Doctrine regaurding evolution?

[Hemidakota]

After we learned all we can from both Science and Theological views, what should be done if one is obedience and has the FAITH, HOPE, and knows how to properly communicate with the Godhead, just ask...keep asking until it is answered. Then the truths are made manifested.

[Redbeard]

You are polite and I do welcome you here.

Well I certainly appreciate that :)

[Moksha]

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.

HiJolly

Excellent point. Such disclaimers seem of great importance, considering some members tendencies to take up such speculations and extend it with their own. For some Church dogma, speculation built upon speculation is quite harmless, but on an issue like evolution, it makes us look peculiar and foolish.

:)

[Justice]

The evolution taught at BYU does NOT teach that man had part in the process.

Evolution can happen all around, or as a result of a creation, or as a result of a divinely inspired process. But, no person who believes in the Bible should think man evolved from apes. The easiest thing to do, yet seems to be so difficult, is to separate man from evolution.

Just read Genesis. Either you believe it or you don't. There's no need getting angry or upset about it.

[HiJolly]

The evolution taught at BYU does NOT teach that man had part in the process.

Would you mind please providing some evidence that demonstrates the reliability of your statement? Thanks.

Evolution can happen all around, or as a result of a creation, or as a result of a divinely inspired process. But, no person who believes in the Bible should think man evolved from apes.

That's right. And no self-respecting, capable scientist believes man comes from apes, either. Seriously. We all know that apes and man are contemporary evolutionary branches, and therefore one cannot come from the other.

I know many faithful, bible-believing LDS (myself among them) that most certainly do believe our mortal tabernacles were provided, at least in part, by god's marvelous vehicle of organic evolution. The evidence of DNA is only one of thousands of evidences to this truth.

The easiest thing to do, yet seems to be so difficult, is to separate man from evolution.

Just read Genesis. Either you believe it or you don't. There's no need getting angry or upset about it.

Who's angry? Not I - I am filled with wonder and joy at our Heavenly Father's goodness and faithfulness. I believe Genesis. I believe evolution. I even believe in the BoM. It's wonderful.

HiJolly

[Snow]

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

My remarks go toward evolution. God is the creator and originator of man.

Adam may have been the first "man" but was obviously not the first hominid.

[Snow]

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.

Before wasting your time, you ought to know what you're reading.

"Review of Richard Milton: The Facts of Life: Shattering the myth of Darwinism. Published in New Statesman, (London), 28th August 1992.

Every day I get letters, in capitals and obsessively underlined if not actually in green ink, from flat-earthers, young-earthers, perpetual-motion merchants, astrologers and other harmless fruitcakes. The only difference here is that Richard Milton managed to get his stuff published. The publisher - we don’t know how many decent publishers turned it down first - is called ‘Fourth Estate.’ Not a house that I had heard of, but apparently neither a vanity press nor a fundamentalist front. So, what are ‘Fourth Estate’ playing at? Would they publish - for this book is approximately as silly - a claim that the Romans never existed and the Latin language is a cunning Victorian fabrication to keep schoolmasters employed?

A cynic might note that there is a paying public out there, hungry for simple religious certitude, who will lap up anything with a subtitle like ‘Shattering the Myth of Darwinism.’ If the author pretends not to be religious himself, so much the better, for he can then be exhibited as an unbiased witness. There is - no doubt about it - a fast buck to be made by any publishers unscrupulous enough to print pseudoscience that they know is rubbish but for which there is a market."

and

"Richard Milton's defense of "alternative" science provides examples of nearly every logical fallacy and psychological foible that hinder us from being fair and accurate in our assessment of scientific and paranormal claims." Internet Bunk: Richard Milton's Alternative Science

and

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

etc

etc

etc

[Snow]

Was it something I said?

Elphaba

I think it was the way you rolled your eyes.

[LuckOfTheIrish]

I believe in evolution. You can see it on a microscopic level in our own bodies when a strain of bacteria changes to resist a medication. What I struggle with is how dinosaurs fit in with the age of the earth. Carbon dating lists them as millions of years old, while most Christian religions see the Earth as only several thousand years old.

[Hemidakota]

Would you mind please providing some evidence that demonstrates the reliability of your statement? Thanks.

That's right. And no self-respecting, capable scientist believes man comes from apes, either. Seriously. We all know that apes and man are contemporary evolutionary branches, and therefore one cannot come from the other.

I know many faithful, bible-believing LDS (myself among them) that most certainly do believe our mortal tabernacles were provided, at least in part, by god's marvelous vehicle of organic evolution. The evidence of DNA is only one of thousands of evidences to this truth.

Who's angry? Not I - I am filled with wonder and joy at our Heavenly Father's goodness and faithfulness. I believe Genesis. I believe evolution. I even believe in the BoM. It's wonderful.

HiJolly

Your answer lies within the Genesis story [how short of narrative observation Moses wrote] and Abraham's observation of the same on the first man and why. I am not referring to our creation either. We know how that happen.

This is subject I found many Saints do not have a full comprehension.

[Hemidakota]

I believe in evolution. You can see it on a microscopic level in our own bodies when a strain of bacteria changes to resist a medication. What I struggle with is how dinosaurs fit in with the age of the earth. Carbon dating lists them as millions of years old, while most Christian religions see the Earth as only several thousand years old.

That is due to our claimed academia papers hold more weight than asking GOD HIMSELF for the truth.

This earth was fashioned from multi-fragmented old earths that failed in creation prior to what Moses revealed.

[HiJolly]

Your answer lies within the Genesis story [how short of narrative observation Moses wrote] and Abraham's observation of the same on the first man and why. I am not referring to our creation either. We know how that happen.

Are you saying that they use the books of Genesis and Abraham in studying biology, at the 'Y'? How else could your comment describe the answer to my question? (the question was, where's the evidence that at BYU the discussion and teaching of evolution doesn't involve man)

I guess I don't understand what you are saying.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

This earth was fashioned from multi-fragmented old earths that failed in creation prior to what Moses revealed.

Do you have a scripture on that one? The only thing I know of is in the temple, where we are told that all things are created from "matter unorganized". This fits with what we know in physics, that our sun and all the surrounding planets are a result of 2, maybe more generations of suns, as they have gone nova.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

I believe in evolution. You can see it on a microscopic level in our own bodies when a strain of bacteria changes to resist a medication. What I struggle with is how dinosaurs fit in with the age of the earth. Carbon dating lists them as millions of years old, while most Christian religions see the Earth as only several thousand years old.

Not just carbon dating, but all sorts of methods are used.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

Do you have a scripture on that one? The only thing I know of is in the temple, where we are told that all things are created from "matter unorganized". This fits with what we know in physics, that our sun and all the surrounding planets are a result of 2, maybe more generations of suns, as they have gone nova.

HiJolly

Joseph Smith is the person who mentioned it and at this point, I would give concrete stance that his word holds greater weight than any known scholar unless you can prove that scholar has the ability as a seer.

Temple is nothing more than a TYPE and not to be construed as literal..

[Hemidakota]

Are you saying that they use the books of Genesis and Abraham in studying biology, at the 'Y'? How else could your comment describe the answer to my question? (the question was, where's the evidence that at BYU the discussion and teaching of evolution doesn't involve man)

I guess I don't understand what you are saying.

HiJolly

Simple pointing you in the better direction in seeking the truth vice what is presented by academics.

Jolly, you have the same privilidge in seeing [sEERSHIP] the past. This is key to understanding what really happened since you have the field of study answers to compare notes. You will see why Joseph Smith was quite on this subject or perahps, the scenerary being observed while few others who knew it were somewhat outspoken on this subject [President Young].

Now, I would contend that Evolution has nothing to do with the creaiton of MAN.

[HiJolly]

Temple is nothing more than a TYPE and not to be construed as literal..

Holy cow, Hemi, you're gonna give me a heart attack!

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

In the other thread [Adam and Eve], my own method of articulating this subject is not clear at times. My own admitted weakness. Others may see it as the creation of man and this earth only. Yes and no. For me, it is more about hidden message of the procreation [First Man]. I personally believe, we will found our answer written in the sealed portionof the plates Jolly.

[Hemidakota]

Not just carbon dating, but all sorts of methods are used.

HiJolly

Agreed...radioactive time clocks are also used. However, nothing to do with our own creation. My own personal beliefs, animals adapt to the world and GOD's progeny [man] doesn't. The world will adapt to GOD's progeny since they are eternal. From here, we can see in every world, myriads of different looking creatures. Something that John seen [book of Revelations]. Abraham saw the same in a non-canonized scroll that Professor Nibley poinited out as he was shown the universe and worlds without end.

[Elphaba]

Not just carbon dating, but all sorts of methods are used.

HiJolly

Hi Hi,

Thank you for your considerate and informational posts. The more I read some of the reasons others have for not believing scientists, the more I am dismayed.

Some posters seem to think the science behind discoveries, such as the age of the earth, is conducted by a handful of scientists with only substandard measurement tools, who also have an agenda to prove God is not real, and who claim the earth is 4.5 billion years old because a scientist had a hunch it was so.

I do not think people who argue against scientific discoveries understand there are thousands of astromers, physicists, geologists, mathmeticians, stratigraphers (sp?), and many other scientists who pool their data and then extrapolate the age of the earth based on that data.

I appreciate the perspective your posts bring to the thread.

Elphaba

[Moksha]

Not just carbon dating, but all sorts of methods are used.

HiJolly

Has anyone here tried dating a carp. They look prehistoric, but like Benjamin Franklin would say, "they are ever so grateful".

Sorry, what were we talking about?

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I'm just going to say carbon-dating is invalid and false. There are other forms of dating but carbon-dating is invalid and false.

[Redbeard]

I'm just going to say carbon-dating is invalid and false. There are other forms of dating but carbon-dating is invalid and false.

*Headsmack*

Have you visited the TalkOrigins site yet? I believe you'll find most arguments against carbon dating are extremely outdated, carbon dating is still used to this day and though it is not PERFECT, it is still incredibly accurate as long as the proper conditions are met (which scientists use when dating objects). Please post your questions if you have read the site and still don't understand, I will be happy to find answers for you if you choose not to yourself. Here is the site: Browse the Talk.Origins Archive If that one is too biased for you (linking to scientific studies and what not) I have other sources available as well. The ONLY people arguing the validity of carbon dating are young earth creationists who obviously have an agenda they are trying to prove. In the rest of the scientific community there is no argument as to the validity of carbon dating. Please check your facts.

Once again:

Browse the Talk.Origins Archive

More info (including calibration techniques):

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Howstuffworks "How Carbon-14 Dating Works"

The method

radiocarbon WEB-info

Dating Exhibit

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating

Carbon 14 Dating - Worked Chemistry Problems

This one even has pretty movies:

Radiocarbon Dating

Where do I find counter arguments?

Christian Answers Network (ChristianAnswers.Net): Multilingual answers, reviews, ministry resources, and more! [Home]

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

Contender Ministries Apologetics, News, Forums, and Information for Christian Contenders

The Young Earth Creation Club

Hmm... Those look like major accredited research groups to me...

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Hi redbeard. I wish I had one:D

I stand by what I said. Carbon-dating is invalid. We cannot time outside the range of data.

"...it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old." -the how stuff works website

That does not explain the millions and billions of years of "evidence."

I'll tell you, I hate chemistry because it fries my brain:combust:. I study it and can understand it. It just takes so much energy. Give me some time to recharge because I cannot type what I want here. Every time I do the wrong thing comes out. I'll post sometime tomorrow.

And no I haven't read the talkorigins website yet. I just haven't had time and kinda felt overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of info there. I don't have anything against it. It appeared to be a direct website that would give the truth. Of which makes me happy to read.

[Hemidakota]

Not only it is invalid, there was a University that buried a piece of wood back in the mid 1900s to see Carbon dating accurancy. Later, they redug up the wood a decade later, and ran the Carbon dating, what was revealed was completely erreounous [thousands of years vice ten years]. This was one thing that I did noticed in Cooks brother earlier book; along with a picture of a 90-foot petrified tree standing upright in the Grand Cayon wall. So much for aging the Grand Cayon...

Radioactive datings of the rocks is just as bad when we simply don't know what earths were mixed in this last creation, knowing the last one failed during the animal creation [Joseph Smith the Seer]. The Earth is alot order than the Sun [reading Genesis] and noting this earth was not created here at all. Trying to calculate obitals as to years is unknown since this earth was not created here in the first place and will again be moved when Celestialized.