Creation/Evolution

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply

Where do you stand?

Earth/Universe was organized 6,000-10,000 years old
12
16%
Big bang
11
15%
Somewhere in between
14
19%
Other
11
15%
Dinosaurs turned into chickens
10
14%
Dinosaurs did not turn into chickens
16
22%
 
Total votes: 74
Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Spaced_Out »

Red wrote: September 8th, 2017, 5:25 pm
Spaced_Out wrote: September 8th, 2017, 3:58 pm
Red wrote: September 8th, 2017, 7:25 am
Spaced_Out wrote: September 7th, 2017, 5:39 pm

Now that is coming closer to the truth, and a far better description.
So you're a lib, eh? That explains a lot.
It truly does explain a lot about a persons ability to comprehend and be situational aware. Those that have read a few of my posts on this forum would not have come to that conclusion.
You said it was a far better description of yourself. You said talking to folks like me was like talking to a flat earther and I echoed the sentiment about you, except comparing you to a liberal, which you then agreed was a fair assessment. Perhaps you've got the problem with comprehension and situational awareness. Or maybe just grammar and context.
No in the line of a far better analogy, a good description of trying to convince a closed minded person.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by JohnnyL »

http://www.creationism.org/english/crea ... faq_en.htm

F A Q Ver. 2.5

Frequently Asked Questions


Are you insane?

Hmmm ... hard to tell.

How can you be so ignorant?

Have we met before? Remember that it's a person on the other end when making a (forgive me, but) ignorant statement about one of us being ignorant or stupid, please.

Isn't the crux of creationism: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."?

For some folks it is, yes. But in turn couldn't one state that for most people the crux of evolutionism is: "Scientists said it, I believe it, that settles it."?

When will you stop "standing against science"?

When will you stop - beating your wife? In other words the very question implies something which is not true. Sometimes the minority of scientific, reasonable persons proposing a theory are the ones later proven correct. We don't "stand against science" in the first place.

Please recall that the founders of modern science were all creationists, such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Galileo and many others. Their understanding that there is a logical, Divine Creator gave them the foundation to look for the natural laws of His creation, and to try to think His thoughts after Him. We do the same today as we recognize that we live in a logically designed universe. The idea that what we see around us happened to explode itself (Big Bang) via random chance? Creationists, standing with science, would contend that the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

What about the dinosaurs?

Simply put, they lived concurrent with man down through the thousands of years of our existence, and they appear to have gone mostly extinct prior to our modern era. Remember that the word "dinosaur" is only about 170 years old. Legends of dangerous reptilian creatures (a.k.a. dragons) have been passed down to us from our ancestors across Europe, from China and the rest of Asia, all over the Americas (North, South & Central), and they're remembered in Africa too. Why should all of these legends/histories (spanning all inhabited continents, mind you!) be trivialized and discounted just to give credence to the temporary theory of evolution? It is important in science to separate the evidence from the interpretation. The evidence is that there have been these large dangerous reptilian creatures. We have bones, recorded history and footprints; we have strong evidence. The interpretation (or belief) that they all died off millions and millions of years ago is in dispute between creationists and evolutionists. And numerous stories in recorded human history of being killed by dragons/dinosaurs and of us banding together to kill them in return (among other important evidence) is clearly on our side ... as creation theory grows stronger each year.

Didn't the dinosaurs go extinct 65 million years ago?

There is good evidence that the Earth is only thousands of years old. In BOOKS, see Dr. Ackerman's It's a Young World After All. The "65 million years" is a recent mental invention. Evolution provides a mental hiding place from our powerful Creator. Evolution claims (theologically) that our God is weak or non-existent. Right? Think about what evolution claims about our origins. Dragons (per the previous FAQ answer) were seen and sometimes fought by our ancestors on all inhabited continents. Our ancestors were honest in recording sightings of large dangerous reptilian creatures. They lived concurrent with man. Humans saw dinosaurs. Sure, stories later became embellished, but the germ of truth that humans and dinosaurs (dragons) lived at the same time remains accurate. They lived in different places ... but at the same time - until the dinosaurs were mostly driven to extinction. (There are still a few living dinos out there, by the way.)

4004 B.C. ... you can't be serious!!

There are actually several different versions of what is called "creation science." Some creationists bend strongly towards accepting most of the evolutionary interpretations but stop at the point of life falling together all by itself in the first place. These creationists argue for an "initial cause" (or "First Cause"), i.e. that "Someone" ... catalyzed early events and then evolution was the process used by this "God" after that. From www.creationism.org we link to a few of those sites, if you're interested. But other creationists, like those contributing to this web site have continued learning ... and have come to the understanding (or belief, if one prefers) that there really is no good scientific evidence supporting evolutionism at all; and there is no way that the Earth could be over 10,000 years old. This is complicated, but many of these "young earth creationists" really do believe that 4004 B.C. is probably pretty close to the original creation date. I know that this sounds utterly laughable to those who believe that the radioactive dating methods actually work, sorry.

40 Days and 40 Nights, really?


Actually, in Genesis, chapter 7 it states that the waters rose higher in respect to the land for 150 days, and went down for the subsequent 150 days. The total time of the Great Flood was about 1 year in length from when Noah's family entered till they left the Ark. That's what it has always clearly stated. Period. But it also appears to have rained pretty darned hard for the first 40 days and nights of this pivotal time (and there were strong winds, Gen. 8:1). There is clearly no evidence that rain caused the Flood and modern creationists have never contended this. Forgive me here, but only evolutionists keep this false notion propped up in order to openly distain creation theory including the Flood.

How could Noah's Ark have possibly held all of the species of big animals in the world!

The largest dragon (i.e. dinosaur) eggs that we've found to date are about the size of a football. One could fit, for example, a dozen brachiosaurus eggs in the trunk of a car, with room to spare! This also means that recently hatched dragons were not very large. Noah's mission was to preserve each kind of animal. You don't need to find the biggest of each kind. And you don't need each sub-divided species either. Did you know that most modern dog breeds are less than 100 years old? 2 healthy young mutts could preserve the genome of the entire "dog kind" of animals. The Bible uses the word "kind" for the different types of life forms. Horses and zebras can (and have) physically mated producing viable offspring; so have tigers and lions, indicating that they (according to creation theory) probably respectively diverged from the same original stock. Dogs and wolves (though considered quite different by humans today) probably originated from their same "kind" too. There are a few large animals (when fully grown) of course: giraffes, elephants, and T-rexes among them. But the average animal size is about sheep size, i.e. the 3-story Ark was plenty large enough to handle the variety of animal kinds plus lots of food for them. Speciation could descend again from original healthy "mutt" stock to start with. Thinking scientifically about this, it shows incredible variable design, huh?

Even if the whole atmosphere was 100% saturated with moisture and began raining there wouldn't be enough water to cover the continents! The Flood was impossible, admit it!

This is a common charge and relates to the answer given two questions above. The Genesis account of the Flood appears to be only what Noah saw, and may not be a full picture of all the catalyzing events. There is no mention of ice at all, we do know that the waters rising (for the first 150 days) was concurrent with the initiation of the 40 days of rain and also that the fountains of the deep broke up, which is an intriguing statement. Rain did not cause the Flood, but this symptom of the cataclysm also began at about the same time.

Salt water washing over the continents would have destroyed all of the plants anyway, right?

Have you ever added sugar to your coffee but forgotten to stir it? What did it taste like? Before the Flood the oceans "hadn't been stirred" yet. The oceans may not have been very saturated with minerals prior to the Great Flood when waters violently washed over the land masses. And we know that natural whole plant seeds (not narrow hybrids, which are much weaker health wise, just like the aforementioned split out dog breeds) are hardy and can tumble around, surviving for even months suspended in and transported by water. But from the fossil record it does look like some plant types (and many ocean creatures) did not survive the Flood and the adjustments needed for the colder environments on Earth afterwards. Cattails, for example, used to grow up to 60 feet tall in the former time, but the remnant we see today barely grow over 3 feet tall. The modern world is but a remnant of what was before.

Wasn't the Flood of Noah just a regional flood?

Impossible. Some contend this today, but Genesis is clear that God intended to flood all land; all humans, animals and birds not on the Ark would be drowned. An average human can walk at 3 MPH, correct? Over 10 hours one could then walk about 30 miles (50 km). In 100 days of walking like this it would be possible to actually walk a few thousand miles, right? (Think of American pioneers in their wagon trains, crossing North America by walking and driving their wagons westward over the course of one long season.) If God was going to send a "regional flood" then why didn't He have Noah build a "Noah's Wagon" instead? Noah could have just moved a few valleys over to escape such a regional flood. Geologically, we see deep sedimentary layers covering every continent. Most sediments are laid down by water. Deep uniformly thick layers extending laterally over hundreds of square miles indicates a one-time past event using tremendous depositional processes that we do not see in action today. Such deep layers, interspersed with coal and oil reserves (crushed former life) are on all continents, all indicating a global flood.

The Flood was a global one. It has been remembered in legends/histories from around the world, not just in the Hebrew account. What is your ultimate foundation for truth? Is it "science, falsely so-called" following the trends and beliefs of the temporary consensus?, or is it the Word of God, with the recognition that the majority of scientists are sometimes wrong...? For over 1,000 years, from Ptolemy to Galileo scientists were wrong in thinking that the universe revolved around the Earth, correct? Galileo's persecution by the Church stemmed from their support of (what they thought was) "science" taught by the scientists of the day. Church leaders supported their peers over the upstart Galileo who proposed that the Greek scientist and mathematician Ptolemy's theory (from over 1,000 years prior) may be incorrect. "Trust the majority of scientists"? for they must be right...? No, sometimes the majority is wrong. They were wrong when they contended that the whole universe revolved around the Earth and there is good evidence that they are wrong today in proposing that we are but a cosmic accident that exploded out of nothingness for no reason. Just a statistical happening with no God to answer to, so live your life for the here and now; humans make the rules; human consensus is the ultimate authority.

Didn't the Scopes Trial in 1925 (a.k.a. the Monkey Trial) show that evolution had won and creation lost - big time!

That's what the liberal media and Hollywood have consistently reported since then.

Why are you intolerant of the beliefs of others?

I link to and report on both sides of this important issue ... unlike ... the liberal media and Hollywood down through the years.

You flat-earth-creationists make me sick!

This one isn't a question, per se, but versions of this kind of comment are common. Usually they seem to come from young people who want creationists (or anyone else who disagrees with them on about anything, actually) put in their place. Oh, to be young again! :-)

You know, one thing I've freely stated before skeptical groups is that even if they completely disagree with my conclusions please consider the evidence on its merits. The folks who postulate the best new theories 10 or 20 years from now are those who can also include evidence that's quietly disregarded by the experts of this generation because the data doesn't fit their theories (see the next question below).

Radioactive dating proves that creationism couldn't have happened, right?

Creationists stand on the side of testable-repeatable science. Ahem, again, creationists are the ones standing on the side of science. Evolutionists quietly disregard science when convenient! Rocks do not come with dates stamped on them, nor has anyone witnessed them aging over (the believed) millions of years. Radiometric dating is one-third fact and two-thirds assumption, and it is unreproducible. Lava flows occurring in recorded historic times have dated radiometrically at millions of years old. This does not give us confidence in the current guesstimates of the earth's allegedly long age.

There is discernable carbon on and near many fossilized dragon bones. (By current evolutionary theory these bones must be at least 65 million years old, correct?) Creationists scrape some carbon off and periodically send samples to labs for (C14) dating; the results show the dinosaur-associated carbon to be a maximum of only thousands of years old. Science triumphs. Evolutionists have been known to fly into a rage when creationists later publish just where the dated carbon came from. A different example is the new lava dome on Mount St. Helens. It is barely 35 years old, but radioactive dating (K-Ar) shows that it is 1 million years old! ...Something is very, very wrong here. Pompeii and Hawaii also have historical volcanic flows that prove K-Ar dating does not work worth beans. Yet evolution's high priests cling to such believed ancient dates since there is no other purported "evidence" that will give them an Earth that's over 10,000 years old. All major rivers and waterfalls show the Earth to be only thousands of years old. The myth-ions of years simply never happened. This is science; testable-repeatable science we're talking about. These tests ... can be repeated, hint, hint.

What about the fossil record?


The "creationists' best friend" (i.e. the fossil record) still shows a distinct lack of transitional forms. Sure, every generation of evolutionists have a few new ones, but none of them have stood the test of time so far. Lately they're trying real-hard-like to claim that "dinosaurs grew feathers" to validate temporary evolutionary theory. This will fall flat too. Wait and see. (They have good artists though, don't they?) They've got great illustrations of "probable" interim forms, without the slightest bit of scientific evidence to back them up. It's sad what they're doing to the children with such propaganda.

Human (hominid) evolution is a FACT! Admit it!

Humans alive today vary in cranial capacity from about 700 cc to 2200 cc, with no relation of brain size to intelligence. (The average is about 1300 to 1350 cc; i.e. cubic centimeters.) I used to live in Tokyo, Japan for 5 years. Their average "brain size" is much smaller than mine (as a tall Caucasian) but I can assure you that the Japanese are very smart people. If we look at computers, one could argue that circuits that are closer together are more efficient and faster, ... so a smaller brain size may not necessarily be a disadvantage, correct? When evolutionists line up old mute skulls from smaller to larger (and purposefully hide the found ancient skulls that are larger than today's average) they make false assumptions linking brain size to intelligence - neglecting reason! Plus their radioactive dating methods don't work in the first place (as stated above), so they have no idea how old each skull is in the first place.

Excuse me, but what happens to the bones of a person who doesn't get enough calcium in their diet? Or if they were lacking copper, for example, it would detrimentally affect brain development. If, in past times, many peoples only ate local foods ... (stay with me here) and the local soil in different places had a lack of selinium, or magnesium, or iron, or any number of other trace minerals ... then this would affect each person and animal in the respective area over generations, correct? When we come along now and look at the hominid fossils left behind let's consider all of the logical scientific possibilities (including potentially inbred defects), and not just use a selected dishonest evolutionary sampling of the literally thousands of found hominid remains (hiding or ignoring the vast majority of them!) in order to try to publicize and endow temporary evolutionary theory with credibility - in other words, they are proclaiming evolution at all costs in spite of the fossil evidence. There will be a high cost to us if we let them continue to deceive the public with false, doctored evidence. The fossil record (i.e. the creationist's best friend) shows that each kind has always varied within each kind, which is evidence of tremendously wise design.

What does evolution do? (Yes, I'm asking YOU a serious question!) It fills a need for our origins. It is not testable-repeatable. And when creationists show that evolution stands against scientific evidence the evolutionists get angry. Angry? Excuse me? I thought this was "science" ... the free exchange of ideas and evidence and all. We're threatening their religion. Who are we as humans? Why are we here? Where will we go? 3.5 billion base pairs for human DNA. Wow! I don't have enough faith to believe in random chance for our origins. This is different ... different than other kinds of science, isn't it?

Doesn't everyone know that "creation science" is an oxymoron?

This is the ultimate ancient history we're talking about - our origins. This makes it a contentious issue that touches us each deeply. Very deeply indeed and this makes it threatening. It is unlike other kinds of science. If there is a God out there who both created us and claims the right to judge us after this life, after this time of learning and testing, then we're mad fools if we stand strong against reality, close our collective eyes and proclaim en masse that His existence must not be. We are afterall small, finite creatures bound to a soft bluish marble in space that's off to one side of a particular galaxy; limited to only 5 senses too. And some of our "smartest" people, proclaiming themselves to be wise, assume that all that is must answer to our finite understanding or else it can't exist? "Evolutionary science" with its attendant hubris may very well be an oxymoron, but not the term "creation science" which recognizes firstly that we and our simple understanding are not at the center of all that is.

Creationists don't publish for scientific peer review, proving that they're not doing good science, right?

Well ... it is awfully convenient that the same ivory tower guardians who reject disapproved manuscripts turn right around and then blame creationists for not being allowed to publish quality research in their scientific publications.

The late Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has pointed out that there are many creationist scientists working in industry or health professions, but that anti-creationist bias has become so intense in academia that no one can speak or write openly against evolutionism without being ostracized or fired. Peer review under peer pressure while in competition for respect and career advancement has its limitations. Evolutionists have decided that there is no "God" (none of any consequence) to answer to which means that human consensus is the highest state for discerning truth. How could any evolution-teaching professor break ranks and hope to keep his or her job? Breaking with such a (non-God-fearing) consensus makes one, by definition, wrong; understand that with no "God" to answer to the corruption will grow stronger unless broken from the outside (not unlike a corrupt city police department, political regime, or false religion's heirarchy).

The respected Creation Research Society currently has about 650 members, all of whom have advanced degrees in science. Many of these have published fine scientific articles. The CRS also publishes a regular scientific journal and a bi-monthly newsletter featuring a variety of science-based articles.

Evolution is science; creationism is religion

This statement of belief by scoffers is common. I usually respond only briefly to such offhand remarks. But here I'll mention that evolution is a believed process to explain our origins. In thousands of years of human farming and ranching it has never been recorded as occurring. There are still no bona fide transitional fossils; not a single one. The believed radioactive dating methods for postulating millions ("myth"-ions) of years do not stand up to testable-repeatable scientific scrutiny. And sometimes ...I'll admit here ... I like to alter the usual debate wording, for effect. I'll discuss instead the debate between "creation science vs. the religion of evolution." Macro-evolution (from molecules to man, automatically over time) is strongly believed by its adherents but it is not the only theory in town.

What is the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution?

Macro-evolution is the theory that one kind of life form can become another kind given enough time and chance. Micro-evolution however is the observed biological process showing descendants that are similar to (but clearly not clones of) their ancestors. (Isn't it astounding that the Creator built in such automatic adjustability within each kind!) A child usually inherits visible traits from both parents, etc. Micro-evolution is scientific. This is the way our Creator designed life to be, various speciation could occur within each preset "kind" of life form. Watch carefully--when evolutionists offer their proofs of believed macroevolution, it is ALWAYS instances of microevolution that they cite, hoping that you won't notice the difference. Mendel's laws of genetics show us why microevolution does not lead to macroevolution.

...There are many more questions and variations of questions and challenges that people ask. Hopefully this FAQ will answer some of the questions that you may have thought of concerning this important subject. If you're a God fearing person, please pray about your understanding of this foundational issue. After checking out both sides - you may come to an entirely different conclusion, but please at least consider the possibility that the reason we've written and posted all of this information on this web page is that we hope it will be edifying and informative for you.


======

At the time of the Fall, when Adam and Eve sinned we lost direct contact with our Maker. This was about 6,000 years ago. In the intervening generations it has been a struggle to preserve and pass on our place in the universe and how to get back into a right place with Him. As our ancestors diverged after the Flood they passed on preserved history variations including over 250 still remembered accounts of the Flood! No culture's history claims to go back further than about 5,000 years. All over the world this is so. Yet, over the past 200 years there has been a growing push by "advanced modern man" to completely forget what's left of our true ancient history of only thousands of years in total, to be replaced by the mythical "millions" of supposed years, that we are cosmic accidents and for us to stand together against our Maker...

I'll close this with a prayer that even atheists and anti-theists can pray in a quiet, sincere way: "Creator, if You are there and if You can hear me, please help me." Just take that first step. We're not alone in the universe.

Paul Abramson, Editor of: www.creationism.org

Other Creation Science FAQs:
CMI • Creation Ministries Intl. - Creation Answers FAQ
ICR • Institute for Creation Research FAQ
CSC's "In the Beginning" - Full Index
AIG • Answers In Genesis FAQ

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

JohnnyL . . . this piece is full of speculation, unaffirmed and black-and-white assertions, and out-and-out false statements, etc.

You're welcome to it, but it was written by someone who knows little about the science of geology/geophysics. If the fellow showed the least bit of appreciation and knowledge/understanding of the science, he would do much better.

He, and I assume, you, are clearly in the camp of those who try to force science to fit our incomplete understanding or even incomplete scriptural descriptions of creation and creation-related topics.

A losing game, IMSHO. Lot's of luck.

As Red has repeatedly tried to convey, we simply don't know the actual processes used in the creation. The writer of this piece seems to lump all evolution proponents into one reductionist, atheistic camp. Which is a misrepresentation of reality. Just one of his example of using black-and-white categorizations to simplify his thinking.

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

When Yahovah Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when He had filled the Earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael or Adam goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.” (Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report, Church Archives. Also see the Essential Brigham Young pg. 94)

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Spaced_Out »

larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 1:36 pm JohnnyL . . . this piece is full of speculation, unaffirmed and black-and-white assertions, and out-and-out false statements, etc.

You're welcome to it, but it was written by someone who knows little about the science of geology/geophysics. If the fellow showed the least bit of appreciation and knowledge/understanding of the science, he would do much better.

He, and I assume, you, are clearly in the camp of those who try to force science to fit our incomplete understanding or even incomplete scriptural descriptions of creation and creation-related topics.

A losing game, IMSHO. Lot's of luck.

As Red has repeatedly tried to convey, we simply don't know the actual processes used in the creation. The writer of this piece seems to lump all evolution proponents into one reductionist, atheistic camp. Which is a misrepresentation of reality. Just one of his example of using black-and-white categorizations to simplify his thinking.
The scriptures give us a comprehensive understanding of intelligence,spiritual bodies and the likeness of the flesh. The creation in the scriptures the 6 periods was a spiritual creation.
How do you understand the age of dinosaurs or the age the rocks they are found in when viable DNA has been found in the dinosaur bones.
How do you read the scriptures that state in the days of Peleg the earth was divided but geology is telling us that it was hundreds of millions of years ago.

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

why do we argue over evolution vs creation or some combination there of.
Brigham Young, in General Conference told us what happened.
It seems as though we would all rather push this theory or that theory instead
of just knowing what the prophets have said. It is possible that what the prophets
have said are more likely to be true that what any theory of man is.

But that approach doesn't let us exercise our agency to believe what we chose
or allow us to demonstrate our intelligence through presenting rational arguments
supporting this theory over that theory.

Agency is not our friend if we chose wrong, only of value when we chose correctly.
And the purpose of intelligence is to recognize and accept truth not to be creative
in all the ways to argue for falsehoods.

So my intelligence recognizes this as truth, my spirit feels joy in its beauty.
And I use my agency to chose the enlightenment from the true messengers
from my Father.

When Yahovah Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when He had filled the Earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael or Adam goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.” (Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report, Church Archives. Also see the Essential Brigham Young pg. 94)

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

Spaced_Out wrote: September 9th, 2017, 2:50 pm
larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 1:36 pm JohnnyL . . . this piece is full of speculation, unaffirmed and black-and-white assertions, and out-and-out false statements, etc.

You're welcome to it, but it was written by someone who knows little about the science of geology/geophysics. If the fellow showed the least bit of appreciation and knowledge/understanding of the science, he would do much better.

He, and I assume, you, are clearly in the camp of those who try to force science to fit our incomplete understanding or even incomplete scriptural descriptions of creation and creation-related topics.

A losing game, IMSHO. Lot's of luck.

As Red has repeatedly tried to convey, we simply don't know the actual processes used in the creation. The writer of this piece seems to lump all evolution proponents into one reductionist, atheistic camp. Which is a misrepresentation of reality. Just one of his example of using black-and-white categorizations to simplify his thinking.
The scriptures give us a comprehensive understanding of intelligence,spiritual bodies and the likeness of the flesh. The creation in the scriptures the 6 periods was a spiritual creation.
How do you understand the age of dinosaurs or the age the rocks they are found in when viable DNA has been found in the dinosaur bones.
How do you read the scriptures that state in the days of Peleg the earth was divided but geology is telling us that it was hundreds of millions of years ago.
Source your claim for viable DNA in dinosaur bones. And if you are able to source it, consider why those who found the DNA believe it was able to survive through eons of time.

Hugh Nibley interprets (to my memory of him writing on this subject) the idea that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg to mean that the nations and languages were divided, not the earth, per se.

The problem you're going to have with trying to force-fit your idea of what the scriptures say or what a given translation of the scriptures say, with the claims of science, is coming up short by not really understanding the science or the actual claims of the science and why the claims are made. To say that science is simply in the thrall or influence of atheism, doesn't even begin to cover the bases.

TO actually understand a given science takes a LOT of work and application. The easy way, is to ignore the actual claims of science. It's akin to Nibley's "gas law of learning", IMSHO.
Last edited by larsenb on September 9th, 2017, 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

Hidingbehindmyhandle wrote: September 9th, 2017, 3:05 pm why do we argue over evolution vs creation or some combination there of.
Brigham Young, in General Conference told us what happened.
It seems as though we would all rather push this theory or that theory instead
of just knowing what the prophets have said. It is possible that what the prophets
have said are more likely to be true that what any theory of man is.

But that approach doesn't let us exercise our agency to believe what we chose
or allow us to demonstrate our intelligence through presenting rational arguments
supporting this theory over that theory.

Agency is not our friend if we chose wrong, only of value when we chose correctly.
And the purpose of intelligence is to recognize and accept truth not to be creative
in all the ways to argue for falsehoods.

So my intelligence recognizes this as truth, my spirit feels joy in its beauty.
And I use my agency to chose the enlightenment from the true messengers
from my Father.

When Yahovah Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when He had filled the Earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael or Adam goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.” (Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report, Church Archives. Also see the Essential Brigham Young pg. 94)
Brigham said a lot of things. He also said geology was a true science and that we shouldn't be surprised at the actual age of the earth. Joseph Smith has been quoted as easily believing the earth could be as much as 63 million years old. I've got both quotes somewhere, ones I garnered studying geology at BYU back when.

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Spaced_Out »

larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 3:09 pm
Source your claim for viable DNA in dinosaur bones. And if you are able to source it, consider why those who found the DNA believe it was able to survive through eons of time.

Hugh Nibley interprets (to my memory of him writing on this subject) the idea that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg to mean that the nations and languages were divided, not the earth, per se.

The problem you're going to have with trying to force-fit your idea of what the scriptures say or what a given translation of the scriptures say, with the claims of science, is coming up short by not really understanding the science or the actual claims of the science and why the claims are made. To say that science is simply in the thrall or influence of atheism, doesn't even begin to cover the bases.

TO actually understand a given science takes a LOT of work and application. The easy way, is to ignore the actual claims of science. It's akin to Nibley's "gas law of learning", IMSHO.
This again.

It is official teachings of the LDS church that the earth was physical divided, and will be restored to its original location in the last days.

D&C 133:22 And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found.
23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;
24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

The scriptures are plain Adam was the first flesh on the earth the animals came later - there is absolutely no possibility of evolution. God commanded all life forms to only multiply in their respective orders. The scriptures not only show that life has only been on earth for less than 6,000 years but God commanded there to be no evolution...

Dinosaur Shocker
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... HxKWGWp.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

Spaced_Out wrote: September 9th, 2017, 3:53 pm
larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 3:09 pm
Source your claim for viable DNA in dinosaur bones. And if you are able to source it, consider why those who found the DNA believe it was able to survive through eons of time.

Hugh Nibley interprets (to my memory of him writing on this subject) the idea that the earth was divided in the days of Peleg to mean that the nations and languages were divided, not the earth, per se.

The problem you're going to have with trying to force-fit your idea of what the scriptures say or what a given translation of the scriptures say, with the claims of science, is coming up short by not really understanding the science or the actual claims of the science and why the claims are made. To say that science is simply in the thrall or influence of atheism, doesn't even begin to cover the bases.

TO actually understand a given science takes a LOT of work and application. The easy way, is to ignore the actual claims of science. It's akin to Nibley's "gas law of learning", IMSHO.
This again.

It is official teachings of the LDS church that the earth was physical divided, and will be restored to its original location in the last days.

D&C 133:22 And it shall be a voice as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder, which shall break down the mountains, and the valleys shall not be found.
23 He shall command the great deep, and it shall be driven back into the north countries, and the islands shall become one land;
24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

The scriptures are plain Adam was the first flesh on the earth the animals came later - there is absolutely no possibility of evolution. God commanded all life forms to only multiply in their respective orders. The scriptures not only show that life has only been on earth for less than 6,000 years but God commanded there to be no evolution...

Dinosaur Shocker
Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the ancient beasts
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... HxKWGWp.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Here is Mary Schweitzer's take on how her work is being used by 'Creationists":
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
Regarding the D&C 133:22 passage, it certainly describes some major events and in a very powerful way, but is it describing things before the Pangea break-up? It both talks about the deep being driven back into the north countries and that the people in the north countries coming in remembrance unto the Lord and their prophets smiting the rocks with ice will flowing down, which is somewhat contradictory. It also talks about the mountains flowing down at the Lord's presence and the valleys will not be found.

So, very apocalyptic. Hard to tell just how universal all this will be. Tough to parse out...

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Spaced_Out »

larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 6:35 pm
Here is Mary Schweitzer's take on how her work is being used by 'Creationists":
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
Regarding the D&C 133:22 passage, it certainly describes some major events and in a very powerful way, but is it describing things before the Pangea break-up? It both talks about the deep being driven back into the north countries and that the people in the north countries coming in remembrance unto the Lord and their prophets smiting the rocks with ice will flowing down, which is somewhat contradictory. It also talks about the mountains flowing down at the Lord's presence and the valleys will not be found.

So, very apocalyptic. Hard to tell just how universal all this will be. Tough to parse out...
Science and religion is not two different ways of looking at the world. We have the greater light and knowledge given to us.
DNS in dinosaurs have now been found all over the world.

It is like anthropogenic global warming all fake science, very few if any geologist that I speak to agree with anthropogenic global warming. I have been involved in many heated discussions on LinkedIn over climate change -most geos support my view point.

The dinosaurs and climate change have gone beyond science to political correctness - if a person has a outlook other than what is politically correct that is the end of their career.

Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft Tissues Yields Surprising Results
http://www.icr.org/article/6084/

The scriptures are clear and science now shows that the timing is out.

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

It is illogical to be both an evolutionist and an ecologist, they are opposing theories.
An ecologist says that what man does to the earth is not natural.
It's wrong and needs to stop.
An evolutionist says that man is a natural product of the earth.
If that is so, everything man does to the earth is natural and therefore not wrong.
My position is that both are contrary to Eternal Law.
The earth's purpose is for the eternal progression of all life, including Man.
As such, all life pre existed the earth and brought here after it's creation.
And man was given dominion over it and all other life on the earth.
But I also believe that man has not been completely prudent in his stewardship.
But the creators foresaw that, thus there is enough and to spare.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

Spaced_Out wrote: September 9th, 2017, 9:57 pm
larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 6:35 pm
Here is Mary Schweitzer's take on how her work is being used by 'Creationists":
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it.

She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
Regarding the D&C 133:22 passage, it certainly describes some major events and in a very powerful way, but is it describing things before the Pangea break-up? It both talks about the deep being driven back into the north countries and that the people in the north countries coming in remembrance unto the Lord and their prophets smiting the rocks with ice will flowing down, which is somewhat contradictory. It also talks about the mountains flowing down at the Lord's presence and the valleys will not be found.

So, very apocalyptic. Hard to tell just how universal all this will be. Tough to parse out...
Science and religion is not two different ways of looking at the world. We have the greater light and knowledge given to us.
DNS in dinosaurs have now been found all over the world.

It is like anthropogenic global warming all fake science, very few if any geologist that I speak to agree with anthropogenic global warming. I have been involved in many heated discussions on LinkedIn over climate change -most geos support my view point.

The dinosaurs and climate change have gone beyond science to political correctness - if a person has a outlook other than what is politically correct that is the end of their career.

Carbon Dating of '70 Million Year Old' Mosasaur Soft Tissues Yields Surprising Results
http://www.icr.org/article/6084/

The scriptures are clear and science now shows that the timing is out.
Source for your claims that "DNS in dinosaurs have now been found all over the world." This is the 2nd time you've made this claim, citing no evidence for it.

And your conflating anthropogenic global warming with dating of dinosaurs, now? Quite the jump. And if you don't believe in C-14 dating, how can you presume to use it to say anything intelligent about the age of a 'Mosasaur'? Bit of a contradiction, wouldn't you say??

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 3:13 pm ones I garnered studying geology at BYU back when.
I taught my son from the writings of the prophets.
He astounded his seminary instructor with his understand
of the way things really are. He told me about one of
his classes, the discussion was evolution v creation.
After a while the instructor asked my son what he thought.
He said, "There is only one way bodies are created, the same
way your and mine were created".

Now my Son is a geology student at BYU. He now argues
ecology and evolution with me.
Thanks a whole hell of a lot BYU.

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Spaced_Out »

larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 10:34 pm
Source for your claims that "DNS in dinosaurs have now been found all over the world." This is the 2nd time you've made this claim, citing no evidence for it.

And your conflating anthropogenic global warming with dating of dinosaurs, now? Quite the jump. And if you don't believe in C-14 dating, how can you presume to use it to say anything intelligent about the age of a 'Mosasaur'? Bit of a contradiction, wouldn't you say??
Climate change is evidence of political silence that is incorrect.
To me the scriptures are clear and that is all I need,a discussion on dinosaur soft tissue is neither here nor there. For your curiosity, some articles of finds in China, Canada, UK and previously the US. A 2 min google search, evolutionist wont accept the data anyway as it does not fit their political correctness.

"Amazing" Dino Fossil Found With Skin, Tissue in China
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -skin.html

A brown, pebble-sized object found in a rock pool on a beach near Bexhill, Sussex bears the first evidence of fossilised dinosaur brain tissue, scientists say.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ain-tissue

http://technology.inquirer.net/62706/di ... n-and-more

Scientists accidentally discover what appear to be red blood cells and collagen fibres during analysis of ‘crap’ fossils dug up in Canada 100 years ago
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -fragments

CHINA - Dna Discovered In Dinosaur Egg

Spaced_Out
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Spaced_Out »

Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/ ... ur-fossil/

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Attorneys for a California State University, Northridge scientist who was terminated from his job after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops fossil have filed a lawsuit against the university.

While at the Hell Creek Formation excavation site in Montana, researcher Mark Armitage discovered what he believed to be the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site, according to attorney Brad Dacus of Pacific Justice Institute.

Upon examination of the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Dacus says Armitage was “fascinated” to find soft tissue on the sample – a discovery Bacus said stunned members of the school’s biology department and even some students “because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.”

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

Hidingbehindmyhandle wrote: September 9th, 2017, 10:38 pm
larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 3:13 pm ones I garnered studying geology at BYU back when.
I taught my son from the writings of the prophets.
He astounded his seminary instructor with his understand
of the way things really are. He told me about one of
his classes, the discussion was evolution v creation.
After a while the instructor asked my son what he thought.
He said, "There is only one way bodies are created, the same
way your and mine were created".

Now my Son is a geology student at BYU. He now argues
ecology and evolution with me.
Thanks a whole hell of a lot BYU.
Don't blame BYU for the Brigham Young and Joseph Smith quotes.

Brigham statement about geology being a true science was prompted, as I recall, when he talked to John Wesley Powell sometime during Powell's late 1860's, early 1870's expeditions to the Green and Colorado River basins.

Brigham said (notice the highlighted remark):
You may take geology, for instance, and it is true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible [see Abraham 3:24; D&C 131:7]. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. … If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth (DBY, 258–59).
From: https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-br ... 7?lang=eng

An slightly different version of part of the above quote has Brigham saying:
“..In these respects we differ from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science, not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts—they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible ... whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless He give revelation on the subject. (Journal of Discourses 14:116
Of course, Brigham wasn't aware of radiometric dating and other methods of geologic age estimations, which go beyond mere speculation.

Brigham also said:
“You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has.”
Here is how FAIR treats the question of dinosaurs living and dying out long ago, w/the side comments on whether or not the Fall of Adam brought about the first death of all flesh or just Adam and his posterity (found at: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... _the_Earth ). I'm one of those who believe that Adam's fall brought about the death of him and his posterity, having rubbed my nose in many, many large quantities of rock/strata going back to the earliest times, that have been chock full of the remains of dead animals.
Question: How do dinosaurs fit into God's plan?
The core of the problem is that the scriptures and the revelations simply don't talk about dinosaurs

My seminary class has questions regarding the dinosaurs. They seem to be stuck on "where" and "when." How do they fit into the creation story presented by the scriptures?

Your seminary students are probably hung up on the following issues:

Scientists say dinosaurs lived and died millions of years ago, and became extinct due to a cataclysmic event, probably an asteroid that struck the earth. This is what your students are taught in school, because it reflects the scientific consensus.
It is generally believed by many members of the Church that the fall of Adam and Eve took place around 4,000 B.C., and that before this there was no death in the world.
How do we square #1 with #2? How do we account for fossils that appear to be millions of years old, if we conclude there was no death before about 6,000 years ago?

The core of the problem is that the scriptures and the revelations simply don't talk about dinosaurs, and are inconclusive about whether there was physical death for other organisms before Adam and Eve's fall. This leaves each person to decide for themselves how the fossils we have discovered fit into the timeline of the plan of salvation. There generally two possible solutions that have been adopted by intelligent, faithful Latter-day Saints:

Some take the approach that the earth is very old, that there was death before the Fall, and that the dinosaurs lived and died in a era long before the story of Adam and Eve begins.
Some have reasoned that there was no death before the Fall, so the dinosaurs must have lived alongside Adam and the early patriarchs, perhaps dying in (maybe even after) the Flood. (See: Death before the fall main article FAIRWiki link.)
Some, based on the teachings of Joseph Smith that the earth was organized out of existing material rather than created from nothing, have even concluded that dinosaurs never existed on this world, and that the bones we've found are actually from the destroyed remains of other planets. This is not a popularly held notion today, and it contradicts the findings of modern paleontology. In fact, Brigham Young University has a paleontology museum.

The scriptures — especially the creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple endowment — are not concerned with laying out a comprehensive history of the earth

The three important points to get across to your students are:

The scriptures — especially the creation accounts in Genesis, Moses, Abraham, and the temple endowment — are not concerned with laying out a comprehensive history of the earth. They are concerned with telling the story of God's covenant relationship with men, a covenant he first established with Adam and Eve. Anything outside this story is simply not relevant to the issue the scriptures are dealing with.
Latter-day Saints are ultimately interested in truth, whatever and wherever it may be. We should not be afraid of learning new things that may contradict our previous assumptions, and we should not be overly dogmatic about things that are peripheral to the gospel message (that message being Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, the Book of Mormon was divinely revealed, the keys of the priesthood are on the earth). In other words, have an open mind, but not a gaping one.
Ultimately, our salvation does not depend on when we believed the dinosaurs lived, or even if we believe there was (or was not) death before the Fall. Our salvation lies in hearing the word the Lord and then doing it.

I wasn't able to find Joseph Smith's statement about the age of the earth, but there is a quote by W. W. Phelps to the effect that we could expect the age of this 'system' to be something like 2,555 million years old. Phelp's had been one of Joseph's scribes, and speculation is that he got the number from Joseph.
Last edited by larsenb on September 9th, 2017, 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mcusick
captain of 100
Posts: 391
Location: Texas

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by mcusick »

Hidingbehindmyhandle wrote: September 9th, 2017, 10:38 pm
larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 3:13 pm ones I garnered studying geology at BYU back when.
I taught my son from the writings of the prophets.
He astounded his seminary instructor with his understand
of the way things really are. He told me about one of
his classes, the discussion was evolution v creation.
After a while the instructor asked my son what he thought.
He said, "There is only one way bodies are created, the same
way your and mine were created".

Now my Son is a geology student at BYU. He now argues
ecology and evolution with me.
Thanks a whole hell of a lot BYU.
BYU converted me to evolution. BYU uses your tithing money. Your tithes helped me accept evolution!

Isn't the above statement about the creation of bodies (from your son's seminary class) what evolution says? :ymsmug:

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 11:26 pm Don't blame BYU for the Brigham Young and Joseph Smith quotes.
Where in my post did I do that?
I hate having my posts misrepresented.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

replicated post
Last edited by larsenb on September 9th, 2017, 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

mcusick post_id wrote:
BYU converted me to evolution. BYU uses your tithing money. Your tithes helped me accept evolution!
My condolences

Isn't the above statement about the creation of bodies (from your son's seminary class) what evolution says? :ymsmug:
Absolutely not
This is the truth.
What I am now going to tell you, will no doubt astonish the whole of you.
When Yahovah Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when He had filled the Earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael or Adam goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.” (Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report, Church Archives. Also see the Essential Brigham Young pg. 94)

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 11:34 pm I wasn't able to find Joseph Smith's statement about the age of the earth, but there is a quote by W. W. Phelps to the effect that we could expect the age of this 'system' to be something like 2,555 million years old. Phelp's had been one of Joseph's scribes, and speculation is that he got the number from Joseph.
That's interesting, Joseph said that God has been a God for only 250 Million years.
I don't think the earth was a handmedown.
Smith trumps Phelps.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

Hidingbehindmyhandle wrote: September 9th, 2017, 11:30 pm
larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 11:26 pm Don't blame BYU for the Brigham Young and Joseph Smith quotes.
Where in my post did I do that?
I hate having my posts misrepresented.
No misrepresentation. Just a cautionary note.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by larsenb »

Hidingbehindmyhandle wrote: September 9th, 2017, 11:38 pm
larsenb wrote: September 9th, 2017, 11:34 pm I wasn't able to find Joseph Smith's statement about the age of the earth, but there is a quote by W. W. Phelps to the effect that we could expect the age of this 'system' to be something like 2,555 million years old. Phelp's had been one of Joseph's scribes, and speculation is that he got the number from Joseph.
That's interesting, Joseph said that God has been a God for only 250 Million years.
I don't think the earth was a handmedown.
Smith trumps Phelps.
As mentioned, we had a quote from Joseph where he said he would not be surprised that the earth was 63 million years old. I have it someplace in my stuff. He probably was commenting on having heard that bandied around at the time, which was when a lot of speculation about such things was surfacing.

Hidingbehindmyhandle
captain of 100
Posts: 636

Re: Creation/Evolution

Post by Hidingbehindmyhandle »

Adam brought all the plants and animals here, the earth may be 63M, but it didn't take that long to arrange transport from another planet. And Adam was not in the garden that long.

Post Reply