i've been conversing back and forth with a youtube user TheSkepticChristian (not) and he made the claim today that
"We can believe or reject evolution, it doesn't matter, the church has no official position."

my response:
evolution--mutations, genetic drift and natural selection--is an *atheistic* model. it's biodiversity of life by mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. design or creation by a supernatural being is no part of the model. you can't believe in old testament creation by YHWH and at the same time believe that everything on earth evolved solely due to mutations, genetic drift and natural selection. they are mutually exclusive models.

Evolution theory presupposes a world millions or even billions of years old. Mormons think the age of the earth can me measured in thousands of years. The driving force of natural selection is death, (the survival of the fittest), according to mormons death was introduced with the fall some 6000 years ago. Evolution tells us that we are but one of millions of interrelated species, mormonism tells us that we're not related to any other lifeform on earth whatsoever (but to god himself).

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "does not!".

Get this- BYU offers classes in both. You can literally walk out of an evolution class into a religions class or vise-versa. I wonder how that is done???

There is nothing about evolution that precludes a God. Evolution does not address the creation of life, so speaking strictly about evolution, evolution does not address what or who started life. Also, evolution does not address what, how or who mutating was created.

So, speaking strictly about the theory of evolution, evolution leaves open the possibility that a God could have created the first cell and created mutating DNA.

Also, the apparently random mutations does not rule out the possibility that a God stepped in and occasionally, deliberately caused a specific mutation.

No, I think there is a lot of stuff that helps prove there is no god, but evolution is not one of them.

Evolution does tend to disprove the Biblical account of creation as well as some other creation myths.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2011 05:23PM by MJ.

> Evolution does tend to disprove the Biblical account of creation as well as some other creation myths.

this is the scope which i defined in my response. theism is absent from the model of biodiversity of life by "evolution by mutations, genetic drift and natural selection".

MJ's right. The "evolution vs creationism" dichotomy is a strawman proposed by YECs (Young Earth Creationists) as a means of appealing to the scientifically ignorant masses.

Abiogenesis vs creationism would be the fitting dichotomy.

When I was a kolobian it was easy to rationilize evolution and maintain my core belief system. Elohim organized matter which already existed (preserving thermodynamics), that matter coalesced into stars, supernovae, smaller stars, planets, moons, etc.

The conditions were such that biological life manifested and eventually evolved into higher primates, two of which elohim placed in a garden and put kolobian spirits into.

Of course, now I see that it's all bullshit, but it was easy to rationalize as a TBM.

Fundamentalist x-ians, on the other hand, have all their work ahead of them. I like to ask them what color Adam & Eve were, and what their explanation is for the many different races and genetic features if there is no such thing as evolution.

Some of the more experienced x-ians differ to the "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument, but there is no such thing. The only difference is time scale.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2011 06:00PM by chulotc.

chulotc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Abiogenesis vs creationism would be the fitting
> dichotomy.

that's an interesting point thanks.

> The conditions were such that biological life
> manifested and eventually evolved into higher
> primates, two of which elohim placed in a garden
> and put kolobian spirits into.

the problems with this are that the book of genesis claims:
1) adam was the first man, the father of humans.
2) YHWH created adam from the dust, he wasnt an evolved, living man, plucked from a group of other living men and put into a garden of eden. he didnt have a homo sapien father and mother and neither did eve because YHWH created eve from the rib of adam.
3) adam was immortal to begin with and death entered the world after eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
4) creation of animals and man happened on different "days" or iterations, whereas with evolution, homo sapiens and animals (and plants, etc) have been evolving side by side in one long continuous process.

then there's the anachronism in genesis 1:1-5 that the earth was created *before* the sun and then in verse 16, that the stars (the rest of the universe) were not created until the fourth day, long after the creation of the earth and sun.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 08:22PM by Nick Humphrey.

To define the scope of theism as the bible is just plain wrong. The majority of theist on the planet do not believe in the bible.

If you want to talk about the brand of theism that is based on the bible, you should state that scope and stick with it.

Trying to define the scope of theism to just the bible will tend to detract from your credibility and possibly piss off some theists who don't base their theism on the bible.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2011 06:01PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To define the scope of theism as the bible is just
> plain wrong. The majority of theist on the planet
> do not believe in the bible.

you have a good point. i made the mistake of limiting the definition of atheism to how christians seem to use it, that you "dont believe in god". they are so self-centered that they have hijacked the noun god and given it as an alternative name for YHWH, the god of the old testament. but this is semantics and an entirely different discussion...

but you're right, abrahamic religions only make up about 38-61% (low-high estimates) of religious belief in the world:
http://truthundertherazor.blogspot.com/2011/04/what-percent-of-religious-belief-is.html (my calculations according to numbers on wikipedia)

The theory of Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory that discriminable a process, NOTHING MORE. The Theory of Evolution does not say anything about theism or atheism. Atheism says nothing more than about a belief in God and has nothing to say about evolution.

Thus, the theory of evolution and theism/atheism are not linked.

Now, looking at the biblical explanation of creation, we find that the Theory of Evolution, thus science (not atheism), is contradicting the Biblical explanation creation.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 07:35PM by MJ.

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires a god.

There is nothing that REQUIRES a god, that YOU know of, but not requiring does not mean the same as precluding.

There is also nothing that proves that God did not create DNA and the way it mutates. If God did create DNA and the way it mutates, then Evolution does not preclude God, it is dependent on the creations of God.

The same with life itself. Evolution does not deal with the creation of life.

Also, there is nothing that proves conclusively that Evolution was not guided in some way. The mutations may follow a guided pattern laid out by a God that we just have not found yet.

No, sorry evolution does not preclude God, we do not know god was required in building the components required for evolution and we do not know if God guided the process of Evolution.

You may also want to consider a deist God before proclaiming that evolution precludes God.

Again, there are lots of ways to deal with disproving God, evolution is not one of them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 04:52PM by MJ.

in the very first post, i limited the scope to the god of the old testament, YHWH.

In fact, in discussing whether or not evolution is an "atheistic model", the point *I* am discussing, trying to limit the discussion to the OT is BULL SHIT.

By making the premise about an "*atheistic* model" you made the discussion and atheism/theism discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 06:03PM by MJ.

1) atheism/theism and evolution
2) old testament, young earth creation by YHWH and evolution by mutations, genetic drift and natural selection are mutually exclusive models.

But evolution DOES negate the "6000 years ago death entered the world"-- as the church has always taught. That statement gives no time or room for evolution.

(And I do now very well get that evolution does NOT preclude the existence of a God, or higher power that set all things in motion bllions of years ago)

http://www.tungate.com/Official_statements.htm

Have fun.

BTW, he's hoping you don't know Mormon scriptures very well, if this "TheSkepticChristian" person you're talking to is a Mormon. It's hard to tell when they confuse the issue by calling themselves "christians." Anyhoo, D&C 77:6 says:

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

And here is Jeff Lindsay's attempt to make it sound like something other than what it really says:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/08/dc-77-and-age-of-earth.html

I dunno, I actually feel like not taking an "official position" is better than what Evangelical churches do, trying to push silly pseudo-science on their members and kids by preaching about how the earth is only 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were in the garden of eden... (err I mean, dinosaurs besides raptorjesus, hehe)

There are way too many trying to make it the standard of science:

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution-targeted-in-classrooms-110429.html

And to our Texas board members.. I feel your pain!

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/04/27/6544304-creationism-on-the-rise-in-texas-

who declared that evolution was false and instead testified of a literal young earth creation, fall and global flood?

Seems like if you do one you're essentially doing the other.

TBMs however find a way to conveniently divorce the 2 issues. Funny, that.

Of course thr theory of evolution is in opposition to the Bible, Christianity, TSCC. Defence mechanisms: block it out as much as possible, be very acceptable to alternative 'theories', don't study it, don't discuss it, seek 'appertamentalization' in the mind - one for 'science' and one for 'God'.
The underlying idea is - the only way to really know what is truth is by the feelings associated with 'the spirit'.

If such defense mechanisms are being used against anything, it is seen as a threat, also if one denies tat it is and cover it up as almost a non-existing, irrelevant, non-competing, idea - the way one tells him- or herself about evil magical apparitions 'i don't recognize it as real, therefore it isnt true'.

The One True Church with All the Answers Straight from God® lacks positions on a lot of things. As I've said many times before, the only position that counts is obedience to the brethren. What you believe or don't believe outside what's covered in the temple recommend interview is pretty much irrelevant, so long you remain loyal to the church and follow follow follow the prophet. And blend sufficiently with Mormon culture.

the one true cult =)

I do believe that somewhere in the D&C (you ex missionaries can help me here) it states that had it not been for the fall, "ALL of Gods creations would have remained in an immortal state", or something like that.
What this does is, from a Mormon standpoint, preclude any reproductive life at all prior to the fall.....ranging from bacterial (evidence exists from several billions years ago) to human life. Since the supposed fall occurred around 6,000 years ago, mormons must dismiss the notion that ANY mortal life existed before then.
Yet I understand BYU supports this position, yet also teaches evolution in science related classes. Not sure how they reconcile this, but they always come up with some lame reasoning.

I think that, besides the obvious notion that God created everyting, creationists simply cannot comprehend the tremendous time span the earth has gone through; i.e. not being able to imagine that thousands of generations of dinosaurs were walking aronud on top of thousands of generations of their own dinosaur anscestors. They cannot, or choose not to understand that "humans" have been on the earth about .05% of the time that dinosaurs were the boss.
The LDS have the additonal problem that the earth was mde bits of other worlds that apparently had dino's as their rulers, so Raptorjesus has a long, long family line!!

I saw "theskepticchristian" posting things on the youtube wall of "exmormonfoundation." Its pretty ridiculous the things he's saying =/.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/30/2011 06:01PM by MJ.

In fact, cognitive dissonance is taught in Mormon Sunday school relabeled "faith."

For example, they tell you evolution isn't important enough to have a "Position" on and yet they have a Plan of Salvation which has 87 stair steps to godhood and starts with a team of dust-to-man surgeons starting the whole Garden of Eden thing up (We will go down....bring the chest cracker).

Then they laugh at the Christian concept of Trinity. WHAT? How can something be God and Jesus? Ridiculous? Wave AND particle? You're killing me. It's plain and simple, God and Jesus have to be separate beings becomes something can't be one thing and another at the same time! Idiots....

Bugs Bunny music fading out....

Anagrammy

This is Another Case of...


the Mo sayings (OFFICIAL & sub-official) are:

a) tangled in a web of ambiguity
b) So Specific that they Box Mormons into a Corner!
c) the ONLY key to what's Official & what's not is 'personal revelation'! IOW, it's so subjective... Can't hit the BullsEye!

Evolution as a process exists. It is undeniable. People today are significantly taller than they were in previous centuries.

This answer comes from Michael J. Dougherty, assistant director and senior staff biologist at Biological Sciences Curriculum Study in Colorado Springs, Col.

'Humans increased in stature dramatically during the last 150 years, but we have now likely reached the upper limit. The average height of a human man will probably never exceed that of basketball player Shaquille O'Neal, who stands 7 feet and 1 inch tall.

Anyone who has ever visited a home built around the time of the Revolutionary War along the back alleys of Philadelphia or Boston has been struck, metaphorically if not literally, by the characteristically low ceilings and small door frames. Even houses built in the early 1800s can make a person of average height by today's standards wonder how the orignal occupants managed to stay conscious long enough to participate in an industrial revolution and a civil war.

For most people, contemporary buildings do not prompt similar claustrophobic concerns. The reason for this difference, as many people have correctly guessed, is that modern humans are taller than those from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, over the last 150 years the average height of people in industrialized nations has increased approximately 10 centimeters (about four inches).'

Evolution exists, you can choose to ignore it if you wish...

From what I can see, the morg has only one official position: "Missionary position".

Just sayin'...

Ron