Doctrine regaurding evolution?

[aliasgeorge]

*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 I believe you'll find most arguments against carbon dating are extremely outdated, carbon dating is still used to this day and though it is not PERFECT, it is still incredibly accurate as long as the proper conditions are met (which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...

"to be learned is good if they hearken unto the ccounsels of God." 2 Ne. 9: 29 Thus, to be learned is NOT GOOD if we DON"T hearken unto the counsels of God.

2 Ne. 2: 22

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

BD Death

Two kinds of death are spoken of in the scriptures. One is the death of the body, which is caused by the separation of the body from the spirit; i.e., “The body without the spirit is dead” (James 2: 26). The other is spiritual death, which is to die as pertaining to, or to be separated from,righteousness - to be alienated from the things of God (Alma 12: 16, 32; Alma 40: 26). Both of these deaths were introduced into the world by the fall of Adam. But death is also the consequence of our own sins. We make our own spiritual death by our works, our thoughts, and our actions. As Paul said, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6: 23), and some are “dead” while they “liveth” (1 Tim. 5: 6).

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2: 22; Moses 6: 48).

BD Fall of Adam

The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14: 16-17).

The fall was no surprise to the Lord. It was a necessary step in the progress of man, and provisions for a Savior had been made even before the fall had occurred. Jesus Christ came to atone for the fall of Adam and also for man’s individual sins.

[Redbeard]

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.

Actually you are 100% correct, radio carbon dating is only accurate to ~60,000 years. Geologists use other dating methods for dating farther than that. Please take your time, it is a TON of info, but it's linked directly to research papers, so it's better supported than any other site out there. If you have questions in the meantime please feel free to PM me and I'll be more than happy to look something up for you! Thank you for your willingness to research the other side, I've spent plenty of time on answering genesis myself .

Anyway, hope your head doesn't really explode! :) And happy researching in the meantime.

[Redbeard]

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.

Please post a link to that story, as I've never heard of it before. Also, radio carbon dating is specifically for organic matter, so dating rocks would be rediculous. Radiocarbon dating wasn't considered extremely accurate until after we learned how to calibrate (1970's if memory serves). Radiocarbon dating is not the only form of dating available. Most geologists use multiple dating methods when dating an object. Please visit talk origins on the many links I've provided for detailed information on how they all work, as well as the remarks that counter new earth creationist idea's that they are flawed, all linked to research papers.

BTW, did you mean "The earth is alot OLDER than the sun..." Not trying to ridicule, I just want to make sure of what you were saying before I commented.

I've heard of the LDS theory that the earth was created from a bunch of "chunks" of rock all slapped together, but we have a clear understanding of the crust of the planet, and no matter where we drill on the earth we come up with the exact same info. So that's going to have to be one of those "faith" arguments that I'm not touching.

Side note- I didn't think that the "earth from chunks" theory was actual LDS doctrine?

[Redbeard]

"to be learned is good if they hearken unto the ccounsels of God." 2 Ne. 9: 29 Thus, to be learned is NOT GOOD if we DON"T hearken unto the counsels of God.

2 Ne. 2: 22

22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

BD Death

Two kinds of death are spoken of in the scriptures. One is the death of the body, which is caused by the separation of the body from the spirit; i.e., “The body without the spirit is dead” (James 2: 26). The other is spiritual death, which is to die as pertaining to, or to be separated from,righteousness - to be alienated from the things of God (Alma 12: 16, 32; Alma 40: 26). Both of these deaths were introduced into the world by the fall of Adam. But death is also the consequence of our own sins. We make our own spiritual death by our works, our thoughts, and our actions. As Paul said, “The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6: 23), and some are “dead” while they “liveth” (1 Tim. 5: 6).

Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth for any forms of life before the fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the fall (2 Ne. 2: 22; Moses 6: 48).

BD Fall of Adam

The process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2, 3, 4; and Moses 3, 4. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the “forbidden fruit,” Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life. Adam became the “first flesh” upon the earth (Moses 3: 7), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14: 16-17).

The fall was no surprise to the Lord. It was a necessary step in the progress of man, and provisions for a Savior had been made even before the fall had occurred. Jesus Christ came to atone for the fall of Adam and also for man’s individual sins.

Meh, that is your opinion from your faith, which is fine, but please note that I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God or the Book of Mormon, so quoting scripture to me is like me stating "Those who don't believe everything scientists state unwaveringly will burn in hell" It would be silly for you to take that to heart as you do not have those beliefs. Make sense? (note: I don't really believe the above example, just throwing it out there to explain the situation)

I try to not touch the theistic side to the conversations, I try to stick to non-theist supported information as much as possible, not to try anyone's faith but to clear up misinformation that is fairly common on these types of debates.

Also, please add a personal note to your posts, I've read the BOM and KJV Bible plenty, so I don't really need quotes

[Snow]

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.

Can we get a link to that story? I like to see the whole thing in context.

Can you tell us why we should believe you, an anonymous poster on the internet about the reliability of carbon dating instead of, say, The National Academy of Sciences or major universities and the scientific community?

[Traveler]

Can we get a link to that story? I like to see the whole thing in context.

Can you tell us why we should believe you, an anonymous poster on the internet about the reliability of carbon dating instead of, say, The National Academy of Sciences or major universities and the scientific community?

Good point Snow - I know a university that claimed to have initiated cold fusion. For those that think just because a university has claimed to have done something that it must have merit – you may send me what ever money you have and I will invest it in the cold fusion – and you can join the thousands of others that were beguiled by the titles of a prestigious university. I will guarantee that within a week I will return 1,000 times what other investors in cold fusion were awarded as a return because of a prestigious university. But keep in mind that 1,000 times Zero is still Zero.

Anyone see the headlines that carbon dating is proven invalid? There ought to at least be a mag at the suppermarket check out. We all know that universities never "doctor" or "cook" their data.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Good point Snow - I know a university that claimed to have initiated cold fusion. For those that think just because a university has claimed to have done something that it must have merit – you may send me what ever money you have and I will invest it in the cold fusion – and you can join the thousands of others that were beguiled by the titles of a prestigious university. I will guarantee that within a week I will return 1,000 times what other investors in cold fusion were awarded as a return because of a prestigious university. But keep in mind that 1,000 times Zero is still Zero.

Anyone see the headlines that carbon dating is proven invalid? There ought to at least be a mag at the suppermarket check out. We all know that universities never "doctor" or "cook" their data.

The Traveler

I think you are misstating the actual incident.

That was the University of Utah and the UofU did not claim to have initiated cold fusion. Two professors had been researching cold fusion and thought they were on to something and decided to go public with their preliminary findings. Interesting, Steve Jones - the BYU professor that recently left or was asked to leave BYU over his controversial conspiratorial views on 9-11 - was also working on cold fusion and was aware of the two UofU professor's (Ponds and Fleisher) work and advised them not to go public until after they had submitted their work for peer review - at Nature as I recall. Ponds and Fleisher ignored the sound advice and went public, created a public frenzy and after the experiments could not be replicated, disappeared, with some shame back, in anonymity.

As it turn out, some in the scientific community still think there is merit in cold fusion and the work begun by Ponds and Fleisher and research, although much quieter, continues on it.

On the other hand, carbon dating has been peer reviewed and validated again and again and again and again.

Those are two non-analogous cases.

[manxman]

for what it's worth, I've read the whole thread, but not the references. IMO, just because it's not specificaly exluded, 'Death coming into the world' might refer to death for just mankind being delayed, whilst the animal and floral kingdoms are likely to have had death for some time. Like many, I do not subscribe to a 24hr day for the creational periods, but consider it possible, rather than fact, that they were much longer. The debate has been interesting, but since it has little to do with the salvation of men, from God there is little specific scriptural information. All this speculation and postulation is interesting, but also a distraction tp the core truths of the Fall and the Attonement. All else is either an appendage or speculation, or wrong, and neither of the last 2 matter at this time. Nice to know, but unnecessary to our salvation, and if over-indulged in, an hindrance to the same. It is our individual salvation that matters, and that comes only though obedience to the laws of God and faith in Christ as our redeemer. We do this best when we understand who and what we are to believe in properly. The fullness of that knowledge now available come only in the doctrines of the LDS church. The power to make that knowledge effective in our lives comes through the restored Priesthood, without which there is no true church on the earth, and the power of God is not known among men. I tend to deal in few absolutes, and am a moderate in my own eyes on many subjects, but I cannot compromise with what absolute truths I have. Where it's a maybe, or a possible, I'm willing to give place til I know better, but where I know, there is no room for compromise. The scriputres are true, and say thatAdam was the first man. Then why not say if anything was before, then it was not a "man". It was something else. the difference-I don't know, but not an unreasonable position IMO. Macroevolution-I worry when pple start crossing animal, fish and plant genes-I think it unwise-the basic premise, even with it's known few execeptions, that hybrids don't reproduce-seems to generally exclude such an idea-but I'm open to new thinking. The Temple indicates such too.

[Hemidakota]

Link the story.

Side note- I didn't think that the "earth from chunks" theory was actual LDS doctrine?

After four times linking this same story, I wonder people ever carry a thumb drive to gather those links or article? Sad part, for one person, ask for it twice. I will stop after that since it holds no relevance in that person’s life.

It was a journal entry that Elder B.H, Roberts captured from Joseph Smith's paper collection. I wouldn't be surprise on these new releases there is not greater detail seeing his seership and while translating didn't motivate him to look further into the past.

Any creational knowledge beyond what is written is not canonized or considered doctrine. Alot of Joseph writings are not canonized or considered to this very day - doctrine.

You have two choices, 1] wait for the next seer to be called to translate the sealed portion of the plates, or 2] seek the information on what is already given from JS and expand upon that with prayer and guidance via the Spirit.

[Hemidakota]

Can we get a link to that story? I like to see the whole thing in context.

Can you tell us why we should believe you, an anonymous poster on the internet about the reliability of carbon dating instead of, say, The National Academy of Sciences or major universities and the scientific community?

Good point Snow. However, not everyone in that community is favorable to Radio Carbon dating accuracy.

It was referenced in "Science and Mormonism", Melvin A. Cook & M. Garfield Cook, 1968, Desert Books. The picture is in there also.

[aliasgeorge]

Meh, that is your opinion from your faith, which is fine, but please note that I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God or the Book of Mormon, so quoting scripture to me is like me stating "Those who don't believe everything scientists state unwaveringly will burn in hell" It would be silly for you to take that to heart as you do not have those beliefs. Make sense? (note: I don't really believe the above example, just throwing it out there to explain the situation)

I try to not touch the theistic side to the conversations, I try to stick to non-theist supported information as much as possible, not to try anyone's faith but to clear up misinformation that is fairly common on these types of debates.

Also, please add a personal note to your posts, I've read the BOM and KJV Bible plenty, so I don't really need quotes

I guess I have a question about this thread then. Aren't we concerned about the church doctrine concerning evolution? If you discredit any and all arguments which have religious aspects, then you're completely ignoring the paradigm of the individuals of the church, and also hindering the progress of the forum? My opinion obviously, but you want arguments not using LDS scriptures, when you're in an LDS forum? I mean seriously? You sound like you're in the wrong place if you want discussion without the gospel truths of God.

If you're ignorning the paradigm by which the LDS see the science, then you'll obviously discount and discredit the conclusion. I think it was Kuhn wrote a whole book on this, terming "paradigm shift" and how different scientific conclusions are draw based upon looking at the observations from a different paradigm.

[aliasgeorge]

Can we get a link to that story? I like to see the whole thing in context.

Can you tell us why we should believe you, an anonymous poster on the internet about the reliability of carbon dating instead of, say, The National Academy of Sciences or major universities and the scientific community?

I'll put my trust in God personally, when man's declarations do not align with scientific teachings. Thats why I'm a mormon. I mean a 14 year old with gold plates which God took back to heaven without a trace? Why don't you prove that one with your science. I'll pick God every time. And carbon dating is only reliable as far out as tree rings go IMHO.

[Hemidakota]

Good point....

[Justice]

I haven't scoured this thread, so I don't know if someone already made this point.

The thing with discussions about evolution, is that most people think that if the earth went through some sort of evolution process that Adam must have been part of that evolution.

So, in order to clarify one certain part of evolution we must consider that Adam was the first offspring of God that lived in a physical body on earth, and he did not evolve.

Whatever else you want to include in an evolution discussion is fair game.

[Redbeard]

I guess I have a question about this thread then. Aren't we concerned about the church doctrine concerning evolution? If you discredit any and all arguments which have religious aspects, then you're completely ignoring the paradigm of the individuals of the church, and also hindering the progress of the forum? My opinion obviously, but you want arguments not using LDS scriptures, when you're in an LDS forum? I mean seriously? You sound like you're in the wrong place if you want discussion without the gospel truths of God.

Good question, I choose to be on this board because I generally enjoy LDS people. If you look over all my posts I have chosen to not take part in the theological debates that go on. I usually stick with unbiased backed up information to correct old or flase statements that are prevelent in these types of discussions. And if you re-read exactly what I wrote, I told him that it was silly to quote those scriptures TO ME because of my lack of belief. I fully understand that members will use those quotes on each other, and I do not object to it because it's not my place. Do you have a problem with me being here? Have I offended you in any way?

If you're ignorning the paradigm by which the LDS see the science, then you'll obviously discount and discredit the conclusion. I think it was Kuhn wrote a whole book on this, terming "paradigm shift" and how different scientific conclusions are draw based upon looking at the observations from a different paradigm.

That is fantastic. And my opinions only differ from how SOME LDS people see evolution and the creation. Most LDS people that I know fully accept evolution and that the earth is around 4 billion years old. So with my friends and family we reach the same conclusion, we simply have 2 different ideas of how it started .

[Redbeard]

I haven't scoured this thread, so I don't know if someone already made this point.

The thing with discussions about evolution, is that most people think that if the earth went through some sort of evolution process that Adam must have been part of that evolution.

So, in order to clarify one certain part of evolution we must consider that Adam was the first offspring of God that lived in a physical body on earth, and he did not evolve.

Whatever else you want to include in an evolution discussion is fair game.

*Honest question* Does the LDS church teach a literal belief of the entire bible? Haven't been to Sunday School in a few years...

[Guest tomk]

I haven't scoured this thread, so I don't know if someone already made this point.

The thing with discussions about evolution, is that most people think that if the earth went through some sort of evolution process that Adam must have been part of that evolution.

So, in order to clarify one certain part of evolution we must consider that Adam was the first offspring of God that lived in a physical body on earth, and he did not evolve.

Whatever else you want to include in an evolution discussion is fair game.

Justice:

Are you suggesting the following sequence:

1) Creation of Earth

2) Evolution

3) End of Evolution

4) Adam and Eve

5) Fall

[Justice]

I don't know what I'm suggesting, I just know that God's offspring did not evolve. I read something that put it very well by a professor at BYU. It's lengthy, but I'll post it next for those who want to read it. It says exactly what I feel but could not put in words.

In any case, I saw the question earlier in this thread, "Did Adam have a belly button?"

To anyone who believes in the restored Gospel and has learned the truth about Heavenly Mother, the only answer can be YES!

[Justice]

This is one of the many wonderful articles I came across at BYU - Brigham Young University Home

I will bold the statements I found most interesting.

Viewpoint: Evolution and Faith: Finding Middle Ground

Quite a few editorialists attacked both the argument and writer who spoke his views concerning evolution as a scientific truth. The ignorance of the writer was asserted, while by contrast the respondents implied their own scientific enlightenment.

I myself have wrestled much with reconciling scientific postulation concerning evolution with my faith's account of creation "in the image of God" and also the doctrine of the Fall-that Adam and Eve fell from a celestial condition to a carnal condition, making a redemption necessary-as well as other scriptures and settings that hint at the nature of our existence prior to the Fall. Evolution describes an ascendance to grace, not a fall from grace. Hence, many perceive a tension between evolution and their faith and the need for Atonement and redemption in an evolutionary account.

Additionally, I myself have inquired and know of no scientific/empirical evidence to-date that demonstrates evolution in action. While natural selection is an indisputable scientific observation, evolution incorporates but extends well beyond natural selection. Evolution postulates (1) that there are naturally occurring variations holding adaptive advantage and leading to the natural selection of these qualities by the mechanism of genetic survival; and (2) in addition to that, there are random mutations-not intelligent design-that upon a creature incredible advances in form and function, such as lungs on a fish, or wings on (what will be) a bird.

What remains a mystery - in theory and in empirical observation - is how such complexity could actually develop. Natural selection operates generation by generation, mutation by mutation; it does not wait upon the final culmination of evolutionary advances. Thus, lungs or wings, for example, cannot have arisen all at once as the byproduct of a single mutation in a single generation, selected because of the survival advantage bestowed. (Not to even mention how instinct distinctive to that advantage would be "learned" in one generation.) The complexity of a wing, developed in consequence of purely random processes, would take thousands of generations. One must wonder, too, how all the various complex parts of a wing or lung would develop by mutation alone in so wonderfully cooperative tandem.

Hence, one can readily suppose the incremental mutations would for thousands of generations of a species proven no adaptive advantage at all, and perhaps a disadvantage. How then do the natural mechanisms of the physical world "know" to select and preserve these incremental and interrelated adaptations, the accumulation of which over hundreds of thousands of years will ultimately become a wing, or a lung, or so forth?

We need to recognize that science's reach for parsimony has come to include a preference for naturalistic explanations that deny or ignore the existence of a higher power, divine design and intelligent creation. I have a difficult time comprehending a naturalistic evolution without the careful hand of an intelligent creator guiding development; and the theory of evolution set forth by science is clearly a naturalistic theory - it does not resort to God.

Even assuming an intelligent creator, though, I still struggle with reconciling evolution with the doctrine of Creation and the Fall as presented in my faith. It is not an easy thing to reconcile science and faith, and we should be reluctant to attack or destroy the faith of another. Such vehement attacks on one of our own faith lead me to wonder what measure of tolerance we would extend to those of other faiths.

Irrespective of the truth of the matter of evolution, the inability of any of the writers responding to the evolution letter to dispassionately and charitably educate and correct the views of someone they think in the wrong is cause for concern, and the greater disappointment concerning one's education at BYU. We live in a pluralistic society characterized by unbelievable diversity of faith, philosophy and bases of knowledge - e.g. faith, science, reasoning, tradition, experience and authority - and hence our civil discourse and Christian charity are undoubtedly the most important representations of a superior education. Just something to consider.

Mark Butler is a professor at BYU.

[aliasgeorge]

I don't know what I'm suggesting, I just know that God's offspring did not evolve. I read something that put it very well by a professor at BYU. It's lengthy, but I'll post it next for those who want to read it. It says exactly what I feel but could not put in words.

In any case, I saw the question earlier in this thread, "Did Adam have a belly button?"

To anyone who believes in the restored Gospel and has learned the truth about Heavenly Mother, the only answer can be YES!

AMEN!

[aliasgeorge]

Good question, I choose to be on this board because I generally enjoy LDS people. If you look over all my posts I have chosen to not take part in the theological debates that go on. I usually stick with unbiased backed up information to correct old or flase statements that are prevelent in these types of discussions. And if you re-read exactly what I wrote, I told him that it was silly to quote those scriptures TO ME because of my lack of belief. I fully understand that members will use those quotes on each other, and I do not object to it because it's not my place. Do you have a problem with me being here? Have I offended you in any way?

That is fantastic. And my opinions only differ from how SOME LDS people see evolution and the creation. Most LDS people that I know fully accept evolution and that the earth is around 4 billion years old. So with my friends and family we reach the same conclusion, we simply have 2 different ideas of how it started .

Redbeard, no you haven't offended me. And you can do whatever you want. I don't want to get into it with you, as you're set in your views and I in mine, and thats fine. However, I fully recognize the bias which I possess--that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true, and that which conflicts with it is in error. I recognize the bias, and I accept it. I do, however, have the capacity and ability to see and understand the viewpoint of those who do not possess my beliefs. While I think they are wrong, I understand their rational and the "why."

All I have to say beyond that is, that if you think that your references and links that you post are completely "unbiased" as you call it, then you are blind indeed. Beleive what you want, and teach what you want, but to say your info has no bias is absurd. It is IMPOSSIBLE to remove bias when interpreting the evidence that science points to for macroevolution. The only way to remove bias is to test it and observe it in a lab, removing all variables but one, and testing it, and observe it. Can you do that with fossils? NO. Can you do it to establish what carbon levels were at when the fossilized life died (essential to calculate the death date)? NO. It is impossible to remove bias. Do they tell a nice story to account for the observations? Yes. But is far far far from an unbiased account. I know you beleive it. I know you think science has proven it. Well, thats fine. Believe it. But have the courage to see it from another's viewpoint and recognize the bias and assumptions you and all your science buddies had to accept in order to make the conclusions. If your incapable of doing that, and reanalyzing your evidence from the paradigm of the gospel, then your posts are pointless in this forum IMHO. Just as my posts to you using scripture are pointless to you as you mentioned. Well, why should you write from my paradigm, and not me from yours? because this is LDS.NET and the forum section is "LDS Gospel Discussion" and the subsection "Doctrine regaurding evolution." The whole website is to talk from the paradigm that the church is true. Not that its false, and then battle ideas concerning conclusions, when we're standing on different assumptions. The problem with you is that you fail to recognize you're own assumptions, thus you're deceived into believing you're "unbiased," when in actuality you're far from it IMHO. I hope I'm not coming across too harshly. I'm not angry or anything, just speaking my mind (which can come across over the top sometimes, so I apologize if I've been rude. its not intentional.)

[Snow]

I'll put my trust in God personally, when man's declarations do not align with scientific teachings. Thats why I'm a mormon. I mean a 14 year old with gold plates which God took back to heaven without a trace? Why don't you prove that one with your science. I'll pick God every time. And carbon dating is only reliable as far out as tree rings go IMHO.

But since God has never offered an opinion on 1. The age of the earth, 2. modern evolutionary synthesis, or 3. the validity of carbon dating, that trust doesn't do you a lick of good if you want to understand any of them.

[aliasgeorge]

But since God has never offered an opinion on 1. The age of the earth, 2. modern evolutionary synthesis, or 3. the validity of carbon dating, that trust doesn't do you a lick of good if you want to understand any of them.

I understand perfectly what the theories of men are. But I think they conflict with the gospel. Lets do this, go read the Bible dictionary under "fall of adam" or "death" or "flesh" and get back to me on whether or not there is a theological problem...

[Snow]

I understand perfectly what the theories of men are. But I think they conflict with the gospel. Lets do this, go read the Bible dictionary under "fall of adam" or "death" or "flesh" and get back to me on whether or not there is a theological problem...

Unless God wrote the bible dictionary, what it says is not terribly important on the matter.

You can say that the age of the earth or evolution conflict with the gospel but that is hardly the same thing as it ACTUALLY conflicting or you demonstrating that it conflicts.

At any rate, we don't have to guess about 1, 2, or 3. All are solid and reliable scientific theories for which there is more than ample evidence.

[Justice]

Unless God wrote the bible dictionary, what it says is not terribly important on the matter.

Technically, the only scripture God ever "wrote" was the Law given to Moses. All other scripture was written by His prophets and apostles. The Bible dictionary was written by His prophets and apostles also. I see no difference.

If you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and you question the veracity of the Bible dictionary, I think there is reason for concern. Especially if that concern includes believing science and theory over God and His prophets.