Doctrine regaurding evolution?

[Hemidakota]

Don't read into my posting as such claims. It is quite the oposite of what Darwinians claim. You know and I know what JS believed in.

[Elphaba]

The age of the earth, and how long death has been on the earth are two separate issues. The age of the earth doesn't matter all that much doctrinally speaking. But you must realize, that it is impossible to definitively "prove" the age of the earth in science. The conclusion is based upon unprovable assumptions that they have made.

No they are not. They are based on mathematics. And the only way the mathematics works is when all of the elements I mentioned above are measured, analyzed and pulled together with the work of other scientists working on a different element of the earth.

For example, some scientists study the effect of meteors on the planet; others study the geographical history of the earth's rocks, which were formed during the formation of the earth, and tell the story of how the earth was formed.

Additionally, lunar samples, unavailable to scientists prior to 1969, confirm the earth's age as 4.55 billion years ago.

It is simply wrong to say there is no way to measure these things. There are.

If you want to put your faith in scientific assumptions, go for it. I have no problem with a 4.5 billion yr old earth personally, but I recognize that its not proven, so I take it with a grain of salt. I personally will trust Abraham's account over any scientific conclusion based upon assumptions.

The age of the earth has been proven, and I will trust the scientists, thousands of them, who agree with this.

Elphaba

[Snow]

The age of the earth has been proven, and I will trust the scientists, thousands of them, who agree with this.

Elphaba

Correct. The age of the earth, like evolution is accepted as both fact and solidly valid theory. That the age of the earth is 4+ billion years old and that evolution is correct is no longer questioned in the scientific community. Both the age of the earth and evolution are subject to refinement, but not dismissal.

[japacific]

Who here believes that this earth was created by getting pieces from other earths and sticking them together, and also uses that for their theory for dinosaur bones too. That is the theory that my father subscribes too - that the the creatures lived on another planet and that their skeletons were kept intact when God made this world from the old worlds.

I subscribe to the theory that the bones are here because they used to live here, and just that the world is alot older than the bible teaches.

[WANDERER]

I've never heard of it...honestly.

[japacific]

What's your take on the dinosaurs?

[WANDERER]

No that the earth is stuck together from bits and pieces that happened to have dinosaur bones in it....*?*

[japacific]

Well that's a relief

[gwozz]

No they are not. They are based on mathematics. And the only way the mathematics works is when all of the elements I mentioned above are measured, analyzed and pulled together with the work of other scientists working on a different element of the earth.

For example, some scientists study the effect of meteors on the planet; others study the geographical history of the earth's rocks, which were formed during the formation of the earth, and tell the story of how the earth was formed.

Additionally, lunar samples, unavailable to scientists prior to 1969, confirm the earth's age as 4.55 billion years ago.

It is simply wrong to say there is no way to measure these things. There are.

The age of the earth has been proven, and I will trust the scientists, thousands of them, who agree with this.

Elphaba

You're giving scientists way too much credit. The observations are valid and true, because you can objectively test and measure the levels in a laboratory revomoving bias. Extrapolating data back to "the beginning" requires that assumptions be made about rates of change, and calculations are therefore based upon the assumptions. Again, I don't oppose an old earth; But if you cannot recognize that it is not a proven fact, but rather a theory based on assumptions, then you have placed your faith in the arm of flesh. You're giving science way too much credit.

As for macroevolution (ie monkey to man), its in the same box. Again, extrapolating data necesitates that we make assumptions in order to come to conclusions. If you change the underlying assumption, and reanalyze the scientific observations within a different paradigm, you'll get a different answer. Despite what your science professor may say, macroevolution is far from fact, and very much a theory (and one which has massive holes in it--and if you're ignorant as to what they are, I would hold off on forming a strong opinion until you fully research it out. May I recommend "shattering the myths of darwinism" by Milton for just one suggestion.)

[gwozz]

Who here believes that this earth was created by getting pieces from other earths and sticking them together, and also uses that for their theory for dinosaur bones too. That is the theory that my father subscribes too - that the the creatures lived on another planet and that their skeletons were kept intact when God made this world from the old worlds.

I subscribe to the theory that the bones are here because they used to live here, and just that the world is alot older than the bible teaches.

Hog wash it what I think personally, but whatever.

[HiJolly]

Who here believes that this earth was created by getting pieces from other earths and sticking them together, and also uses that for their theory for dinosaur bones too. That is the theory that my father subscribes too - that the the creatures lived on another planet and that their skeletons were kept intact when God made this world from the old worlds.

I subscribe to the theory that the bones are here because they used to live here, and just that the world is alot older than the bible teaches.

I agree. And as far as 'pieces of other earths" goes, that theory was popularized by a wonderful saint name of Cleon Skousen in his book "The First 2,000 Years". He was a wonderful man, but didn't understand science very well, alas. Still, I think we can validate his statement if we totally reject his assumptions concerning it and say that what it really means is that the matter in our solar system is the result of at least two successive novas, and in that sense, the material of this earth DID indeed come from other earths. Sort of.

HiJolly

[Snow]

As for macroevolution (ie monkey to man), its in the same box. Again, extrapolating data necesitates that we make assumptions in order to come to conclusions. If you change the underlying assumption, and reanalyze the scientific observations within a different paradigm, you'll get a different answer. Despite what your science professor may say, macroevolution is far from fact, and very much a theory (and one which has massive holes in it--and if you're ignorant as to what they are, I would hold off on forming a strong opinion until you fully research it out. May I recommend "shattering the myths of darwinism" by Milton for just one suggestion.)[bold added by Snow]

Well - according to anonymous posters on the internet, it is far from a fact; but according to The National Academies of Sciences - you know, the scientists - it is both theory and fact.

Personally, I take my science from science, not dogma.

[Elphaba]

Who here believes that this earth was created by getting pieces from other earths and sticking them together, and also uses that for their theory for dinosaur bones too. That is the theory that my father subscribes too - that the the creatures lived on another planet and that their skeletons were kept intact when God made this world from the old worlds.

My grandmother also believed this. Additionally, she believed the dinosaurs were put in the earth so their decaying carcasses would provide our modern world with oil.

I'd heard the same thing from someone at Church as well, or perhaps from family. Nevertheless, when she said it I thought it was true.

Years later, in a geology course, the instructor killed that myth right away, and explained how dinosaurs have nothing to do with oil. Grandma was gone before could let her know. But I probably wouldn't have anyway, as it would have served no purpose. She held her beliefs very dear.

Elphaba

[Guest Xzain]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'd like to comment that the tenor of revealed religion is that it doesn't attempt to explain, in scientific terms, how Heavenly Father set into motion the physical processes that led to the creation of the world. In many realms, including exactly how Heavenly Father made the bodies of men, we are not told anything more than the absolute basics that may or may not be partly or largely analagous.

To assume that science disproves Christianity (I don't know if anyone here thinks that) is assume that apples exist, so oranges cannot. It makes no sense to a clearly thinking person- religion is to teach us our purpose in life (the 'why' of life) and science helps tell us how the universe works (the 'how' of life). I believe theologians and even LDS authorities have offered opinions about how God scientifically made the world, but I know of absolutely none that we accept as canonical.

[gwozz]

Well - according to anonymous posters on the internet, it is far from a fact; but according to The National Academies of Sciences - you know, the scientists - it is both theory and fact.

Personally, I take my science from science, not dogma.

Well, do you know what is fact vs theory, and how something becomes a "fact" versus a theory? In short: Microevolution--those aspects which can be objectively tested and measured removing bias=fact. This invovles genetic mutations, individual variability, etc.

Macroevolution, ie fish to monkey to man--theory.

Science will say that you can extrapolate micro to macro, but that is a theory. And no one has demonstrated macro in a lab. Many have tried, but once an animal gets "mutated" or bred in one direction or another, there is a barrier whereupon it becomes sterile.

Don't place your faith in macroevolution. Its not fact, and there are many objective findings that don't go along with it. You should study it from both sides--scientists who are biased for it, and those who are biased against it. Without studying both sides, and evaluating for youself, you'll be blindly following "dogma" as you call it.

[Elphaba]

Well, do you know what is fact vs theory, and how something becomes a "fact" versus a theory? In short: Microevolution--those aspects which can be objectively tested and measured removing bias=fact. This invovles genetic mutations, individual variability, etc.

Macroevolution, ie fish to monkey to man--theory.

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

[Justice]

I think all this boils down to is a misunderstanding, or maybe not a complete understanding, of Genesis 1 and 2. When I read Genesis 1 and 2 I see the earth (dry land) and the firmament (heavens) being created in this location from existing matter and over 6 periods of time.

The 2 most obvious questions are:

1) If God willed everything into existence, why didn't he will it already completed?

2) If God willed everything into existence, why did it take Him 6 days or time periods to do it?

No, I think a careful study of the creation shows that matter was here when God "moved" here, and that it happened over a period of time. If you want more, look in a different thread about Adam and Eve. I posted some thoughts there about how to read the creation. If someone wants more specific guidance I'd be glad to give it in a thread called "Creation" or something.

But, it must be the Spirit that teaches these truths. Nothing I can say or do will really make you know that God used existing matter and it happened over a period of time (6 to be exact). I would never try to convince you, just give you the scriptures and ideas that I learned from and let you reach your own conclusion.

And, by the way, you learn more in the temple that can be applied to your understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 also.

[Snow]

Well, do you know what is fact vs theory, and how something becomes a "fact" versus a theory? In short: Microevolution--those aspects which can be objectively tested and measured removing bias=fact. This invovles genetic mutations, individual variability, etc.

Macroevolution, ie fish to monkey to man--theory.

Science will say that you can extrapolate micro to macro, but that is a theory. And no one has demonstrated macro in a lab. Many have tried, but once an animal gets "mutated" or bred in one direction or another, there is a barrier whereupon it becomes sterile.

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

Don't place your faith in macroevolution. Its not fact, and there are many objective findings that don't go along with it. You should study it from both sides--scientists who are biased for it, and those who are biased against it. Without studying both sides, and evaluating for youself, you'll be blindly following "dogma" as you call it.

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.

[gwozz]

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.

An athiest, Richard Milton, wrote a book that you need to read: "shattering the myths of darwinism." There are a host of scientists within the community, which do not subscribe to evolutionary theory. They are silent on the matter in the literature, however, because history has taught us that vocal anti-evolutionist scientists lose funding, some have lost jobs, and they tend to have a hard time finding new ones. They're labeled as quacks, and their ideas and teachings suppressed. Haven't you watched Ben Stein's new documentary about the suppression of ideas within the community? ("expelled, no intelligence allowed") Why do you think I am on these annonymous forums talking about it rather than publishing it papers and books? Well, I want to keep my job at the pompous university I work for, and I don't want the label that every scientist who questions the tennets of God-less evolution. One of these days when I feel more secure, I'll use my name recognition to hopefully break the iron grip this macroevolutionary theory and abiogenesis have upon the colleges in america. There are outrageously large holes in the theory, and the scientists just wave their hands over, claiming "its complicated" or "everything else works out, so we KNOW it must be true." Those who are ignorant to what is going on within the scientific community need to expand their paradigm, and not believe everything that your professor tells you. Go read and explore and think for yourself! Don't beleive the opinions of old godless men who will declare to till their dying breath that God has nothing to do with creation! These are the men that are the main force behind the suppression. How? Because they are the "giants" in the field, they are the ones which perform the majority of reviews for peer reviewed journals, and they sit on the grant-funding committees! Science should not fear new ideas, they should test them, not seek to suppress them! Go read about this issue! Read the books written by the "quacks" as your science professors will call them. If they're "quacks," then you have nothing to fear. Go read Melvin A Cook's books and publications on this issue--one of the most renown scientists in the world 25 years ago, who at the end of his career spoke strongly against the scientific "evidence" for macroevolution. Expand your paradigm, study the issue, the science, and the gospel, and you will find that macroevolution sits upon a throne of assumptions...or guesses if you prefer. If you change those underlying assumptions, and then reanalyze the scientific observations, everything changes. This is called a paradigm shift, as defined by Kuhn. I recommend you step out of your paradigm, analyze it in a new light, and then compare the two paradigms. If you can't see it from both sides, then you are blind and ignorant to the truth.

[Elphaba]

Why do you think I am on these annonymous forums talking about it rather than publishing it papers and books? Well, I want to keep my job at the pompous university I work for, and I don't want the label that every scientist who questions the tennets of God-less evolution. One of these days when I feel more secure, I'll use my name recognition to hopefully break the iron grip this macroevolutionary theory and abiogenesis have upon the colleges in america.

How are you going to do that?

You are not a scientist. So why would anyone believe you over a scientists who has been in the field all their lives?

Go read and read Melvin A Cook's books and publications on this issue--one of the most renown scientists in the world 25 years ago, who at the end of his career spoke strongly against the scientific "evidence" for macroevolution.

It is true Cook was a renowned scientist, but in the world of explosives, not biology.

His books were self-published; thus, no one was given the chance to objectively edit them or peer review them. Obviously, the books are his opinion, and nothing else.

You ask us to look at "both" sides, yet you have not done the same.

You don't know what a "theory" is. You bring up "Expelled," which has ruined Stein's credibility among scientists. And now you promote a book about evolution written by an explosives expert.

The above speaks for itself.

Elphaba

[gwozz]

How are you going to do that?

You are not a scientist. So why would anyone believe you over a scientists who has been in the field all their lives?

It is true Cook was a renowned scientist, but in the world of explosives, not biology.

His books were self-published; thus, no one was given the chance to objectively edit them or peer review them. Obviously, the books are his opinion, and nothing else.

You ask us to look at "both" sides, yet you have not done the same.

You don't know what a "theory" is. You bring up "Expelled," which has ruined Stein's credibility among scientists. And now you promote a book about evolution written by an explosives expert.

The above speaks for itself.

Elphaba

Cook's book focuses on radioactive decay and dating methods. Not the biological basis for evolution. And he is very qualified to speak concerning radioactive decay. I know I'm not going to convince you here in this forum. And yes--I have looked at the other side, as I use to be a macroevolutionary sympathizer. And the fact that you recognize that expelled has "ruined Stein's credibility among scientists," and that you would deem me not a real scientist because privately I do not subscribe to macroevolution is telling, wouldn't you think? Those who don't go along with the dogma, and question it get labeled "nuts" and are outcast by the field. You should watch ben stein's movie. It doesn't push Intelligent Design, he just inverviews renown people on both sides of the aisle. Personally, I didn't seriously question the teachings I got in highschool, college, and my master's program; 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. Don't be so closed to turn off anything that questions the tennets of macroevolution. IMHO, those who rage against the ID folk, label them and outcast them, tend to be the same individuals who declare unflinchingly that God is not, and science proves it so. Most scientists just stay out of the debate, and privately beleive in God. I'm not ignorant--I'm in the field and know the people. It sounds as though I'm the first person to ever present you with a rational as to why macroevolution isn't a fact. Read about it. there are gaping holes in the theory which get overlooked, and many of the underlying assumptions used are more wishful thinking rather than fact.

And before you discount Cook's and Miltons, and any other scientist's writings, don't you think you should read them for yourself, rather than read a critique online? Seems logical to me.

[Redbeard]

Growing up in the LDS church the only thing I was EVER taught was that the church had no official position on evolution, because it had nothing to do with salvation. I personally know people in the church that fully accept evolution, and that fully reject evolution. That is my only say in the LDS vs. Evolution thing, but I feel a few other things need clarifed (non-religious).

Cook's book focuses on radioactive decay and dating methods. Not the biological basis for evolution. And he is very qualified to speak concerning radioactive decay.

There is no debate in the scientific comunity as to whether or not our current dating models work. We have multiple dating methods and we get the same results (or extremely close) using multiple methods. Just because 1 man who worked in explosives believes they are incorrect does not actually make it so. You should read up on dating methods. I'll even link them for you:

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Isochron Dating

The Decay of c-decay

Or for a really wide view start reading here:

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

I know I'm not going to convince you here in this forum. And yes--I have looked at the other side, as I use to be a macroevolutionary sympathizer. And the fact that you recognize that expelled has "ruined Stein's credibility among scientists," and that you would deem me not a real scientist because privately I do not subscribe to macroevolution is telling, wouldn't you think? Those who don't go along with the dogma, and question it get labeled "nuts" and are outcast by the field. You should watch ben stein's movie. It doesn't push Intelligent Design, he just inverviews renown people on both sides of the aisle.

They misled the people bing interviewed... Personally, I thought the movie was rediculous...

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reaction to Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I didn't seriously question the teachings I got in highschool, college, and my master's program; 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. Don't be so closed to turn off anything that questions the tennets of macroevolution. IMHO, those who rage against the ID folk, label them and outcast them, tend to be the same individuals who declare unflinchingly that God is not, and science proves it so. Most scientists just stay out of the debate, and privately beleive in God. I'm not ignorant--I'm in the field and know the people. It sounds as though I'm the first person to ever present you with a rational as to why macroevolution isn't a fact. Read about it. there are gaping holes in the theory which get overlooked, and many of the underlying assumptions used are more wishful thinking rather than fact.

Really? Gaping holes? Please tell me about them.

And even the most outspoken atheist/biologist (Richard Dawkins), states that it is highly unlikely that the judeo christian god exists... most scientists are not strong athiests in their freetime...

I love how people bring up that evolution (especially macro evolution) is not a FACT. You may want to look up "Scientific theory" and compare that deffinition to "theory" they are quite different.

Gravity? Just a theory.

[Hemidakota]

Whoa, 12 pages now.

Church position is what is, ensuring the Plan of Salvation is the main focal point. For those who are called by the Savior, they will be edified in all things. That will include the beginning of man when they reached the Spiritual Maturity level.

[Hemidakota]

Cook's book focuses on radioactive decay and dating methods. Not the biological basis for evolution. And he is very qualified to speak concerning radioactive decay. I know I'm not going to convince you here in this forum. And yes--I have looked at the other side, as I use to be a macroevolutionary sympathizer. And the fact that you recognize that expelled has "ruined Stein's credibility among scientists," and that you would deem me not a real scientist because privately I do not subscribe to macroevolution is telling, wouldn't you think? Those who don't go along with the dogma, and question it get labeled "nuts" and are outcast by the field. You should watch ben stein's movie. It doesn't push Intelligent Design, he just inverviews renown people on both sides of the aisle. Personally, I didn't seriously question the teachings I got in highschool, college, and my master's program; 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. Don't be so closed to turn off anything that questions the tennets of macroevolution. IMHO, those who rage against the ID folk, label them and outcast them, tend to be the same individuals who declare unflinchingly that God is not, and science proves it so. Most scientists just stay out of the debate, and privately beleive in God. I'm not ignorant--I'm in the field and know the people. It sounds as though I'm the first person to ever present you with a rational as to why macroevolution isn't a fact. Read about it. there are gaping holes in the theory which get overlooked, and many of the underlying assumptions used are more wishful thinking rather than fact.

And before you discount Cook's and Miltons, and any other scientist's writings, don't you think you should read them for yourself, rather than read a critique online? Seems logical to me.

I have his book and that in a nutshell is what he bases his study.

[Hemidakota]

No they are not. They are based on mathematics. And the only way the mathematics works is when all of the elements I mentioned above are measured, analyzed and pulled together with the work of other scientists working on a different element of the earth.

For example, some scientists study the effect of meteors on the planet; others study the geographical history of the earth's rocks, which were formed during the formation of the earth, and tell the story of how the earth was formed.

Additionally, lunar samples, unavailable to scientists prior to 1969, confirm the earth's age as 4.55 billion years ago.

It is simply wrong to say there is no way to measure these things. There are.

The age of the earth has been proven, and I will trust the scientists, thousands of them, who agree with this.

Elphaba

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. There is nothing in this universe that is or was created out of nothing. Even God does not posse that power.

Then I would laugh at any scientist claiming that they have the full story on how the earth was created. That line always have me laughing. I am sure Moses and Abraham, not forgetting Joseph Smith would be smirking. I wish I could step in these Seers shoes for visionary moment.

What is a newly fashioned earth, which was created out of the existing inert matter materials present a different picture on when and where it was formed. Not all worlds make it to the Celestial Order and if that is the case are sent back to chaos of matter and become again inert matter. So, how can we scribe an age to something that always existed?