) wide, located 30 km (19 mi) beneath the sea bed—the longest rupture ever known to have been caused by an earthquake. The rupture proceeded at a speed of about 2.8 km/s (1.7 mi/s) or 10,000 km/h (6,300 mph), beginning off the coast of Aceh and proceeding north-westerly over a period of about 100 seconds. A pause of about another 100 seconds took place before the rupture continued northwards towards the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, the northern rupture occurred more slowly than in the south, at about 2.1 km/s (1.3 mi/s) or 7,600 km/h (4,700 mph), continuing north for another five minutes to a plate boundary where the fault changes from subduction to strike-slip (the two plates push past one another in opposite directions). This reduced the speed of the water displacement and so reducing the size of the tsunami that hit the northern part of the Indian Ocean.[9]

The India Plate is part of the great Indo-Australian Plate, which underlies the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal, and is drifting north-east at an average of 6 cm/year (2 inches per year). The India Plate meets the Burma Plate (which is considered a portion of the great Eurasian Plate) at the Sunda Trench. At this point the India Plate subducts beneath the Burma Plate, which carries the Nicobar Islands, the Andaman Islands and northern Sumatra. The India Plate slips deeper and deeper beneath the Burma Plate until the increasing temperature and pressure drive volatiles out of the subducting plate. These volatiles rise into the crust above and trigger melt which exits the earth's crust through volcanoes in the form of a volcanic arc. The volcanic activity that results as the Indo-Australian plate subducts the Eurasian plate has created the Sunda Arc.

As well as the sideways movement between the plates, the sea bed is estimated to have risen by several metres, displacing an estimated 30 km³ (7 cu mi) of water and triggering devastating tsunami waves. The waves did not originate from a point source, as was inaccurately depicted in some illustrations of their paths of travel, but rather radiated outwards along the entire 1,600 km (994 mi) length of the rupture (acting as a line source). This greatly increased the geographical area over which the waves were observed, reaching as far as Mexico, Chile and the Arctic. The raising of the sea bed significantly reduced the capacity of the Indian Ocean, producing a permanent rise in the global sea level by an estimated 0.1 mm.

That's one simple example of a massive change of the earth's crust.

As for the Rocky mountains, we know that they formed over a long period of time, please read the following link-

Geology of the Rocky Mountains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's extremely exciting to see how science can answer questions without having to hear someone say "we don't know how it happened, therefore god did it."

Another thing worth mentioning is that land can also be created by volcanic eruption, but that one should be self explanitory.

3--As for you referencing this online blog as your source (which I've looked at), why don't we do this. You seem to be so convinced that science has proved macroevolution, so why don't you tell me the 5 most convincing aspects of macroevolution to you, and we'll start there.

It's simply a collection of studies of modern evolution. Everything on the site is linked to proper works done by accredited scientists. You believe in micro evolution, I believe in micro evolution as well, the difference is, I believe micro evolution has been happening for billions of years (which is exactly what macro evolution is). Need some evidence?

First: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Second: Past History

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

Third: Opportunism and Evolutionary Constraint

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 3

Fourth: The Molecular Sequence Evidence

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

And Finally: Change and Mutability

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

4--as for the scientific method, here is a quote from your wiki reference that highlights the point I was trying to get across: "Note that this method can never absolutely verify (prove the truth of) 2. It can only falsify 2.[7] (This is what Einstein meant when he said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."[citation needed]) It doesn't seem like you believe this. Do you?

Wow... they were talking about one of many methods of doing research, did you not read the part that says (directly from your quote) "Note that this method..." You may want to go back and finish the ENTIRE page...

BTW, Einstien was a theoretical physicist, not a biologist, they are two completely different areas of science and they have completely different methods of discovery.

5--just to clarify, I'm not pushing for a "young earth." Who knows how long a creative "period" was. I don't think its relevant at all. What I do think is relevant is how long DEATH has been on the earth. This is where the gospel-science conflict exists. Not age of the earth (see Bible Dictionary "fall of Adam").

That's fine, I appologize if I took you out of context, I assumed and we all know what happens when somebody assumes

Please note that I will only be debating science in this thread, I will leave up the thiestic arguments to other members. So I will not respond to the "fall of man" argument when death happened etc etc, I hope you understand.

[Elphaba]

to Elphaba and Snow:

Never thought I'd see THAT!

Do you believe that Jesus ascended into heaven? Do you believe that Moroni when he appeared to Joseph Smith was levatating above the ground?

No, I don't. I am an ex-member.

I'm in the field,

You can keep saying that, but that dog is never going to move.

Elphaba

[gwozz]

Never thought I'd see THAT!

No, I don't. I am an ex-member.

You can keep saying that, but that dog is never going to move.

Elphaba

So why are you on this site and even in this dicussion? If you don't believe in the church, isn't this all a waste of time for you? Or are you trying to open the minds of us believers to realize the error of our ways?

[Redbeard]

So why are you on this site and even in this dicussion? If you don't believe in the church, isn't this all a waste of time for you? Or are you trying to open the minds of us believers to realize the error of our ways?

I know this wasn't directed to me, but it does apply to me as well...

Are we not allowed to be here? Should we not promote free thinking?

I personally am here to talk with LDS people. I figured since it is an LDS board I would be able to talk to LDS people about LDS topics. I commented on this specific thread because there was incorrect information that needed clarified.

I am a former member of the LDS church.

I do not put out any information about my beliefs unless specifically asked, and when I do so it is always through PM's.

I feel I have been extremely polite to the members and their beliefs in the short time I have been here and I look forward to continuing the conversations.

[Elphaba]

So why are you on this site and even in this dicussion? If you don't believe in the church, isn't this all a waste of time for you? Or are you trying to open the minds of us believers to realize the error of our ways?

Yes. No. Yes. Yes. No.

Elphaba

[gwozz]

Well, I assumed that those with whom I was conversing were LDS as well. I'm not saying you shouldn't be here, but I don't really see the point from your perspective if you have no interest in the church. obviously you can do what you choose. Hopefully you're very respectful and considerate of those beliefs which differ from your own, and you don't fall into the "leave the church but can't leave it alone" category.

Knowing that you have absolutely no belief in the church, that definately changes the approach I would have taken concerning this whole macroevolution thing. I simply don't believe it, but I recognize that my paradigm stems largely from my religious convictions. There are too many anomalous findings which cannot be accounted for within the theroy of macroevolution (read "fobidden archaeology," along with the other 2 authors I've cited--all the references are in there, just like your references are within a webpage).

Look, if I didn't believe in the religious tennets of my faith, then I'm sure I'd have no issue with macroevolution. I'd still recognize that there are some weaknesses which exist, but it does give a logical rational for life on the earth, assuming that God does not exist. If you fail to recognize the weaknesses of the theory, along with the strengths (which are largely in the microevolution category IMHO), then you're shooting yourself in the foot if your goal is really to understand the "truth." I recognize that evolution is a logical rational to explain many of the scientific observations that exist.

The reason I began to question the issue, was because I believe this church is true, that God speaks to men called prophets, and that the prophets teach the truth. I also believe that truth is obtained using science. As such, true religion and true science will harmonize perfectly and completely. misunderstood religion will conflict with true science, and misunderstood science will conflict with true religion. I have come to understand truths from God, which are true, not because man told me, but because God told me. Standing upon that ground (that there was no death upon the earth before the fall), I reanalyzed all the scientific observations with that assumption, and I feel there is another logical and reasonable explanation to account for the scientific observations made. Does science "prove" my theory true? Absolutely not. Does science "prove" macroevolutionary theory true? Absolutely not. The nature of macroevolutionary evidence makes it impossible to control for bias and make objective measurements in the same way microevolutionary principles are tested. I see there is nothing to be gained from continuing to have the same arguments, when we stand upon different assumptions which we will never leave--me: that there was no death before the fall. You: that the story of Adam, his creation, fall, and being the patriarch of the human family is not true.

I've had meany long discussions which have lasted months with pro-macroevolutionists, and I'm not interested in hacking out the same arguments over and over again. I thought you were a member of the church who believed the scriptures, and as such I engaged. To conclude my posts on this with the two of you, I'm going to make a post to the third party reader, which is truly not intended as an insult to you, but you may take offense to it, and I hope that you do not.

[Finrock]

That's an patently false and absurd claim. I TRULY believe in the LDS faith and I believe that evolution best describes the possible origin of the species. Utah produces more scientists per capita than any other state in the nation. It's not a coincidence that the majority of the population is LDS. Mormons are attracted to science because it is a disciple that seeks after truth. Think those scientist don't accept evolution? Think again. Think educated and rational Mormon don't accept evolution? Think again.

The great thing about being Mormon is that you don't have to believe anything that isn't true. One may accept logic and science if it describes reality better than dogma. The ONLY reason to reject evolution is dogma - not revealed truth, but dogma.

Good evening Snow!

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and opinions. We may not be in any disagreement because the position being argued has at least two folds, and you may just be arguing the one and not the other. But, there is the question of evolution and the question of the origin of man. On the general theory of evolution, the Church has no official stance. However, on the origin of man, there is, without a doubt, an official and binding declaration. Someone already posted an excerpt from what is actually titled "The Origin of Man", which is a doctrinal statement from the First Presidency in 1909. I will quote that excerpt again and would point out to pay particular attention to the second paragraph. It reads:

"Adam, our progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a "living soul." The doctrine of the pre-existence,-revealed so plainly, particularly in latter days, pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin. It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality. It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh, and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father" (Source).

Now, my goal is simply to clarify that there is an official and doctrinally binding stance for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when it comes to the origin of man. Evolution is a broad subject matter covering adaptation to one's environment to crossing over to abiogenesis. One can reject one portion of evolution without rejecting the whole theory and based upon revealed truth, there are portions of evolution that we, as members of Christ's true church, ought to reject, namely any explanation that would suggest that Adam evolved from any "lower orders of the animal creation."

Regards,

Finrock

[gwozz]

TO THE THIRD-PARTY READERS OF THIS EVOLUTIONARY BLOG:

DOES OUR CHURCH SUPPORT EVOLUTIONARY TEACHINGS? NO. DO THEY TEACH ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC? NO. BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION. I HAVE BEEN BUTTING HEADS WITH SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNING EVOLUTION, AND THEY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE MAY BE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO EVOLUTION INASMUCH AS IT INVOLVES GOD, CLAIMING THAT "SCIENCE" HAS "PROVED" EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE. SUCH IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUE. IT IS TRUE THAT A MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS SUBSCRIBE TO IT, BUT MACROEVOLUTION IS NOT A PROVEN FACT, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF MANKIND.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A BOOK CONCERNING IT: READ "SHATTERING THE MYTHS OF DARWINISM" BY RICHARD MILTON. ITS AN EASY READ, WRITTEN BY AN ATHEIST, AND HE IS WILLING TO OPENLY AND HONESTLY TALK ABOUT WHAT IS PROVEN VS WHAT IS BUILT MORE ON WISHFUL THINKING AND ASSUMPTION.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A BOOK WHICH LISTS ANOMALOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS WHICH DEFY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, READ "FORBIDDEN ARCHAEOLOGY" BY CREMO AND THOMPSON.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY EXPLAINING WHERE MAN REALLY CAME FROM, READ "THE ORIGIN OF MAN" (First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26). IT CAN BE FOUND ON LDS.ORG

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ WHAT BOYD K PACKER HAS TO SAY ABOUT EVOLUTION AND THE GOSPEL, READ "THE LAW AND THE LIGHT," WHICH CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://moleff.com/church/TheLawandtheLight.pdf

ALSO, ALLOW ME TO MAKE WHAT WILL BE A VERY CONTROVERSIAL OBSERVATION: THESE INDIVIDUALS WITH WHOM I HAVE BEEN BUTTING HEADS ON THIS ISSUE ON THIS SITE ALSO HAPPEN TO HAVE LEFT THE CHURCH. I KNOW THERE ARE A GOOD MANY PEOPLE WITHIN OUR CHURCH WHO BELIEVE IN THEISTIC EVOLUTION (AS PACKER TALKS ABOUT), BUT THERE ARE SOME EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES AS TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS WHICH REFUTE WHAT HAS BEEN TAUGHT IN THE SCRIPTURES (SEE MY PRIOR POST FOR A FEW EXAMPLES). IF YOU WATCH THE NEW MOVIE "EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED," YOU WILL LISTEN TO THE MOST FAMOUS AND INTELLIGENT PRO-EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS OPENLY DECLARE THAT YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN GOD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ACCEPT THE "TRUTHS" OF SCIENCE. THIS IS THE END ROAD OF A BELIEF IN MACROEVOLUTION, ACCORDING TO THE STAUNCHEST ADVOCATES OF EVOLUTION. SCIENCE MAKES CONCLUSIONS BUILT UPON ASSUMPTIONS WHICH REFUTE GOSPEL TRUTHS. IF YOU CHANGE THE ASSUMPTION TO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T REFUTE THE GOSPEL, THEN ALL THE SUDDEN SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS SUPPORT THE GOSPEL. READ THE BOOKS AND ARTICLES I'VE LISTED, AND STUDY THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF. DO NOT PLACE BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE WITHOUT EVALUATING AND PRAYING ABOUT IT FOR YOURSELF!

AND IF YOU WANT TO READ BOOKS EXPLAINING WHAT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE, READ: THE BIBLE DICTIONARY UNDER "FALL OF ADAM" AND "FLESH"; "THE ORIGIN OF MAN" AS PREVIOUSLY CITED; "MAN, HIS ORIGIN AND DESTINY" BY JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH; "DOCTRINES OF SALVATION" VOLUME 1 BY THE SAME AUTHOR, AND "MORMON DOCTRINE" UNDER THE HEADING "EVOLUTION"; IN THESE LOCATIONS, YOU WILL FIND ALL THE SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES AND EXPLANATIONS WHICH TEACH CONCERNING THE ORIGIN OF MAN, THE CREATION, THE FALL, AND THE ATONEMENT.

FURTHER, CONCERNING JAMES E TALMAGE AND BH ROBERT'S WRITINGS, THEY DID NOT SUBSCRIBE TO EVOLUTION, AND THEIR WRITINGS NEVER DECLARE A BELIEF IN IT--AND IN JAMES E TALMAGE'S MUCH CITED TALK ENTITLED "THE EARTH AND MAN," HE MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE BODY OF MAN DID NOT COME THROUGH AN EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS.

WITH THAT SAID, I'M DONE HERE IN THIS FORUM. ITS BEEN FUN, AND I HOPE NONE TAKE OFFENSE TO MY WORDS. BUT I ALSO KNOW MANY WILL DISAGREE WITH ME. I AM DECLARING MY PERSONAL BELIEFS.

I'VE BEEN FRANK CONCERNING MY BELIEFS, BUT THATS BECAUSE I'M DONE HERE DEBATING THIS ISSUE. THANKS.

[Elphaba]

TO THE THIRD-PARTY READERS OF THIS EVOLUTIONARY BLOG. DOES OUR CHURCH SUPPORT EVOLUTIONARY TEACHINGS? NO. DO THEY TEACH ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC? NO. BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO MAKE AN OBSERVATION. I HAVE BEEN BUTTING HEADS WITH SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS CONCERNING EVOLUTION, AND THEY REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT THERE MAY BE AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION TO EVOLUTION INASMUCH AS IT INVOLVES GOD, CLAIMING THAT "SCIENCE" HAS "PROVED" EVOLUTION TO BE TRUE. SUCH IS ABSOLUTELY NO TRUE. IT IS TRUE THAT A MAJORITY OF SCIENTISTS SUBSCRIBE TO IT, BUT MACROEVOLUTION IS NOT A PROVEN FACT.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A BOOK CONCERNING IT: READ "SHATTERING THE MYTHS OF DARWINISM" BY RICHARD MILTON. ITS AN EASY READ, WRITTEN BY AN ATHEIST.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A BOOK WHICH LISTS ANOMALOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDINGS WHICH DEFY THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, READ "FORBIDDEN ARCHAEOLOGY" BY CREMO AND THOMPSON.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ A STATEMENT BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY EXPLAINING WHERE MAN REALLY CAME FROM, READ "THE ORIGIN OF MAN" (First Presidency, “The Origin of Man,” Ensign, Feb 2002, 26). IT CAN BE FOUND ON LDS.ORG

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ WHAT BOYD K PACKER HAS TO SAY ABOUT EVOLUTION AND THE GOSPEL, READ "THE LAW AND THE LIGHT," WHICH CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://moleff.com/church/TheLawandtheLight.pdf

ALSO, ALLOW ME TO MAKE WHAT WILL BE A VERY CONTROVERSIAL OBSERVATION: THESE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE THE STAUNCH ADVOCATES FOR EVOLUTION ON THIS SITE ALSO HAPPEN TO HAVE LEFT THE CHURCH. I KNOW THERE ARE A GOOD MANY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN THEISTIC EVOLUTION (AS PACKER TALKS ABOUT), BUT SOME EVOLUTIONARY PRINCIPLES AS TAUGHT IN OUR SCHOOLS REFUTE WHAT HAS BEEN TAUGHT IN THE SCRIPTURES (SEE MY PRIOR POST FOR SOME EXAMPLES). IF YOU WATCH THE NEW MOVIE "EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED," YOU WILL LISTEN TO THE MOST FAMOUS AND INTELLIGENT PRO-EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS OPENLY DECLARE THAT YOU CANNOT BELIEVE IN GOD AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ACCEPT THE "TRUTHS" OF SCIENCE. THIS IS THE END ROAD OF A BELIEF IN MACROEVOLUTION, ACCORDING TO THE STAUNCHEST ADVOCATES OF EVOLUTION. SCIENCE MAKES CONCLUSIONS BUILT UPON ASSUMPTIONS WHICH REFUTE GOSPEL TRUTHS. IF YOU CHANGE THE ASSUMPTION TO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T REFUTE THE GOSPEL, THEN ALL THE SUDDEN SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS SUPPORT THE GOSPEL. READ THE BOOKS AND ARTICLES I'VE LISTED, AND STUDY THIS OUT FOR YOURSELF. DO NOT PLACE BLIND FAITH IN SCIENCE WITHOUT EVALUATING AND PRAYING ABOUT IT FOR YOURSELF!

WITH THAT SAID, I'M DONE HERE IN THIS FORUM.

Was it something I said?

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

You are polite and I do welcome you here.

[Hemidakota]

I know this wasn't directed to me, but it does apply to me as well...

Are we not allowed to be here? Should we not promote free thinking?

I personally am here to talk with LDS people. I figured since it is an LDS board I would be able to talk to LDS people about LDS topics. I commented on this specific thread because there was incorrect information that needed clarified.

I am a former member of the LDS church.

I do not put out any information about my beliefs unless specifically asked, and when I do so it is always through PM's.

I feel I have been extremely polite to the members and their beliefs in the short time I have been here and I look forward to continuing the conversations.

You are polite and I do welcome you here.

[HiJolly]

TO THE THIRD-PARTY READERS OF THIS EVOLUTIONARY BLOG:

DOES OUR CHURCH SUPPORT EVOLUTIONARY TEACHINGS? NO. DO THEY TEACH ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY RHETORIC? NO. WITH THAT SAID, I'M DONE HERE IN THIS FORUM. ITS BEEN FUN, AND I HOPE NONE TAKE OFFENSE TO MY WORDS. BUT I ALSO KNOW MANY WILL DISAGREE WITH ME. I AM DECLARING MY PERSONAL BELIEFS.

I'VE BEEN FRANK CONCERNING MY BELIEFS, BUT THATS BECAUSE I'M DONE HERE DEBATING THIS ISSUE. THANKS.

What a terribly annoying last post, gwozz.

Actually, the answer to that first question is "yes". BYU is supported by the Church, and has taught evolution as fact for decades. And for good reason, as it is a true principle. Perhaps not EVERYTHING surrounding evolutionary theory is true (ref. Richard Dawkins' thoughts), but the core theory certainly is.

The only difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, is time and perspective.

I grew up believing that evolution was a tool of the devil, to get us to accept our 'animal' urges and thereby sin freely, without guilt. Now that I understand the science of evolution better, I feel badly for so many Saints that have trusted in the few Church leaders that have propagated that view. It is not true.

We still have one living Prophet, Seer & Revelator that has taught publicly that evolution and atonement are mutually exclusive and irreconcilable. He gave a talk to that effect at BYU once, and it took several months for the University to print that talk. When they did, there as a big disclaimer on it, stating that is was Elder (now President) Packer's opinion and was not the opinion of the Church.

I wish the same was published in the beginning of Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith's terrible book "Man, His Origin and Destiny". Since it wasn't, there has been generations of LDS who believed that this was the Church's view on evolution. As far as the origin of man goes, I certainly agree with the First Presidency's declaration - God is the origin of Man.

I guess the devil's in the details...

HiJolly