I want to believe

[DigitalShadow]

First a let me give people who may not have seen my other threads a quick summary of my situation: I am agnostic, my wife (of just over a year) is LDS, I usually go to church with her, and I've been curious about the church.

Next, I would like to apologize for brining this up again, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, it's just that this subject is a strong barrier in my acceptance of the gospel and so I figured it would be best to talk to members of the church about it. I've already talked to our Bishop about it, I have a lot of respect for him and enjoy talking with him, but he admittedly has little understanding of scientific principles.

Now I would like to present what is troubling me about joining the church:

-There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species.

-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.

-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.

The usual answer I get is that God does not reveal everything to us and that I should pray about the matter and it will be resolved. But this has yet to work for me, and I don't know if I could disregard a large amount of scientific evidence to believe something with no evidence. People tell me to have faith, but how can it be anything other the blind faith to believe in something that you've seen evidence to the contrary but never seen or felt evidence for?

I also worry that maybe I am just not cut out for religion in general, as other people don't seem to have problems with faith. I never gave my wife the expectation that I would convert, but I know she has the hope that I will and I feel like I'm letting her down since my brain can't seem to accept the church. It's getting to the point where I don't want to go to church with her anymore because I feel hypocritical since she teaches some of the primary kids and I usually sit in with her. I don't think the kids know that I'm not a member, I've never lied to them and said I'm a member but I've never told them I'm not a member as I think it might confuse them and bring up a lot of questions.

I don't know what kind of answers I'm looking for here or even if anyone will understand where I'm coming from. Maybe I just needed to get this all out in the open even if it is anonymously through a forum, but I do appreciate that many people of this forum have welcomed me and put up with my ramblings in a civil manner, I think it says a lot about the church.

[tree]

isnt it true that men have one less rib than women, god took a rib from adam to make eve, Genesis 2:21-23. and if i am not mistaken, man can take the general make-up or dna and make a clone of something but cant make anything with out having a part of something that heavenly father and jesus christ already made. i for one think a monkey can evolve into mabey another monkey mabey due to its environmental needs over thousands of years or more, but not evolve ever into another species. the reason i think this is because a human and an animal cannot breed together nor can plants,animals or humans breed together. but that is just my opinion. by the way science is cool!! i hope i dont sound totaly ignorant, but thats just what i think on the matter. looking forward to your reply, i love science. tree

[JcDean78]

We only have a small fraction of information about Science with theories constantly changing and there is a lot more to the gospel than what we know at this time. In time as our knowledge of both grows, we will come to see that science and the Gospel do not conflict but rather go hand in hand.

My personal opinion is that the current theory on evolution and natural selection contains many truths to it. Just how much of the current theory is correct will be revealed over time but I promise in the end it will be in harmony with the Gospel.

Science and the Gospel are not in conflict.

[DigitalShadow]

isnt it true that men have one less rib than women, god took a rib from adam to make eve, Genesis 2:21-23. and if i am not mistaken, man can take the general make-up or dna and make a clone of something but cant make anything with out having a part of something that heavenly father and jesus christ already made. i for one think a monkey can evolve into mabey another monkey mabey due to its environmental needs over thousands of years or more, but not evolve ever into another species. the reason i think this is because a human and an animal cannot breed together nor can plants,animals or humans breed together. but that is just my opinion. by the way science is cool!! i hope i dont sound totaly ignorant, but thats just what i think on the matter. looking forward to your reply, i love science. tree

As far as I know, men and women have the same number of ribs, I'm not sure where you heard that but I'm sure a quick trip to wikipedia will clear that up for you.

Also we can already create extremely simple forms of life on our own such as viruses and there's no reason to believe we couldn't eventually create more complicated forms of life from scratch with the proper technology.

There is also a significant amount of evidence that humans and other species have common ancestors as we share a lot of junk DNA embedded by viruses long ago that can only be passed from mother to child.

[DigitalShadow]

We only have a small fraction of information about Science with theories constantly changing and there is a lot more to the gospel than what we know at this time. In time as our knowledge of both grows, we will come to see that science and the Gospel do not conflict but rather go hand in hand.

My personal opinion is that the current theory on evolution and natural selection contains many truths to it. Just how much of the current theory is correct will be revealed over time but I promise in the end it will be in harmony with the Gospel.

Science and the Gospel are not in conflict.

We have a large amount of knowledge that has been gained through the scientific method, theories in science change, but only because new evidence has been brought to light. Many LDS people I talk to have faith that science and the Gospel will eventually converge, but from where I'm standing it looks like they have already diverged quite a bit, which is my main reason for posting this.

[goofball]

I would recommend you read Joseph Fielding Smith's Man his Origin and Destiny and Gospel Philosophy by Elder J.H. Ward. both of these books to speak of their views on the theory of evolution and are very good.

[DigitalShadow]

I would recommend you read Joseph Fielding Smith's Man his Origin and Destiny and Gospel Philosophy by Elder J.H. Ward. both of these books to speak of their views on the theory of evolution and are very good.

I can't seem to find either of those available for purchase online. Also, I'm not sure the publication dates on those but there has been a lot of scientific discovery in the past few decades and I was hoping to find something that addresses it, rather than the standard look to the Gospel for all answers, regardless of what is discovered.

[Guest Malcolm]

DS has eloquently stated that he is looking for a scientific explanation for the existence and presence of God in our lives.

I understand his position and have engaged others thru the years in very, at the time, stimulating and energetic exchanges. As time goes on I find myself increasingly less interested in such. His position has not changed, not is is likely to change under the current circumstances. DS does not believe in faith as a religious principle which is this case is absolutely necessary in order to glean insight into spiritual matters.

Second, for DS religion does not serve any practical purpose in the specific. Perhaps in the general sense attending church provides for a point of emotional congruence with his wife and even perhaps a social outlet. Beyond that, religion for him is not utilitarian, it provides no tangible asset to his way of life or sense of self.

Since religion is for him an intellectual exercise just like any other endevour in his life, his frame of reference is set in finding through scientific methods a definition/descriptor/essence of God that would "fit" his model of inquiry. In short; he already decided that if God exist IT HAST to conform to ______ which falls within his theoretical/analytical conceptual model.

Although DS' responses illustrate that he is a pretty smart guy, has has no faith onto God, or in orther words, his faith is not born of the desire to get to know God but to possess the (intellectual) knowledge of the things of God. He actively pursues this knowledge out of the best books but there is no true faith in his exercise. The Spirit is not present in such as he does not hearken onto God.

So yes...I believe he has read the BoM much but he had neglected to most important part.

[Moksha]

Now I would like to present what is troubling me about joining the church:

-There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species.

-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.

-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.

You would need to reconcile this yourself, but have you not performed such a process many times in your life when you have used your own problem solving abilities?

Many anwers in life are not known and in the past, some explanations furnished were incomplete or wrong. That is okay, since ours is a Church of continuing revelation and the correct answer will eventually come to the forefront.

You are a thinker rather than a dogmatist, and the Church needs that.

[DigitalShadow]

DS has eloquently stated that he is looking for a scientific explanation for the existence and presence of God in our lives.

I understand his position and have engaged others thru the years in very, at the time, stimulating and energetic exchanges. As time goes on I find myself increasingly less interested in such. His position has not changed, not is is likely to change under the current circumstances. DS does not believe in faith as a religious principle which is this case is absolutely necessary in order to glean insight into spiritual matters.

Second, for DS religion does not serve any practical purpose in the specific. Perhaps in the general sense attending church provides for a point of emotional congruence with his wife and even perhaps a social outlet. Beyond that, religion for him is not utilitarian, it provides no tangible asset to his way of life or sense of self.

Since religion is for him an intellectual exercise just like any other endevour in his life, his frame of reference is set in finding through scientific methods a definition/descriptor/essence of God that would "fit" his model of inquiry. In short; he already decided that if God exist IT HAST to conform to ______ which falls within his theoretical/analytical conceptual model.

Although DS' responses illustrate that he is a pretty smart guy, has has no faith onto God, or in orther words, his faith is not born of the desire to get to know God but to possess the (intellectual) knowledge of the things of God. He actively pursues this knowledge out of the best books but there is no true faith in his exercise. The Spirit is not present in such as he does not hearken onto God.

So yes...I believe he has read the BoM much but he had neglected to most important part.

I'm sorry if my scientific frame of reference bores you. I can no more change it than you can change your religious frame of reference.

I would also ask that you not put words in my mouth. If I truly found religion so useless, I would not be here in the first place asking questions. I believe the church has done a great deal of good for many people, my wife included.

Yes, everything starts as an intellectual pursuit for me, as I don't know how to start any other way. Does that mean I must abandon my intellect to join the church?

Despite what you may think of me, I have no preconceived view of what God MUST conform to in order to accept him, I just want things to make sense before I dive head first into the church. Is that such an unreasonable request?

I also noticed that you adressed almost nothing of my original post. Did you come here simply to warn others about my overanalyzing ways, or do you have something useful to add?

[DigitalShadow]

You would need to reconcile this yourself, but have you not performed such a process many times in your life when you have used your own problem solving abilities?

Many anwers in life are not known and in the past, some explanations furnished were incomplete or wrong. That is okay, since ours is a Church of continuing revelation and the correct answer will eventually come to the forefront.

You are a thinker rather than a dogmatist, and the Church needs that.

I am a software developer and I'm very good at what I do. I solve logical problems all day as it is part of my job. My problem solving skills are very well honed, but as a software developer, I have also learned that it is impossible to take everything into account and if you never acknowledge that you may be missing something, you won't be very good. I come here looking to find whatever I may have missed. I'm more than likely not the first person to have thought about all this, and there are many people who still believe in the church, so it stands to reason that maybe someone else has solved what appears to be a logical paradox from my point of view.

[Guest Malcolm]

I think "semantic wars" always fail to add to the exchange but I think a clarification is worthwhile. I tend to chose my words rather carefully, so I think you shot from the hip on this one.

I did not say "useless." There are many things that have no utilitarian value for ME, in particular, but they are far from useless. I live in the desert so a jetski, for example, has no utilitarian value to me. You reaffirm my point when you state that the church does a lot of good for others including your wife. You fail to include yourself which stresses my point.

I offered that pure intellectual pursue of the "knowledge" of God will always fail to achieve its objective because it lacks faith as a fundamental component. Again, you object to my words to later just rephrase what I previously stated. You have adopted a model of systematic inquiry that requires a purely scientific definition/explanation of the essence of God. You articulate that a conception of God MUST be explained within this construct. That you require an official position from the Church that could harmonize prevailing scientific theories with the biblical/scriptural accounts. Again, you leave faith outside the equation. All I attempted to do is to point out to all well intended participants in the forum that your position is not likely to change precisely because of the construct of your analytical model.

If the clarity and precision of my opinion offends you, my sincere apologies. It was, truly not my intention to insult you. I pointed out that you are quite a sophisticated guy and that you, very elegantly, articulated your belief system on the post. There is only one issue. It is potentially destined to fail because you lack (or fail to bring) the faith required to really gain insight into the nature and essence of God. We can all quote half a dozen scriptures that will testify to that.

I fail to see how the above offended you but I offer you my humble apology if you would accept it.

[WANDERER]

Digital Shadow:This sounds a bit rambly but: I sometimes go to the global warming forums. Scientists and those interested in science constantly update it and debate it and it is highly current. I like it because it shows the dynamic nature of science. Science just isn't interesting to me without this aspect of science. There are oppositional perspectives. As a teacher I worked in a very old school and they never threw their encyclopaedias out...they even had a collection that didn't mention Pluto (it hadn't been discovered yet at that date LOL. I was cross...30 kids with scientific reports on the solar system that didn't mention Pluto...). I have problems with the acceptance of the 'absoluteness' of science. Hardly. The scientific community does not agree and nor would we want it to in the 'all thought stops here' way.

I think to get things in balance investigating Creation Science or Creationists is the other side of the spectrum. There are many scientists that ascribe to a belief in creation and don't feel that their beliefs are challenged by science. I won't send you off on a link or recommend a book. It's a whole branch of science and there is heaps on it. Google or Amazon creation science: there are those that debunk it and those that support it. Make your own decisions. My guess is there is probably a lively and current forum out there where you can put up your questions and get oppositional viewpoints or I would hope so...I think there's magazines for Creation science, can't remember, it was something I was interested in a looong time ago. There's a spectrum of belief from pure creationists, creation-evolutionists and pure evolutionists.

There are even pure evolutionists who are also able to reconcile their faith with their scientific beliefs as odd as that may seem.

Einstein was a creationist.

[prisonchaplain]

-There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species.

I won't argue the specific of evolutionary theory. However, I've always understood that while the scientific community is strongly united around the ideas of evolution explaining the development of the world, how it all started (random selection vs. design) is something that remains largely speculative--and very difficult to discuss within the confines of empirical science.

So, imho, your journey, rather than beginning with Adam & Eve, might begin with God. Can He exist? Is it possible? And, if so, what does this God seem to be like? Is he indeed all powerful? And, is He good?

Until one gains a confidence about the matter of God's existence and relationship with his creation, the matter of Adam & Eve is largely irrelevent--at least as I see it.

-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.

-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.

There are explanations of Adam & Eve that suggest the story is more allegory and representation than literal and historical. I'm of the latter persuasion, however. Also, there certainly are Christians, and I would imagine some specifically LDS scientists, who are also proponents of evolution. The marriage is called "theistic evolution."

I also worry that maybe I am just not cut out for religion in general, as other people don't seem to have problems with faith.

IMHO, if you could not believe or would not believe, you wouldn't bother with this quest. Keep digging around...you may just stumble upon a faith that celebrates your scientific and rational understanding.

[DigitalShadow]

I think "semantic wars" always fail to add to the exchange but I think a clarification is worthwhile. I tend to chose my words rather carefully, so I think you shot from the hip on this one.

I did not say "useless." There are many things that have no utilitarian value for ME, in particular, but they are far from useless. I live in the desert so a jetski, for example, has no utilitarian value to me. You reaffirm my point when you state that the church does a lot of good for others including your wife. You fail to include yourself which stresses my point.

I offered that pure intellectual pursue of the "knowledge" of God will always fail to achieve its objective because it lacks faith as a fundamental component. Again, you object to my words to later just rephrase what I previously stated. You have adopted a model of systematic inquiry that requires a purely scientific definition/explanation of the essence of God. You articulate that a conception of God MUST be explained within this construct. That you require an official position from the Church that could harmonize prevailing scientific theories with the biblical/scriptural accounts. Again, you leave faith outside the equation. All I attempted to do is to point out to all well intended participants in the forum that your position is not likely to change precisely because of the construct of your analytical model.

If the clarity and precision of my opinion offends you, my sincere apologies. It was, truly not my intention to insult you. I pointed out that you are quite a sophisticated guy and that you, very elegantly, articulated your belief system on the post. There is only one issue. It is potentially destined to fail because you lack (or fail to bring) the faith required to really gain insight into the nature and essence of God. We can all quote half a dozen scriptures that will testify to that.

I fail to see how the above offended you but I offer you my humble apology if you would accept it.

I am the one who should apologize as I appear to have somewhat misinterpreted your words as a rather personal attack. Maybe it's a slight persecution complex (if you think Mormons are persecuted for their religion, try telling people you're atheist/agnostic.) I apologize for assuming the worst and I really do enjoy our exchanges here.

So, yes religion holds no utilitarian value for me as you stated in your previous post, but what does that have to do with anything? That is not why I'm seeking religion. I perfectly happy with the person I am and how I treat others. If I should die and end up standing judgement before a just God, I find it hard to believe he would find serious fault with my personal philosophies and send me to Hell. With that said, is the reason you believe in the church because it holds utilitarian value for you? Should it even matter? The truth is the truth regardless of how useful it is to you or anyone else for that matter, and I am simply in pursuit of the truth.

Perhaps you are right and that all my exploration into religion will ultimately be fruitless until I embrace the concept of faith. My background and frame of reference seem to make the concept of faith go against my being though. It is not in my nature to simply accept unquestionable truths since to me everything is to be analyzed (including prevailing scientific theories) before being an accepted part of my thinking, and even then it is not completely immune if new evidence comes to light. I can't seem to turn that part of me off and even worse, I'm not sure if I'd want to. Do you think there's some part of my brain that isn't functioning properly since most people don't seem to have problems with this? (not being sarcastic, I really wonder this)

[MorningStar]

Hi DS,

I don't know much about evolution. But I wonder if the scientific evidence of that can be traced back to the creation. Some religions believe that the earth was literally created in 6 days, but we believe it was 6 periods of time that could consist of thousands of years or more. We learn that the Lord "labored" when He created the earth. I think a lot more went into this process than what we know and the creation story is a simplified version of what actually happened. I view God as the ultimate scientist.

Anyway, that's my two cents. :)

[Traveler]

Digital Shadow: I have no problem with the epoch of Adam and Eve. I am LDS and I am an avid believer in evolution. I believe that science will soon be able to modify species through evolution and create new species. I see am many problems with the interpretation of scripture as I do with many interpretations of scientific evidence. For example, the Hebrew word for “Adam” also means mankind. The scriptures tell us that G-d created man, not Adam. The means by which man (all of us) was created is the same means by which Adam (the first man) was created.

The scriptures do not tell us how to determine what is meant by the “first” man nor do the scriptures tell us how the creation developed. At the same time there are many open questions concerning evolution. I will give some examples. The shark evolved before the dinosaurs yet has survived quite well not filling any particular niche since the pray of the shark has continued to evolve. The bat must be able to evolve flight, high pitched screams, ability to hear high pitched sounds and a brain able to translate sounds in air into 3 dimensional images. All the traits of the bat must evolve simultaneously on order for the bat to compete and survive – which is mathematically (scientifically) impossible. Does this mean that science is wrong about evolution? Not at all because we can accept some things in science by faith.

Another problem is the size of some of the large dinosaurs. We know that certain factors in the environment limit the size of animals. With current gravity the biggest size we can have is about the size of a very large elephant (woolly mammoth). When an animal doubles in size the effects of gravity increase exponentially. Size increases by volume (cubed) but support structures deal with areas which are squared. Thus when evolution doubles the size of a horse the design or the legs must increase drastically or create a new design as we see the legs of an elephant (which cannot jump) much different form a horse which can jump and run with moments of not touching the ground.

My point is that dinosaurs were too big. In addition so were insects with exoskeletons. There were dragon flies with 3 foot wing spans. There are reasons such insects do not exist in modern times – it is impossible. Just because every detail of something is not explained does not mean things such as evolution are not true – just that we are still learning. The LDS doctrine is that man will continue to learn – both regarding science and religion. But we must have faith that the basis of our knowledge has merit or we cannot move forward in learning “more excellent” and useful things.

The Traveler

[Guest Malcolm]

DS:

Your brain is perfectly fine. I would question, rather, tid bits of info that you have introjected and taken at face value as facts, when it is just a philosophical position. I will never question you integrity or moral character just because you are not a member of the church. I have excellent friends that do not share my faith either. That fact does not disqualifies any human being from the ranks of the decent and noble. Hey, that is where most of us (converts) come from, anyhow. I have not given up hope on you yet. Besides, your wife probably has faith enough for the two of you.

Digital, my friend, I am afraid that faith is precisely that, a totally counterintuitive act that defies logic and reason because it responds to truths above and away from our current level of comprehension. It is a blind step in the dark and into the unknown just because there is nothing else that will bring more happiness to your heart than to see the light, even when you were not sure it was there.

You should try it. It could be liberating.

[DigitalShadow]

Digital Shadow:This sounds a bit rambly but: I sometimes go to the global warming forums. Scientists and those interested in science constantly update it and debate it and it is highly current. I like it because it shows the dynamic nature of science. Science just isn't interesting to me without this aspect of science. There are oppositional perspectives. As a teacher I worked in a very old school and they never threw their encyclopaedias out...they even had a collection that didn't mention Pluto (it hadn't been discovered yet at that date LOL. I was cross...30 kids with scientific reports on the solar system that didn't mention Pluto...). I have problems with the acceptance of the 'absoluteness' of science. Hardly. The scientific community does not agree and nor would we want it to in the 'all thought stops here' way.

I think to get things in balance investigating Creation Science or Creationists is the other side of the spectrum. There are many scientists that ascribe to a belief in creation and don't feel that their beliefs are challenged by science. I won't send you off on a link or recommend a book. It's a whole branch of science and there is heaps on it. Google or Amazon creation science: there are those that debunk it and those that support it. Make your own decisions. My guess is there is probably a lively and current forum out there where you can put up your questions and get oppositional viewpoints or I would hope so...I think there's magazines for Creation science, can't remember, it was something I was interested in a looong time ago. There's a spectrum of belief from pure creationists, creation-evolutionists and pure evolutionists.

There are even pure evolutionists who are also able to reconcile their faith with their scientific beliefs as odd as that may seem.

Einstein was a creationist.

I have the same issue with the absoluteness of science. In fact, anyone that claims a scientific principle is absolute, isn't a very good scientist. The problem is that I apply the same critical thinking to religion and have problems with the acceptance of the "absoluteness" of the Gospel. This is exactly the point I've been trying to get to.

I have looked into Creation science as well, but it never seemed as plausable or to have as much supporting evidence in my opition. I've done fairly in depth research on the scientific evidence on both sides, before I reached the personal conclusion that there is more evidence for evolution than opposing theories.

I could name many famous scientists that are atheists, but it means nothing as most scientists separate their religious beliefs from their work and it is a personal choice for each person to make.

[tree]

hi again, the one less rib thing i heard from a pentecostal preacher years ago. ( at least i think thats where i heard that ) any way you live you learn. by the way i should have put a question mark behind that as i was asking" is it true that a man has one less rib than a women "? and can you elaborate a little on how and what scientist use to make viruses out of ? i guess what i mean is god/jesus made everything and anything that exist today, so anything that man makes ( the ingredients used to make the product , whether it be a liquid , gas, or a solid, it had to come from the earth or the universe , which god created. so there for is my theory that man has never created anything with out it first coming from heavenly father. god = all created things, and all things that are now create-able start with gods own creations, man,plant,animal....air,liquid or solid. so therefore with out gods ingredients nothing can exist/ before god nothing existed. chit - chat some more later,,,,tree

[DigitalShadow]

DS:

Your brain is perfectly fine. I would question, rather, tid bits of info that you have introjected and taken at face value as facts, when it is just a philosophical position.

I am afraid that faith is precisely that, a totally counterintuitive act that defies logic and reason because it responds to truths above and away from our current level of comprehension. It is a blind step in the dark and into the unknown just because there is nothing else that will bring more happiness to your heart than to see the light, even when you were not sure it was there.

You should try it. It could be liberating.

I don't think I know how to have faith, even after a whole lengthy thread about what it means to other people, I still can't wrap my brain fully around the concept. Every time I try, my brain rejects it.

[WANDERER]

Evolution is a theory and a changing one...for me it is hypothetical, a philosophy rather than fact because we don't have absolute knowledge on it. An evolutionist from a hundred years ago, an evolutionist from today as divergent as they are, an evolutionist a hundred years from now...?

[DigitalShadow]

hi again, the one less rib thing i heard from a pentecostal preacher years ago. ( at least i think thats where i heard that ) any way you live you learn. by the way i should have put a question mark behind that as i was asking" is it true that a man has one less rib than a women "? and can you elaborate a little on how and what scientist use to make viruses out of ? i guess what i mean is god/jesus made everything and anything that exist today, so anything that man makes ( the ingredients used to make the product , whether it be a liquid , gas, or a solid, it had to come from the earth or the universe , which god created. so there for is my theory that man has never created anything with out it first coming from heavenly father. god = all created things, and all things that are now create-able start with gods own creations, man,plant,animal....air,liquid or solid. so therefore with out gods ingredients nothing can exist/ before god nothing existed. chit - chat some more later,,,,tree

Scientists have been able synthesize the DNA of, and create a working retrovirus that has actually been extinct for millions of years from fragments of retrovirus DNA that have been imbedded in our own genome. But I don't believe we have created matter yet, so if God is the one that created all the matter in the universe in the first place, then yes, it came from heavenly father first. It's all very fascinating though.

[DigitalShadow]

Evolution is a theory and a changing one...for me it is hypothetical, a philosophy rather than fact because we don't have absolute knowledge on it. An evolutionist from a hundred years ago, an evolutionist from today as divergent as they are, an evolutionist a hundred years from now...?

But isn't everything in science a theory rather than fact? Science doesn't claim to have facts, just approximations based on evidence. I think that's a fundemental misconception many people have about science.

[WANDERER]

Approximations in the face of (no not the right words, "in the shadow of")the substance of things not seen.