I want to believe

[Misshalfway]

Chieko Okasaki married her Ed and he was not a member. They balanced it just fine. He did eventually convert, but she would have managed just fine had things stayed as they started.

[rameumptom]

I was watching a program on History channel on DNA of dinosaurs. While they do not believe they can find a complete DNA from one to recreate one, a new approach is to tweak the genes of birds to bring back a dinosaurs. They've been able to tweak the genes that have changed over the millions of years, so they can turn on a tail, scales (turns feathers off), teeth, etc.

So, I do think that there's a genetic tie between birds and their dinosaur ancestors. I do believe things slip into entropy, unless there is an organizing force to prevent it. I believe it is the light of Christ that goes throughout space, filling all of space, that allows for things to be reorganized, rather than just slip into entropy. This works also for atoms gathering to make water molecules, instead of just wandering around not attaching to anything.

[Mathonihah]

Interesting theory, but I don't believe you've examined all the evidence. While comparing the laws of thermodynamics to biological processes may sound like a compelling argument, it has no basis in science and you might as well be trying to explain why oranges don't exist because they are nothing like apples.

You concede that it is possible for all the varieties of dog that exist now to have a single progenitor, but you still don't think it is possible for an isolated population of dogs to form another species altogether given enough time. Why not? Given millions of years, why is it so impossible to you that a species could adapt to their environment so much that it is no longer recognizable and can no longer breed with animals only related by ancestor?

You can use the DNA evidence and find ancestry between different species in existance today through common endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) embedded in our DNA through the eons. Basically a class of virus called a retrovirus embeds its own DNA into the cell it infects. Sometimes, it manages to infect a sperm or egg cell which manages to get carried to term and then that organism and its children will now have this virus DNA as a part of every cell in their body and pass it on to their children as well. It turns out that roughly 8% of our DNA is from these viruses and essentially 'junk DNA' we carry around. It is however useful in tracking when the divergence of species occurred and which species are more closely related. This is direct evidence that seperate species can share a common ancestor. Furthermore, scientists have even reconstructed an extinct virus from fragments of it in our DNA and essentially brought it back to life. Read more here if you are interested.

I have yet to hear a religious or scientific explaination that takes this evidence into account other than evolution. If you have one, I would love to hear it. I'm not saying this is "proof" of evolution but there are very few in the scientific community (especially biologists and anthropologists) who doubt that speciation through evolutionary processes is possible.

I knew I'd open a can of worms with this! :)

It is my understanding that the laws of thermodynamics are universal and can be apply every where. I looked it up on wikipedia and found this:

Second law

Main article: Second law of thermodynamics

“ The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. ”

In a simple manner, the second law states that "energy systems have a tendency to increase their entropy" rather than decrease it.

A way of looking at the second law for non-scientists is to look at entropy as a measure of chaos. So, for example, a broken cup has less order and more chaos than an intact one. Likewise, solid crystals, the most organized form of matter, have very low entropy values; and gases, which are highly disorganized, have high entropy values.

The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon). However, a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the Second Law (see Fluctuation Theorem). In fact, the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.

So this theorem is valid for large systems or long times. I would say evolution encompasses both long time and a large system. I'm not seeing why it would be invalid for evolution.

Okay let us work with the hypothetical ancestor dog and its decendants. Let's say that these dogs can change over time by adapting to their environment. Let us also say that some of these dogs are sexual incompatible with each other due the change (speciation effent). Let us also say that the second law of thermodynamics is valid here (this happened over a long lime). Then the speciation event indicates a loss of genetic information that would allow them to breed. This would not be evolution.

Thank you for sharing about the ERVs. I haven't studied them. Interesting stuff. BTW, "resurrecting" a dead virus is more akin to "resurrecting" a dead computer program than bringing the virus back to "life".

You wanted a explanation that isn't evolution? How about this:

A long time ago ERVs were rampantly infecting dogs, cats, humans, etc. One strain of this ERV infected orangutans. chimpanzees, and man. Another strain infected cats, rabbits, and mice. Now given this senerio, I would expect (or it wouldn't surprise me) that the DNA at the infected sites of orangutan, chimpanzee. and man would be virtually identical (or a close enough match to assume a common ancestor) but be totally different than cat, rabbit, and mouse. So are man, chimp. and orangutan related because some fragments of their DNA have a common ancestor? I would say not! Only that the same ERV infected them at the same time.

So I am not seeing how these ERVs can be used to track ancestry. Am I missing something?

[DigitalShadow]

I knew I'd open a can of worms with this! :)

Yes you opened a huge can of worms, and I'm glad you did. I love a good scientific debate :)

It is my understanding that the laws of thermodynamics are universal and can be apply every where.

...

So this theorem is valid for large systems or long times. I would say evolution encompasses both long time and a large system. I'm not seeing why it would be invalid for evolution.

I apologize for casually dismissing this argument, the concept sounds interesting and I will definitely look into it more. From what I can tell at the moment, the theory of evolution does appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. I will however say that if we throw out every theory (especially theories that have a lot of supporting evidence) that appears to violate an esablished principle, we would miss out on a lot of discovery.

BTW, "resurrecting" a dead virus is more akin to "resurrecting" a dead computer program than bringing the virus back to "life".

You are correct, not many people consider a virus "alive" as it is little more than a peice of genetic material with a coating, so I was using the term "resurrecting" very loosely. I can see where my statement could be misleading.

You wanted a explanation that isn't evolution? How about this:

A long time ago ERVs were rampantly infecting dogs, cats, humans, etc. One strain of this ERV infected orangutans. chimpanzees, and man. Another strain infected cats, rabbits, and mice. Now given this senerio, I would expect (or it wouldn't surprise me) that the DNA at the infected sites of orangutan, chimpanzee. and man would be virtually identical (or a close enough match to assume a common ancestor) but be totally different than cat, rabbit, and mouse. So are man, chimp. and orangutan related because some fragments of their DNA have a common ancestor? I would say not! Only that the same ERV infected them at the same time.

So I am not seeing how these ERVs can be used to track ancestry. Am I missing something?

You are missing one piece of information that I failed to mention in my last post. When a retrovirus embeds itself into the DNA of a cell it infects, it does so at an arbitrary location. So if chimpanzees and humans (or any two given species) acquired an ERV from the same retrovirus at around the same time, it would show up in different places in their genome. Many retroviruses have multiple copies and fragments of themselves embedded in our genome, so the placement is also important in determining ancestry. It is a fairly rare event for a retrovirus to become an endogenous retrovirus and for that to get propogated into the gene pool of a given species, but once it does it is essentially a "genetic fossil." Our DNA contains so many of them because it includes every time this has happened throughout the history of our ancestry.

[Mathonihah]

Yes you opened a huge can of worms, and I'm glad you did. I love a good scientific debate :)

I apologize for casually dismissing this argument, the concept sounds interesting and I will definitely look into it more. From what I can tell at the moment, the theory of evolution does appear to violate the second law of thermodynamics. I will however say that if we throw out every theory (especially theories that have a lot of supporting evidence) that appears to violate an esablished principle, we would miss out on a lot of discovery.

You are correct, not many people consider a virus "alive" as it is little more than a peice of genetic material with a coating, so I was using the term "resurrecting" very loosely. I can see where my statement could be misleading.

You are missing one piece of information that I failed to mention in my last post. When a retrovirus embeds itself into the DNA of a cell it infects, it does so at an arbitrary location. So if chimpanzees and humans (or any two given species) acquired an ERV from the same retrovirus at around the same time, it would show up in different places in their genome. Many retroviruses have multiple copies and fragments of themselves embedded in our genome, so the placement is also important in determining ancestry. It is a fairly rare event for a retrovirus to become an endogenous retrovirus and for that to get propogated into the gene pool of a given species, but once it does it is essentially a "genetic fossil." Our DNA contains so many of them because it includes every time this has happened throughout the history of our ancestry.

So you are saying that if I find the same ERV in a chimp and human in the same place in the chimp and human genome both the chimp and human must have inherited this ERV from a common ancestor? Sounds like a pretty compelling argument. Has this been done? Has someone found an ERV linking man to chimp (or other hominiod)?

So how do we know that the placement of an ERV in the genome is arbitrary?

[MormonMama]

I'm hesitant to get into this discussion because I'm not nearly as scientifically educated as you seem to be, but I can only tell you my perspective, as a student and lover of science (currently working on an environmental biology degree).

It is my opinion that science tries to explain the how of this world and everything in it. We do the best we can with the knowledge and evidence we have so far discovered. Sometimes we find that we were completely wrong about something, and we have to alter our conclusions. The scientific method is only as good as the information we put into it. If we have incorrect or missing information, we are not going to get a wholly accurate result.

More than one of my science teachers over the years has stated that they do not wholly accept the theory of evolution, because we have no way to guarantee that the data we set our standards by is correct, especially in regards to trying to measure phenomena over the course of thousands and millions of years. I hold this opinion as well. I think there are far too many variables at work. Science tells us that it took millions of years for the earth to be formed as it is. How do we know God is not capable of speeding up the process? If he is all-powerful as we believe, then he surely could do such a thing. Additionally, we do not know how long the actual creation process took. Many people take the word "day" in the Bible to mean a literal day, but most religious scholars now accept the more likely translation of "time", in which case each "day" of creation could very well have taken millions of years. DNA supposedly states that we descended from primates, but if God formed all flesh from the same material (and why wouldn't He?), would this not explain the similarities in DNA?

I'm sure you have already considered these things, but my point is only to say that, while I also study science, I am able to accept that the answers we receive through science are only as good as the data we enter into the equation. We know from past experience that such data can be flawed or missing entirely, and therefore I must take all science with a grain of salt. This would be true for me even if I had no religious faith at all. Science cannot answer all my questions, but that does not mean that I find no use for science.

I trust that all will be sorted out in the end, and I am content with that.

[DigitalShadow]

So you are saying that if I find the same ERV in a chimp and human in the same place in the chimp and human genome both the chimp and human must have inherited this ERV from a common ancestor? Sounds like a pretty compelling argument. Has this been done? Has someone found an ERV linking man to chimp (or other hominiod)?

So how do we know that the placement of an ERV in the genome is arbitrary?

It is my understanding that it has been done on various hominoids and confirmed we have a common ancestor. We know the placement of the ERV is arbitrary because you can find multiple instances of the same retrovirus in different places throughout the same genome, that and the fact that the same retrovirus can appear in different places in different organisms that were infected seperately.

[Mathonihah]

It is my understanding that it has been done on various hominoids and confirmed we have a common ancestor. We know the placement of the ERV is arbitrary because you can find multiple instances of the same retrovirus in different places throughout the same genome, that and the fact that the same retrovirus can appear in different places in different organisms that were infected seperately.

I'd like to see an article on that (really:)).

[DigitalShadow]

I'd like to see an article on that (really:)).

Here is the most condensed article I've found on it, but it does provide references for the specific ERVs that we have in common with chimps so I'm sure you could look them up if you want the science behind it. Also a quick google search reveails many detailed scientific articles describing various studies done using ERVs.

If you are interested in the subject I suggest reading up on it or asking a biologist (I'm just a software developer with an interest in science :))

[Mathonihah]

I'm hesitant to get into this discussion because I'm not nearly as scientifically educated as you seem to be, but I can only tell you my perspective, as a student and lover of science (currently working on an environmental biology degree).

It is my opinion that science tries to explain the how of this world and everything in it. We do the best we can with the knowledge and evidence we have so far discovered. Sometimes we find that we were completely wrong about something, and we have to alter our conclusions. The scientific method is only as good as the information we put into it. If we have incorrect or missing information, we are not going to get a wholly accurate result.

More than one of my science teachers over the years has stated that they do not wholly accept the theory of evolution, because we have no way to guarantee that the data we set our standards by is correct, especially in regards to trying to measure phenomena over the course of thousands and millions of years. I hold this opinion as well. I think there are far too many variables at work. Science tells us that it took millions of years for the earth to be formed as it is. How do we know God is not capable of speeding up the process? If he is all-powerful as we believe, then he surely could do such a thing. Additionally, we do not know how long the actual creation process took. Many people take the word "day" in the Bible to mean a literal day, but most religious scholars now accept the more likely translation of "time", in which case each "day" of creation could very well have taken millions of years. DNA supposedly states that we descended from primates, but if God formed all flesh from the same material (and why wouldn't He?), would this not explain the similarities in DNA?

I'm sure you have already considered these things, but my point is only to say that, while I also study science, I am able to accept that the answers we receive through science are only as good as the data we enter into the equation. We know from past experience that such data can be flawed or missing entirely, and therefore I must take all science with a grain of salt. This would be true for me even if I had no religious faith at all. Science cannot answer all my questions, but that does not mean that I find no use for science.

I trust that all will be sorted out in the end, and I am content with that.

Very, Very good point Mama.

A very simple way of looking at the Science vs. religion issue is that science asks questions while religion gives answers. Very cool huh? Now not all science asks the right questions and not all religion gives the right answers (but hey, now one is perfect:)).

***Science is not in the business of answering questions but questioning answers.***

A hypothesis is some way to explain or make sense of observed data. If the hypothesis is good and is tested against other data and holds true, it becomes a theory or working model of the way things work. (Note that theory answers "how" questions thus it is an element of religion).

I know someone will take exception to my equating science with questions and religion with answers. Think it over. All Truth (answers) belong to Religion. All Doubts (questions) belong to Science.

This is my philosophy.

Moving on. We have two great Religions (religion as a binding set of answers that pertain to the question at hand namely "What is the origin of Man, life, etc."):

Creationism (The answer is that God created (said "Hocus Pocus!" and there was man) us. Period. )

Evolution (The answer is that nature selected us. Period.)

My religion is neither of those (or more accurate, elements of both).

Genesis said God formed man of the dust of the earth. This is correct. We all are formed of the dust of the earth (We eat plants which grow in the ground which become the building blocks of each of us.).

Science will ask the question "Okay, so how was the first, original man formed"?

Religion says

*** "There was never a Son without a Father, never a Father without first being a Son" ***

(see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Science questions this.

... and comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "spontaneous generation".

...but still it questions...

[ztodd]

Very, Very good point Mama.

A very simple way of looking at the Science vs. religion issue is that science asks questions while religion gives answers. Very cool huh? Now not all science asks the right questions and not all religion gives the right answers (but hey, now one is perfect:)).

***Science is not in the business of answering questions but questioning answers.***

A hypothesis is some way to explain or make sense of observed data. If the hypothesis is good and is tested against other data and holds true, it becomes a theory or working model of the way things work. (Note that theory answers "how" questions thus it is an element of religion).

I know someone will take exception to my equating science with questions and religion with answers. Think it over. All Truth (answers) belong to Religion. All Doubts (questions) belong to Science.

This is my philosophy.

Moving on. We have two great Religions (religion as a binding set of answers that pertain to the question at hand namely "What is the origin of Man, life, etc."):

Creationism (The answer is that God created (said "Hocus Pocus!" and there was man) us. Period. )

Evolution (The answer is that nature selected us. Period.)

My religion is neither of those (or more accurate, elements of both).

Genesis said God formed man of the dust of the earth. This is correct. We all are formed of the dust of the earth (We eat plants which grow in the ground which become the building blocks of each of us.).

Science will ask the question "Okay, so how was the first, original man formed"?

Religion says

*** "There was never a Son without a Father, never a Father without first being a Son" ***

(see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Science questions this.

... and comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "spontaneous generation".

...but still it questions...

What's the purpose of questioning if not to get answers? Are you saying that science doesn't try to get answers on it's own but only looks elsewhere to get answers?

On another note, I don't like your definition of creationism. I would define it more as believing that we came from an intelligent creator. Not that God said hocus pocus and here we are. It shouldn't matter how you believe God created us as far as being a creationist. I consider myself a creationist, but I believe he didn't use magic, but worked by his own natural laws to create us, probaby by one of these two ways-

1. "by His own hands" using existing material (the ultimate Biologist / Chemist / Creator)

2. by "breeding" - possibly using evolution, but probably influenced along the way by our Intelligent Creator. This would mean Adam and Eve had natural parents (and also belly buttons I suppose), yet they were still considered the first man and woman on the earth. Cleon Skousen in his book The First Thousand Years puts forth a theory that they were bred on another planet and transplanted to this earth.

Breeding of humans might sound like a touchy thing to talk about, but I don't see anything wrong with God using this method. If there were generation of creatures that were the ancestors of Adam and Eve, however far back they go, I don't think that poses a problem for creationists. Adam was designed to be the first man, the first man-like creation that had an intelligent spirit, or breath of life breathed into him.

These verses from Abraham 4 Would seem to suggest the first option more, but remember that it is referring to the spiritual creation of the earth, which happened before the physical creation:

26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

Abraham 5 describes the physical creation of man as such:

7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

8 And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed.

Which I feel leaves either possibility open. Just depends what you think "from the dust of the ground" means. Perhaps there's even some other way I haven't considered.

I'm curious of the source of your last statement, and wonder what is meant by spontaneous generation.

.

[DigitalShadow]

Very, Very good point Mama.

A very simple way of looking at the Science vs. religion issue is that science asks questions while religion gives answers. Very cool huh? Now not all science asks the right questions and not all religion gives the right answers (but hey, now one is perfect:)).

***Science is not in the business of answering questions but questioning answers.***

A hypothesis is some way to explain or make sense of observed data. If the hypothesis is good and is tested against other data and holds true, it becomes a theory or working model of the way things work. (Note that theory answers "how" questions thus it is an element of religion).

I know someone will take exception to my equating science with questions and religion with answers. Think it over. All Truth (answers) belong to Religion. All Doubts (questions) belong to Science.

This is my philosophy.

Moving on. We have two great Religions (religion as a binding set of answers that pertain to the question at hand namely "What is the origin of Man, life, etc."):

Creationism (The answer is that God created (said "Hocus Pocus!" and there was man) us. Period. )

Evolution (The answer is that nature selected us. Period.)

My religion is neither of those (or more accurate, elements of both).

Genesis said God formed man of the dust of the earth. This is correct. We all are formed of the dust of the earth (We eat plants which grow in the ground which become the building blocks of each of us.).

Science will ask the question "Okay, so how was the first, original man formed"?

Religion says

*** "There was never a Son without a Father, never a Father without first being a Son" ***

(see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

Science questions this.

... and comes to the conclusion that there is no such thing as "spontaneous generation".

...but still it questions...

I think a more accurate analogy for science vs. religion would be that science seeks the answers to questions while religion simply provides them.

In science you take numerous factors into account when trying to answer a question and perform countless experiments to explore hypothesis that were made. Even then you only have a working theory that can be changed or thrown out when new evidence comes to light.

In religion an answer is given and you either take it or don't follow that particular religion.

For some, the never-ending search for better versions of the truth is appealing, for others the unquestionable certainty of "knowing" the answers is appealing. To each his own.

[Guest tomk]

For some, the never-ending search for better versions of the truth is appealing, for others the unquestionable certainty of "knowing" the answers is appealing. To each his own.

------------

I would say both methodologies can exist in the same person at the same time and be compatible and in perfect harmony. You don't have to give up one for the other. I am an advid viewer of both the History Channel and the Book of Mormon. :)

[lilered]

DS:

From your point of reference, Does mankind exist here on earth for any particuliar purpose? If so, why?

[MormonMama]

It is my understanding that it has been done on various hominoids and confirmed we have a common ancestor. We know the placement of the ERV is arbitrary because you can find multiple instances of the same retrovirus in different places throughout the same genome, that and the fact that the same retrovirus can appear in different places in different organisms that were infected seperately.

To me, that does not prove that we are descended from a common ancestor, but only that God used the same materials to create all life.

I also have to say that the more I study science, the more convinced I am that God must exist.

[Holly3278]

Digital Shadow, I don't know if you have read these articles or not but I would recommend that you read them. :)

http://www.mormonfortress.com/evolution.pdf

Evolution

[DigitalShadow]

DS:

From your point of reference, Does mankind exist here on earth for any particuliar purpose? If so, why?

I don't know, religion seeks the answer to that question and I have not committed to any particular religion yet.

[ZenWarrior]

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.

-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.

Hi. I saw your original post and was intrigued. I haven't read through the entire thread so apologies if I repeat what someone else has already said.

My view on evolution is that it is an essential part of human existence; we know evolution occurs in nature through natural selection. I personally believe that God designed nature so that it could adapt and respond to a changing environment, much the same way that human architects design large buildings to flex thus protecting them from strong winds and tremors.

However, to say that man's evolution from single cell organisms, which themselves in turn spontaneously generated from primordial soup, has been proven is a big jump. The theory of evolution is still a theory; it cannot be demonstrated as fact, otherwise it wouldn't be called a theory. The frustrating thing for me though is that it is often presented as a fact. There is a reason for this; as far as I understand the scientific community will not disregard a theory until it is proven false (a difficult feat me thinks regardless of the subject - try to prove a negative, I think you'll agree).

On the other hand there are scientists who think that the theory of evolution should be abandoned due to lack of evidence.

Here's a link I found really quickly. It might be an interesting place to start, trust me there is loads of stuff out there that puts forth logical arguments against evolution. Happy surfing!

Top Evidences Against the Theory of Evolution

The next point I'd like to talk about is faith. Don't worry about a lack of faith. The fact that you've said you lack faith shows you're honest with yourself and understand the emotional dynamics within you. It's not wrong to have questions or to see something from another point of view to someone else. I'd say apply what you learn about the gospel in your life, embrace the principles and over time a strong conviction will grow in you that you're on the right path. It's not something you can rush, it will happen naturally.

This juxtaposition of faith and science has got me thinking. In a way we put our faith in science; we trust that they actually know beyond doubt that things are the way the textbooks say. But in reality, how much do they really know? Our best scientific understanding is constantly being updated, corrected and in some instances, completely re-written. In direct relation to the subject at hand (evolution), if we presented our best scientists with the elements of the periodic table and challenged them to create a blade of grass from scratch, how far do you think they would get? I personally think that they would be completely at a loss. That's not to diminish the value of science, but rather to understand how limited our scientific understanding is. Therefore, in my mind, it doesn't seem reasonable for me to take science's word for the origin of humanity when they don't truly comprehend the nature of a blade of grass (let alone the Universe).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Hopefully they are of some use to you. I also want to be clear that I don't dismiss the value of scientific learning, I want to understand as much as possible and science has helped me to do this in many ways.

[Hemidakota]

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.

Correct. Have you noticed when GOD or the Savior in mortality, need elements to either reconstruct, repair, or to multiply?

Doing something simple as a virus is not like creating a human being. I wish I could elaborate more on this subject but space and time not permitted.

Have you really compare evolution to Abraham or Moses observational viewpoint on what they saw? Noticed it starts with simple form of intelligences and end to most complex, each of which is require to sustain the next higher life form?

However, I have yet to see any form of pre-humans, or complete skeleton of man that predated our time.

I hope we have common ancestral beginnings since man is the designer and not offspring of HIS creation.

[Mathonihah]

What's the purpose of questioning if not to get answers? Are you saying that science doesn't try to get answers on it's own but only looks elsewhere to get answers?

On another note, I don't like your definition of creationism. I would define it more as believing that we came from an intelligent creator. Not that God said hocus pocus and here we are. It shouldn't matter how you believe God created us as far as being a creationist. I consider myself a creationist, but I believe he didn't use magic, but worked by his own natural laws to create us, probaby by one of these two ways-

1. "by His own hands" using existing material (the ultimate Biologist / Chemist / Creator)

2. by "breeding" - possibly using evolution, but probably influenced along the way by our Intelligent Creator. This would mean Adam and Eve had natural parents (and also belly buttons I suppose), yet they were still considered the first man and woman on the earth. Cleon Skousen in his book The First Thousand Years puts forth a theory that they were bred on another planet and transplanted to this earth.

Breeding of humans might sound like a touchy thing to talk about, but I don't see anything wrong with God using this method. If there were generation of creatures that were the ancestors of Adam and Eve, however far back they go, I don't think that poses a problem for creationists. Adam was designed to be the first man, the first man-like creation that had an intelligent spirit, or breath of life breathed into him.

These verses from Abraham 4 Would seem to suggest the first option more, but remember that it is referring to the spiritual creation of the earth, which happened before the physical creation:

26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them.

Abraham 5 describes the physical creation of man as such:

7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

8 And the Gods planted a garden, eastward in Eden, and there they put the man, whose spirit they had put into the body which they had formed.

Which I feel leaves either possibility open. Just depends what you think "from the dust of the ground" means. Perhaps there's even some other way I haven't considered.

I'm curious of the source of your last statement, and wonder what is meant by spontaneous generation.

.

Perhaps my definition of Creationism is a bit off. It was my understanding that it is Man and all other life was created by God fully formed out of the "dust of the earth", and there was not Man or other life existing prior to God creating Man and other life. It's as if God had a "black box" and one day he puts in dust and it come out man (And woe unto the man who tries to open the black box and understand the process of creation.). Or saying "hocus pocus" and man was. God created man and thats all there is to it. It is heresy to try to understand God's "black box" This is what I meant when I said Creationism.

This maybe a bit unfair definition. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism">Wikipedia</a> gives a pretty interesting definition.

"Cleon Skousen in his book The First Thousand Years puts forth a theory that they were bred on another planet and transplanted to this earth." This is my belief as well. I've never seen a Creationist page on the web suggest this though. I would think that traditional Creationists would view this as heresy.

My belief is that Adam and Eve were created perfectly (or Celestially) on another planet. That is they weren't some primitive, half-developed, ape-things. They were also created in the usual manner of sexual reproduction. They were immortal before the Fall like the Bible says, which would imply immortal parents. This belief goes against most Creationist thought and Evolutionist thought that is why I said I didn't believe in either.

Spontaneous generation is the belief that life (at least very simple life) was created spontaneously without any apparent cause. There was an old belief that maggots were created in grain in this manner because thats how it looks.

[lostnfound]

I could sit here all day and give you list after list of arguments for creation..I won't however give you reason to follow lds doctrine.

but if you are truely asking these questions..then I highly suggest answersingenesis.org

KenHam is the author and creator of this site and can give you some really good information out their for creation including audio media of science in the bible and arguments creationist sometimes use but sometimes fall through in arguments etc..

After we go from here...the next place I would turn to asking is "Can the bible be trusted alone in its full athority?"

[rural]

I think it's preposterous that people presume to know the method by which God created man. Knowing from verses like the one found in Abraham that time is subjective for our Heavenly Father, why do we oppose what is sciences (and therefore our) best guess as to how God created us? It is good to question rigid dogma, even if it is seen as progressive (in the church anyway) like evolution. However, the intellectual culture LDS members seem to have built up opposing evolution in all honesty seems more like a culture to oppose intellect.

[Vanhin]

I think it's preposterous that people presume to know the method by which God created man. Knowing from verses like the one found in Abraham that time is subjective for our Heavenly Father, why do we oppose what is sciences (and therefore our) best guess as to how God created us? It is good to question rigid dogma, even if it is seen as progressive (in the church anyway) like evolution. However, the intellectual culture LDS members seem to have built up opposing evolution in all honesty seems more like a culture to oppose intellect.

Though I appreciate the point you are trying to make, I don't think it's a big secret how our mortal tabernacles are created. I don't know about some of the weird things even members talk about, but my wife and I have been personal witnesses and participants in creating four mortal bodies for spirit children of God to dwell in, and out of the dust of this earth no less... Truly miraculous!

Regards,

Vanhin

[rural]

Though I appreciate the point you are trying to make, I don't think it's a big secret how our mortal tabernacles are created. I don't know about some of the weird things even members talk about, but my wife and I have been personal witnesses and participants in creating four mortal bodies for spirit children of God to dwell in, and out of the dust of this earth no less... Truly miraculous!

Regards,

Vanhin

Congratulations! You just furthered the evolution of our species by propagation.