Creation/Evolution

[Seek the Truth]

In case this hasn't been covered on this forum. I'd be very interested to see where people fall these days in the Church.

[gclayjr]

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "evolution". This is a term that has "flexible meanings". If you mean "Organic evolution", then obviously false.. It is an Atheistic faith not based upon any scientific evidence. To those who assert otherwise, I challenge them to show one bit of scientific evidence showing how reproductive life could emerge from inorganic chemicals, and they invariable fall into a sputtering rage repeating that what they believe is science over and over with no explanation.

However, we also know that God is bound by natural laws, and controls them to obtain his will, just like man uses airfoils to fly. We also know that the historical record does show that primitive life came before more complex life (although one of the lies out there is that there is any scientific ability to show who the parents are of any creature in the fossils).

I find that those biblical literalists who try and argue that the universe was created in 144 earth hours are just as far out in loony toon land as those who say that there is scientific evidence that life spontaneously emerged from inorganic chemicals. LDS doctrine is correct here. The days referred to in scripture simply refers to creative periods and is not meant to refer to any specific period of time.

The group I think that has this best explained are the Intelligent design people who show that there is ample scientific evidence that the world and the universe was built following the design of an intelligent being, just as there is ample evidence that a Pontiac Trans AM wasn't built by a tornado blowing through a junk yard.

Regards,

George Clay

[Seek the Truth]

I updated the questions so those interested will need to revote, also I added options regarding evolution of life forms, so you can vote 2 times.

[mes5464]

This survey is unanswerable.

The universe is with beginning or end.

The earth is at least 13k years old. We simple do not know how long the garden of Eden state lasted.

Dinosaurs are here with us. Reptiles will continue to grow as long as they are left alone. We simple do not have any reptiles living long enough to reach dinosaur size/status.

Life was seeded here just like Adam and Eve were. Plants, animals, insects, humans were all brought here from other worlds.

What does this mean from the very beginning? We have no idea and it is futile to speculate. We will have to await the revealed word of God to explain it to us.

[Seek the Truth]

The problem is we have quite a bit revealed and nobody seems to want to touch it.

[Seek the Truth]

I updated the questions again, was not sure how technical people would get. Please vote again if need be.

[captainfearnot]

I voted "Dinosaurs turned into chickens" because I interpreted that as a flippant reference to the pro-evolution side of the issue.

Not because I actually believe that dinosaurs turned into chickens.

[Hezekiah]

I voted "Dinosaurs turned into chickens" because I understood that to be your flippant characterization of the pro-evolution side of the issue.

Not because I actually believe that dinosaurs turned into chickens.

Are you so sure that dinosaurs didn't turn into chickens? Behold, the evidence is before us!

dinonuggets.jpg (10.77 KiB) Viewed 1752 times

dinonuggets2.jpg (7.47 KiB) Viewed 1752 times

[captainfearnot]

Clearly, this is evidence that chickens are being turned into dinosaurs.

[Seek the Truth]

I voted "Dinosaurs turned into chickens" because I interpreted that as a flippant reference to the pro-evolution side of the issue.

Not because I actually believe that dinosaurs turned into chickens.

Do you know any pro evolution scriptures?

[Hezekiah]

Clearly, this is evidence that chickens are being turned into dinosaurs.

What came first? The chicken or the chicken nugget shaped like a dinosaur? I'm afraid we'll just never get to the bottom of this riddle :-B

[captainfearnot]

What came first? The chicken or the chicken nugget shaped like a dinosaur? I'm afraid we'll just never get to the bottom of this riddle :-B

Maybe the dinosaur shaped chicken has always been there. Like Michelangelo said of his sculptures, they always existed inside the marble, he just had to chip away to discover them.

Do you know any pro evolution scriptures?

No, I do not.

[Seek the Truth]

I don't know how much we will debate but i would be curious in the reasoning people use to get their decisions.

Eg, I do not believe in the big bang because space expansion is non science/pseudoscience and it has many other problems.
I believe the earth was organized some 10-20k years ago, maybe as little as 7k year ago because the scripture goes to great lengths to get us to believe that.
I do not believe in the abiotic genesis of life because it is impossible on first blush.
I do not believe dinosaurs turned into chickens because the proposed method for doing this (random mutation) has never been shown to create new species even one time, and no DNA linkage between 2 separate species has ever been established. And the scriptures go to great effort to say that animals reproduce after their own kind.

[oneClimbs]

Do you know any pro evolution scriptures?

We have four creation accounts: Genesis, JST, Abraham, Endowment. We can take the "days" of creation literally in that they are representative of the 24 hour day, or 1 revolution of the earth that we know, or that they are metaphorical and represent a period of time that is much longer. Based on our observations, it would appear that the evidence favors the latter interpretation more.

Abraham 4:18 states, "And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." This assumes that all of creation in it's various forms fell perfectly into line within a 24 hour period each time. That seems pretty fast to me, but ok. Abraham 4 actually mentions many times that they commanded, observed, and waited. This is the only account that seems to indicate that the creation may not an immediate process. If it was, it would seem kind of odd that God would wake up in the morning and say, "Be there animals" and *poof* they all materialized and then he took the rest of the day off. If each day was like that, why would he need to rest of the 7th?

Another clue. In verses 11, 20, and 24 we read:

"Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass..."

"Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life..."

"And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind,..."

What preparation was done to the earth to cause IT to bring forth living things? In Moses 7:48, the earth itself says, "Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children." Very interesting verses to compare.

This contrasts to the Genesis account where it says: "Let the earth bring forth...and it was so." Even the JST follows this pattern roughly. But Abraham is a little more descriptive. The endowment calls the days "creative periods" which is what they are even though the length is what is debated, 24 hrs vs. millions of years.

The Genesis account with its 6 "day" creation is easy to understand and probably fits within the realms of the ancients language, understanding, and basic view of the world. They didn't possess the tools to understand dinosaurs, billions of years, and evolution. But they were told that there was an order to creation and that different things appeared at different times. They weren't told that the earth was created from the vomit of a giant turtle or anything, the process described doesn't sound too far from how a modern scientist might describe it. First a void, then water and land, then plant life, sea and land life, then human life. Human life was created after plant and animal life, I think that is significant to note.

All evolution says is that the time periods were longer and that life on earth can be traced back to a particular process. None of this voids the idea that at some point in this process Adam and Eve were placed in a particular garden location that had been prepared for them about 6k years ago and that we are their descendants.

Some might say, "Well, what about the cave men?" What about them, we don't know. Sure, many of them look human, but maybe they were not. Some great apes look human, especially if you put an ape and a human side by side and then contrast that with a potato and a human. Which is more similar to the point of being nearly identical? Yet the apes are not children of God, his descendants. Now have a human and an ape, then put a human next to a cave man. You may think the cave man and the human are nearly identical when contrasted to the ape and the human but they could be different in terms of who their divine parents are.

Animals have intelligence, they are living souls that had the breath of life breathed into them just as we did. That's a reason that their lives are sacred as well. Sure there are unanswered questions especially concerning the point at which evolution intersects with Eden but I'm sure we'll learn more in the future and be able to comprehend things that seem impossible at the moment.

[ParticleMan]

There does not seem to be sufficient data, of revealed truth and/or of scientific evidence, on which to firmly base an opinion on how long the Creation took.

While micro-evolution seems to be well observed, macro-evolution does not seem to be observable or testable. And as I recall, Joseph Smith is recorded to have said something to the effect that the man-like fossils then being discovered were unenlightened and degenerate; so, perhaps certain ape-like creatures devolved from man? Either way, doctrinally, we know that only man is the offspring of God, which 5tev3 laid out, so, at least for man, macro-evolution seems to be off the table. (And although this doesn't make it doctrine, Joseph Fielding Smith taught that Adam had a belly button. ;)

But the Big Bang and its supporting theories are not based on observation and experiment. And various, standard dating methodologies are highly problematic.

However, the Universal Model (UM) as well as plasma cosmology, such as the Electric Universe (EU) theory, is observable and testable to some extent (see The Thunderbolts Project site and channel and the SAFIRE project, for instance). The UM presents unsung and ignored science indicating that certain geological processes can take days, not eons. And the EU provides interpretation and prediction that fills holes of the gravity-only, mainstream theories and indicates that some geological processes could take minutes, not eons.

[mcusick]

Do you know any pro evolution scriptures?

We have four creation accounts: Genesis, JST, Abraham, Endowment. We can take the "days" of creation literally in that they are representative of the 24 hour day, or 1 revolution of the earth that we know, or that they are metaphorical and represent a period of time that is much longer. Based on our observations, it would appear that the evidence favors the latter interpretation more.

Abraham 4:18 states, "And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed." This assumes that all of creation in it's various forms fell perfectly into line within a 24 hour period each time. That seems pretty fast to me, but ok. Abraham 4 actually mentions many times that they commanded, observed, and waited. This is the only account that seems to indicate that the creation may not an immediate process. If it was, it would seem kind of odd that God would wake up in the morning and say, "Be there animals" and *poof* they all materialized and then he took the rest of the day off. If each day was like that, why would he need to rest of the 7th?

Another clue. In verses 11, 20, and 24 we read:

"Let us prepare the earth to bring forth grass..."

"Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life..."

"And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind,..."

What preparation was done to the earth to cause IT to bring forth living things? In Moses 7:48, the earth itself says, "Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children." Very interesting verses to compare.

This contrasts to the Genesis account where it says: "Let the earth bring forth...and it was so." Even the JST follows this pattern roughly. But Abraham is a little more descriptive. The endowment calls the days "creative periods" which is what they are even though the length is what is debated, 24 hrs vs. millions of years.

The Genesis account with its 6 "day" creation is easy to understand and probably fits within the realms of the ancients language, understanding, and basic view of the world. They didn't possess the tools to understand dinosaurs, billions of years, and evolution. But they were told that there was an order to creation and that different things appeared at different times. They weren't told that the earth was created from the vomit of a giant turtle or anything, the process described doesn't sound too far from how a modern scientist might describe it. First a void, then water and land, then plant life, sea and land life, then human life. Human life was created after plant and animal life, I think that is significant to note.

All evolution says is that the time periods were longer and that life on earth can be traced back to a particular process. None of this voids the idea that at some point in this process Adam and Eve were placed in a particular garden location that had been prepared for them about 6k years ago and that we are their descendants.

Some might say, "Well, what about the cave men?" What about them, we don't know. Sure, many of them look human, but maybe they were not. Some great apes look human, especially if you put an ape and a human side by side and then contrast that with a potato and a human. Which is more similar to the point of being nearly identical? Yet the apes are not children of God, his descendants. Now have a human and an ape, then put a human next to a cave man. You may think the cave man and the human are nearly identical when contrasted to the ape and the human but they could be different in terms of who their divine parents are.

Animals have intelligence, they are living souls that had the breath of life breathed into them just as we did. That's a reason that their lives are sacred as well. Sure there are unanswered questions especially concerning the point at which evolution intersects with Eden but I'm sure we'll learn more in the future and be able to comprehend things that seem impossible at the moment.

Thanks for saving me a ton of time

One verse that stuck out to me several years ago, was Abraham 4: 20-21 (and equivalents):
And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.
And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

Every living creature had origins in the waters. I read that and realized it sounded a lot like the "primordial soup".

[JohnnyL]

Some of the articles on this thread, viewtopic.php?t=45258 , seem relevant to this discussion.

I don't remember it every saying where animal spirits came from/ whether the Gods put them in them.

[larsenb]

. . . . .

But the Big Bang and its supporting theories are not based on observation and experiment. And various, standard dating methodologies are highly problematic. . . . . .

Actually the BIg Bang theory arose from observation, and subsequently has been indirectly supported by certain real-time experiments. The two main pillars being the 'steady' background radiation and the red shift increasing w/distance.

It is true, however, that in the late '90's to early 2000's, variations in the background radiation were detected, and 'corroborated' to exist by experiments conducted in about the 2002-2003 time-frame.

I don't know whether or not further 'theorization' has accounted for the variation, allowing for it in the BIg Bang model/theory.

And if you had actually studied "standard dating' methodologies (maybe you have, I don't know), one of their impressive aspects is that they are generally concordant. I.e., they come up with the same relatively overlapping dates, whether using strictly different radiometric methods or other estimates and methods.

The dating also generally corroborates the stratification and events that cross-cut stratification. Powerful tools, actually. RC dating, the same.

[Seek the Truth]

Big bang is not observed science. WHat is observed is red shift, which may have multiple explanations. But big bang assumed that space expands in order to make the theory work and of course space expansion doesn't happen.

[larsenb]

Big bang is not observed science. WHat is observed is red shift, which may have multiple explanations. But big bang assumed that space expands in order to make the theory work and of course space expansion doesn't happen.

The BIg Bang is a scientific hypothesis posited to explain the red shift. The measured back ground radiation is a confirmation of the hypothesis in so far as the model requires this type of radiation, with the observed frequency fitting the requirement. However, the frequency of the background radiation was supposed to be steady-state, which it apparently is not.

To make a statement that space does or does not expand is meaningless unless it you can explain what you mean by it. A first stab at it is that the expansion is simply measured by the relative distance between objects moving into unoccupied space. I.e., this space (occupied by material objects) is expanding. Not sure it means anything more than that. The concept then becomes logical and definable.

But don't misunderstand me. The BB theory has a lot of problems, IMHO; most having to do w/'first cause' issues, including the origin of the proto-BB matter existing as a virtual singularity, and what on earth would kick it off in the first place.

I think people, including many scientists, subconsciously like the theory, because it does seem to act as a 'first cause'. They can ignore the questions I posed above, and they can sidestep the issue of a creator. It's basically a reductionist theory.

[Seek the Truth]

When I say space expansion I am using the big bang definition. Blowing up like a ballon, rising like bread dough. It's not observed or testable and is nonsensical if you aren't invested in big bang.

There are indeed a number of problems with big bang, this is from a scientist.

[Z2100]

This survey is unanswerable.

The universe is with beginning or end.

The earth is at least 13k years old. We simple do not know how long the garden of Eden state lasted.

Dinosaurs are here with us. Reptiles will continue to grow as long as they are left alone. We simple do not have any reptiles living long enough to reach dinosaur size/status.

Life was seeded here just like Adam and Eve were. Plants, animals, insects, humans were all brought here from other worlds.

What does this mean from the very beginning? We have no idea and it is futile to speculate. We will have to await the revealed word of God to explain it to us.

Nice explanation. That is exactly what I’m thinking

[larsenb]

Dinosaurs are here with us. Reptiles will continue to grow as long as they are left alone. We simple do not have any reptiles living long enough to reach dinosaur size/status.

Life was seeded here just like Adam and Eve were. Plants, animals, insects, humans were all brought here from other worlds.

What does this mean from the very beginning? We have no idea and it is futile to speculate. We will have to await the revealed word of God to explain it to us.

"Reptiles will continue to grow as long as they are left alone". A highly, highly questionable assertion. And one that can be actually disproved . . . i.e., very high probability that any attempt to encourage any reptile of any species to stay alive and grow, will end in it reaching a certain limited size and dying.

"Dinosaurs are here with us"., could generally be construed as a true statement, because they seem to be phylogenetic descendants or even species related to or belonging to a "group of theropod dinosaurs that originated during the Mesozoic Era." ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds ).

I'll never forget discovering claws along the wings of a chicken we had bought to cook up . . . very similar to some species of winged, flying therapod dinosaurs.

[Z2100]

There were dinosaurs before the Great Flood. There were also reptiles that are related to dinosaurs such as lizards. Dinosaurs most likely weren’t allowed on Earth after the Great Flood.

Another thing that amazes me is that if a meteor struck the Gulf of Mexico, then wouldn’t the dinosaur remains be blasted to smitheriens? I’m talking about a HUGE cataclysmic event. Wouldn’t all dinosaur skeletons in Utah, Wyoming, etc be reduced to powder?

I also saw somewhere online that scientists found dinosaur tissue that was still alive. That would indefinitely prove that the Great Flood was some 5000 years.

[larsenb]

There were dinosaurs before the Great Flood. There were also reptiles that are related to dinosaurs such as lizards. Dinosaurs most likely weren’t allowed on Earth after the Great Flood.

Another thing that amazes me is that if a meteor struck the Gulf of Mexico, then wouldn’t the dinosaur remains be blasted to smitheriens? I’m talking about a HUGE cataclysmic event. Wouldn’t all dinosaur skeletons in Utah, Wyoming, etc be reduced to powder?

I also saw somewhere online that scientists found dinosaur tissue that was still alive. That would indefinitely prove that the Great Flood was some 5000 years.

The 'bolide' (very large extraterrestrial object) that is thought to have ended the dinosaur period at what is known as the KT boundary (Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary) hit the Yucatan Peninsula, not the Gulf of Mexico, per se. Most of the dinosaurs remains/fossils found would have already been buried at that time.

In fact, there have been some dinosaurs that lived somewhat beyond this boundary. But the bolide may have helped trigger massive volcanic outflows in the area of India, known as the Decan Traps, and the incredible volcanic outpouring at this time, including ash, gases and lava probably was the coup de grace to end the dinosaur era. The final nail in the coffin . . . . except for certain therapod bird species, perhaps.