Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[skalenfehl]

@prisonchaplain, To address the OP, I have learned two things in my life about science and about religion. I have learned that evolution is not an observable, repeatable event. In other words, there may be evidence that may support evolution over x number of millennia, but it has not and  cannot be observed by any one person. Or at least, I have not been able to, in my lifetime, observe the theory of evolution in any way. I can read books written by men who have explained these things, but I am not able to experience these things. In other words, I have not ever observed one species evolve into another species. There may be cases of adaptation, but not evolution. Therefore, in my lifetime, this is still nothing more than theory. 

Religion is kind of the same. I can read books written by men who have explained things like how they conversed with the Lord and that He exists. Furthermore, I have learned that this, at least in my own life, is an observable and repeatable event. I have been able to reproduce the circumstances described by men in those books in my own life. Because of this, I know that God lives because He has spoken to me. I have heard his voice. I cannot prove it to anyone else, but I have proven it to myself, or rather God has proven it to me. 

Either way, faith is required to attempt to solve either case. Scientists have faith in the theory of evolution just as the religious have faith in the existence of God. It's up to the individual to labor diligently to be able to draw any real conclusion. Or in other words, to convert faith into knowledge.

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by skalenfehl
typos

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, estradling75 said:

I don't know why I bothered...  You refuse to accept anything that counters your own opinions...  no you did not call anyone apostate in that exact word... you called them " atheist" and "secular", and printed out basic math equations that show they don't follow LDS beliefs... but no you never used the word apostate... that is simply the clear implication you are leaving...  All While having the temerity to complain about people mocking your deeply held beliefs.   

If you can't handle the micro-aggressions then, Good grief do not use them against others

 

Get over it. Good grief.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

As good a definition as any for "heresy". It doesn't necessarily change the thrust of the post I made. The Church has never officially declared evolution or "pre-Adamites" or "death before the fall" (as this last is usually thought of) as heresy. Many -- included some apostles (I'm looking at you Joseph Fielding Smith) have spoke rather strongly against these theories, but the Church has never officially declared them heresies. There are certainly philosophical and theological questions that these theories raise, and many different thoughts on how to reconcile them. As near as I can tell, the Church is not too worried about whether or not we adopt a "no death before the fall" philosophy, or something that looks like "God initiated the big bang and has let it all evolve naturally from there" or anything in between.

You are free to think whatever you want. My own interpretation is that the church has spoken on a lot concerning the very literal Adam, the fall, the global flood, etc, and there actually is official doctrine. But, there will always be the few cherry picked answers that please the minority. And so, there ya go.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[askandanswer]

My understanding of the theory of evolution is that if an organism adheres to certain laws, in this case, the laws of survival of the fittest, then that organism is likely to progress and improve in relation to other forms of life. My understanding of the law of the gospel is that if I adhere to certain laws, in this case the laws of Heaven, then I am likely to progress and improve in relation to other forms of life. I see some similarities, although I suppose there are also some differences.  

[estradling75]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Get over it. Good grief.

Back at you...  And again a perfectly clear example on how you fail to hold up your side in attempts to have discussion but instead shut down, ignore, and attack the person that make any points that you disagree with

Edited January 22, 2017 by estradling75

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Back at you...  And again a perfectly clear example on how you fail to hold up your side in attempts to have discussion but instead shut down, ignore, and attack the person that make any points that you disagree with

I have clearly explained my points of argument. You were the first one to attack me when you decided to ignore that the 2002 statement trumps the 1931 statement. Not sure what else to say. One can ignore facts.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I have clearly explained my points of argument. You were the first one to attack me when you decided to ignore that the 2002 statement trumps the 1931 statement. Not sure what else to say. One can ignore facts.

Yes you can ignore the fact that I dropped that discussion...  And I am addressing the fact that you stated that you feel mocked for your heart felt belief while mocking the heart felt beliefs of others...  But sure.. continue to ignore that fact because it doesn't match what you want to hear.

 

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Yes you can ignore the fact that I dropped that discussion...  And I am addressing the fact that you stated that you feel mocked for your heart felt belief while mocking the heart felt beliefs of others...  But sure.. continue to ignore that fact because it doesn't match what you want to hear.

 

Have a nice day. Perhaps we can have a nice discussion in the future.

[estradling75]

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Have a nice day. Perhaps we can have a nice discussion in the future.

Sure...  if you actually try to discuss things...  So  I look forward to that day

 

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

My understanding of the theory of evolution is that if an organism adheres to certain laws, in this case, the laws of survival of the fittest, then that organism is likely to progress and improve in relation to other forms of life. My understanding of the law of the gospel is that if I adhere to certain laws, in this case the laws of Heaven, then I am likely to progress and improve in relation to other forms of life. I see some similarities, although I suppose there are also some differences.  

I think the biggest difference would be that physically, we arent evolving. We are created in Gods image- we look like him. God is an eternal being, he is not physically evolving. I personally believe that since Adam, our race has become more and more plagued with disease, sickness, and ills that have shortened life spans, effected looks (we are not as beautiful), etc.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Sure...  if you actually try to discuss things...  So  I look forward to that day

 

[askandanswer]

34 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think the biggest difference would be that physically, we arent evolving. We are created in Gods image- we look like him. God is an eternal being, he is not physically evolving. I personally believe that since Adam, our race has become more and more plagued with disease, sickness, and ills that have shortened life spans, effected looks (we are not as beautiful), etc.

After my death and resurrection, I will receive a glorious immortal body, that will never die. That sounds like a form of evolution to me. As to the idea that we have shortened life spans, yes, there was a time in the first 1500 or so years after Adam when some people apparently lived far longer than most people do now, although this longevity may have been limited to only those very few who were most righteous, but since that period ended the average life span now is decades longer than it was just a century ago, and it continues to increase. 

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

After my death and resurrection, I will receive a glorious immortal body, that will never die. That sounds like a form of evolution to me. As to the idea that we have shortened life spans, yes, there was a time in the first 1500 or so years after Adam when some people apparently lived far longer than most people do now, although this longevity may have been limited to only those very few who were most righteous, but since that period ended the average life span now is decades longer than it was just a century ago, and it continues to increase. 

I suppose one could call it evolution in a sense but for all eternity we will always be what we define ourselves as humans.

[Traveler]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:54 PM, skalenfehl said:

there may be evidence that may support evolution over x number of millennia, but it has not and  cannot be observed by any one person. Or at least, I have not been able to, in my lifetime, observe the theory of evolution in any way.

 

The term evolution and the theory of evolution simply means change.  Every human is conceived as a one cell creature and over the next 9 months or so evolves into a multicellular creature.   After birth a baby will continue to evolve and become an adult.  As an adult the human creature continues to evolve with a process we call aging.    Every living thing you come into contact with (including yourself) is observably evolving.  If you have never observed the theory of evolution it is ether because you do not understand what the theory of evolution is or because you refuse to look.

On another scale we can observe evolution taking place in generations of creatures creating new breeds and in some cases creatures that are called hybrids.  These are all demonstrations of the theory of evolution.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

The term evolution and the theory of evolution simply means change.  Every human is conceived as a one cell creature and over the next 9 months or so evolves into a multicellular creature.   After birth a baby will continue to evolve and become an adult.  As an adult the human creature continues to evolve with a process we call aging.    Every living thing you come into contact with (including yourself) is observably evolving.  If you have never observed the theory of evolution it is ether because you do not understand what the theory of evolution is or because you refuse to look.

On another scale we can observe evolution taking place in generations of creatures creating new breeds and in some cases creatures that are called hybrids.  These are all demonstrations of the theory of evolution.

 

The Traveler

We did not see dinosaurs evolving into birds. Thats what was meant.

[skalenfehl]

On 1/21/2017 at 9:54 PM, skalenfehl said:

In other words, I have not ever observed one species evolve into another species. There may be cases of adaptation, but not evolution.

@Traveler, @Rob Osborn is correct. I have quoted myself as reference. This is why I replied to the OP whose feelings about creationism is hotly debated by evolutionists. Of course, we cannot prove creationism either. 

[Traveler]

 

@Rob Osborn  @skalenfehl  Here is something to consider.  If the scriptures are to be believed; the ark of Noah was not big enough to hold mating pairs of all the current know species of worms in existence today.   The same is true for the currently known species of birds.

In order for there to be scientific proof it is necessary to start with what is called or known as accepted assumptions – then a result can be proven.  For example – one basic assumptions is that the laws of physics (and I would insert – the methods of G-d) are isotropic.  This means that such principles and methods are consistent throughout our universes space time.  It is interesting the scriptures encourage that we “prove all things”.  I believe in the religious context that proving means something similar but a little different than in the scientific understanding of proof.

Most within the religious community are willing to accept some evolution of life on earth – even since the fall of Adam.  For example they are willing to accept skin, hair and eye color in all the variety of humans as evolutionary traits. This despite the fact that the scriptures do not have any doctrinal responses to physical variations of human – including the giants spoken of in ancient scriptures that were mentioned as a separate category of peoples. 

I do not pretend to any degree that evolution is a divine doctrine that must be believed in order to be a Latter-day Saint.  But if a person is to learn from the “good books” of our generation and to follow the advice of the “brethren” we should be educated and knowledgeable.   Especially before we form our individual opinions.  And we should be willing to validate or methods.  My personal stand of evolution comes from a great deal of study and individual prayer.  Although I have strong opinion – I have far more questions than I have answers.  One big question has to do with genetic engineering and the future of the human race – in a millennial environment.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 23, 2017 by Traveler

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

If the scriptures are to be believed; the ark of Noah was not big enough to hold mating pairs of all the current know species of worms in existence today.

I agree with your point, @Traveler. But my Mr. Literal side insists that the statement above isn't literally true. The ark as described in the Bible was, at most, something over six million cubic meters. There are estimated to be something just under nine million species of living things (surprisingly, significantly more animal species than plant species). If every one of those were a species of worm, each worm pair would have (6 million cubic meters) / (9 million species of worm) = 2/3 of a cubic meter, or around 24 cubic feet, per worm species. So each pair of worms would share a 1'x4'x6' box. Even the largest worms I've ever heard of, the African giant earthworm, averages less than five feet in length. Two of them would fit with reasonable comfort in such a box. And since most worms (earthworms, nematodes, and others) are far, far smaller, we can be reasonably sure the earth's worm species would have fit just fine in Noah's ark.

[Traveler]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with your point, @Traveler. But my Mr. Literal side insists that the statement above isn't literally true. The ark as described in the Bible was, at most, something over six million cubic meters. There are estimated to be something just under nine million species of living things (surprisingly, significantly more animal species than plant species). If every one of those were a species of worm, each worm pair would have (6 million cubic meters) / (9 million species of worm) = 2/3 of a cubic meter, or around 24 cubic feet, per worm species. So each pair of worms would share a 1'x4'x6' box. Even the largest worms I've ever heard of, the African giant earthworm, averages less than five feet in length. Two of them would fit with reasonable comfort in such a box. And since most worms (earthworms, nematodes, and others) are far, far smaller, we can be reasonably sure the earth's worm species would have fit just fine in Noah's ark.

Perhaps by literal volumn but at the density your are suggesting the Ark would not float.

 

The Traveler.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps by literal volumn but at the density your are suggesting the Ark would not float.

Good point. Dirt is about 2 2/3 times denser than water, so we wouldn't want to fill the ark more than maybe 1/3 full of dirt. But that's still vastly more than the putative nine million species of worms would need, so my observation remains.

Again, I do not disagree with the underlying point you were making. I was just picking a nit about the example you used.

[anatess2]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

Good point. Dirt is about 2 2/3 times denser than water, so we wouldn't want to fill the ark more than maybe 1/3 full of dirt. But that's still vastly more than the putative nine million species of worms would need, so my observation remains.

Again, I do not disagree with the underlying point you were making. I was just picking a nit about the example you used.

So... how about we go add snakes to that...

[Traveler]

 

I wanted to pose the thought that without evolution there are no rational explanations (assuming that our universe is isotropic in space time) to explain scripture – thus the statement about the ARK.

Another thought about evolution – from someone that believes evolution is part of the mortal life death struggle and perhaps even life in general (speaking of the Eternal Plan of Salvation).  But I would like to point to the very intriguing life form that comprise the most populist mammal of North America – the bat.  In order for the bat to successfully evolve it would have to evolve 4 different attributes simultaneously.  The attributes being wings to fly, vocal capabilities to create sounds at very high frequencies, ears to hear sounds at very high frequencies and a brain to translate high frequency echoes into 3 dimensional patterns.  There are arguments that the translation of high frequency and sight into 3 dimensional patters are from the same area of the brain and therefore should not be and entire category of a separate evolving trait – but that is not completely concluded and an ongoing debate in the evolution community (but not relevant) for this discussion.

The point is that the mathematical probability for evolving all 4 traits simultaneously (especially in the time frame that bats evolved) is a virtual impossibility unless there is an unforeseen factor (like outside intelligence) involved in the DNA evolutionary process.   This does not prove G-d but bats are evidence that something caused a significant jump in complexity in the process and currently the only known factor capable of such a thing would be intelligent intervention.   I am not saying intelligent intervention is the only possibility – but given the mathematical improbability – I would be very interested in another viable explanation – especially a more viable explanation.

In essence I am suggesting that without intelligent involvement; science is hard pressed and to date has no other feasible explanation for various processes of evolution we see taking place.

 

The Traveler

[skalenfehl]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

...And we should be willing to validate or methods...

I did mention that I have been unable to observe any species evolving into another. If I recall my high school biology, the scientific method should allow me to prove or disprove a theory through observable means. There is no possible way for me to validate through observation one species evolving into another. As for creationism, well, I believe God created all things because God has validated my belief in Him. But I still cannot prove creationism either. 

As for the ark being able to fit x number of animals or being able to float, well, scientifically, again, it cannot be proven either, just like it cannot be scientifically proven that a man can walk on water. But we believe Jesus did and so did Peter, though briefly. Now if you have a little time, read this discourse by Orson Pratt. Very enlightening. 

http://jod.mrm.org/2/334

Scientists can measure gravity and have written a lot about gravity, but I don't think any have been able to explain what causes gravity. Orson Pratt gave a pretty good explanation. Of course it cannot be proven either, but it seems to me that because this earth is God's creation, it is His property. I believe that anything that belongs to Him can and will respond to Him. It is His Spirit, after all, which upholds it. Therefore all of creation can be commanded to obey Him. Science has a way of measuring things as long as they conform to natural laws. But natural laws like gravity cannot be explained. Therefore, science cannot explain how Jesus could walk on water.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but an old partner of mine was in an accident, which left him clinically dead for 54 minutes. Scientifically speaking, when there is no brain activity for that long, you don't come back. The doctors kept his heart pumping artificially so that they could harvest his organs. Well guess what? He came back. He suffered memory loss, blindness for eight years, motor functions, but today he's relatively normal though he still does have issues such as some memory loss. He share with me some of the things he experienced on the other side. Anyway, yes, we should prove all things, or at the very least, the Lord proves all things for us/to us. After all, He commanded that we seek to know His mysteries. 

[Rob Osborn]

Speaking of the ark. A group of physicists proved scientifically that  not only could the ark float but could be filled with over 2 million sized sheep in weight. Anyway, heres the article-

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/

Edited January 24, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[skalenfehl]

One comment in the article was clever, LOL

Quote

The Ark was made of "Gopher Wood," a species of wood with magical properties, which was wiped-out in the process of the flood, leaving no evidence of its existence behind. This wood was not only stronger than any other substance on the face of the Earth (or even in orbit around it), but it was self-welding; this created joints with absolutely no seams at all, preventing the need for caulking, pegging, nailing or gluing. And finally, its most magical property yet was the ability to fold space and time. So it didn't really matter how much room was in the actual Ark, because the Gopherwood opened a space-time vortex which allowed the animals to enter before the flood and leave after the flood, but with no perceived passage of time for them. This way they didn't need to eat, there was no need to clean-up their waste, they were easily segregated, and (most importantly) they could instantly return to their continent and habitat of origin.