More bad news for our scripture believing friends

[_Equality]

If history has taught us anything, the wing nuts that deny the fact of evolution will see this article as more proof that evolution didn't happen. They won't say exactly how it's proof; they'll just wave their magic god wand and wisp common sense away, like they always do.

They'll say that there are now even more gaps in the fossil record than before, which science has yet to explain or fill. You see, every time another intermediate form is found, it generates more gaps in the fossil record. There are more gaps than ever before, so the creationist argument is only getting stronger. See what I did there?

Actually, they'll just continue to say "show me the evidence; there's no evidence" and then switch the topic to how social Darwinism is bad so we shouldn't teach kids evolution or they'll grow up to be like Hitler and Stalin. Think I'm joking? Check out Richard Dawkins discussing evolution with Wendy Wright from Concerned Women of America: http://www.youtube.com/user/AtheistPlan ... FjoEgYOgRo

[_bcspace]

Sure. But what has this to do with scripture believers as per the thread title? For example, I accept the LDS scriptures and evolution, noting that there is no conflict between evolution and LDS doctrine.

That's because you don't believe in LDS scriptures. This thread is addressed to scripture believers.

Which scripture do I not believe?

So these remains are of humanesque individuals lived and died circa 1.9 million years ago...but Adam was the first man and there was no death before he ate the apple...

Sure. But there was death before he was placed in the garden.

The Book of Mormon and other LDS Scripture,...., teach a 7000 year old Earth ("temporal" existence of the earth is 7000 years)

No they don't.

and/or a literal global flood at the time of Noah, both of which are incompatible with evolution as understood by science.

On this I agree.

With regard to the age of the Earth, the genetic and archeological records show that Homo sapiens have been living on this planet continuously for some 200,000 years, which would clearly not be possible if the planet was less than 10,000 years old.

Sure. But LDS doctrine clearly allows for a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Human populations have undergone two bottlenecks since the emergence of homo sapiens and neither of them occurred at the time of Noah or went to the size of Noah and his crew on the ark.

The first one was approximately 140,000 years ago and the second was approximately 70,000 years ago. In the second, the data indicate that the human population was reduced to something like 15,000, considerably more folks than would have fit onto Noah's ark.

Not a problem. The 1931 statement allows for the possibility of preAdamites.

In addition to rejecting much of LDS scripture, in order to believe in evolution, one also must discount the story of Adam and Eve and pretty much the rest of Genesis and much of the Old Testament, reject the LDS doctrine of "the Fall of Adam",

Why?

and reject LDS racist teachings regarding those with darker skin color as being in any way different, of lower evolutionary status, or cursed (population genetics simply do not justify any such distinction among the races based on skin color).

None of which is or was LDS doctrine.

And these are just for starters.

Perhaps in an alternate universe--.

Yes. These concepts of yours only exist in a alternate universe, I agree.

[_jon]

Bcspace, 1931 statement?

[_consiglieri]

This teaching must have been written in invisible ink. Perhaps it's only visible through the secret Masonic decoder ring. ;)

Here's what my Masonic decoder ring deciphers from Abraham 4:21--

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.

;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

But you know, Buff, I just now for the first time saw something of interest in the chapter heading here. The person who wrote the chapter introductions apparently didn't like the fact that this appears evolution-oriented, and so instead of just admitting it (or saying nothing either way), wrote that the Gods were not really creating anything here, only planning to create.

The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon—Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth.

I think this is remarkable, especially given the first several verses of chapter 4 which seem to make it clear the Gods went down and actually started creating stuff--except the way they created was to organize and prepare environments, and then order them to bring forth life and watch and wait until they are obeyed.

What a world of mischief can be created by chapter headings.

And maybe the chapter headings have been responsible in some part for the "invisible ink" in which these verses have come to be written . . .

[_Buffalo]

That's because you don't believe in LDS scriptures. This thread is addressed to scripture believers.

Which scripture do I not believe?

All the ones that talk about Adam and Eve, the age of the earth, the creation of humanity, etc. You don't believe in them.

[_Buffalo]

This teaching must have been written in invisible ink. Perhaps it's only visible through the secret Masonic decoder ring. ;)

Here's what my Masonic decoder ring deciphers from Abraham 4:21--

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.

;^)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

But you know, Buff, I just now for the first time saw something of interest in the chapter heading here. The person who wrote the chapter introductions apparently didn't like the fact that this appears evolution-oriented, and so instead of just admitting it (or saying nothing either way), wrote that the Gods were not really creating anything here, only planning to create.

The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon—Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth.

I think this is remarkable, especially given the first several verses of chapter 4 which seem to make it clear the Gods went down and actually started creating stuff--except the way they created was to organize and prepare environments, and then order them to bring forth life and watch and wait until they are obeyed.

What a world of mischief can be created by chapter headings.

And maybe the chapter headings have been responsible in some part for the "invisible ink" in which these verses have come to be written . . .

Hmm, that's interesting Consig, but I'm reminded of your recent conversation with hoops about letting the text speak for itself ;)

[_consiglieri]

Hmm, that's interesting Consig, but I'm reminded of your recent conversation with hoops about letting the text speak for itself ;)

Wise guy! ;^)

I think that by using standard rules of textual analysis, though, this change in wording pops out all over the place.

The most obvious part is that Abraham/Joseph Smith has changed all the singular forms of God to plural.

But the other part that is changed from the Genesis text is the manner of creation. When we can compare the two and see the differences, as in chapter 4, it stands out and can have been for no other reason than to make a point.

Pretty much every place Genesis has God "creating" this and that, Abraham has "the Gods" preparing environments (whether in space, water or land), issuing commands, and then sitting back and watching and waiting to be obeyed, with the full expectation that they will, in fact, be obeyed.

Whatever it means, it is very different from the Genesis account, and intentionally so.

And the Gods are obeyed.

Until we get to the sixth day. This change in the structure of the creation in Abraham also sets up a sharp contrast to the final creative act of mankind--the one creation that "the Gods" command to obey . . . but don't.

I see all sorts of things going on here.

Lucky I have a decoder ring!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Tarski]

[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.

The notion of a "kind" is a creationist notion.

A certain movie in certain sacred buildings talks of kinds remaining in their spheres (well they don't). This is essentialism (a chicken is a chicken and always was).

But viewed over geological time periods, the notion of a kind does not hold up (there is no clear cut criteria for being a chicken in the evolutionary history of chickens. Certain ancestors of chickens were very very far from being chickens.)

Basically, there are no "kinds" when it comes to the long term history of the development of life.

Also, in what sense did whales come out of the water?? They had land dwelling ancestors!
Seems like a weird choice of exemplar.

[_bcspace]

Which scripture do I not believe?

All the ones that talk about Adam and Eve, the age of the earth, the creation of humanity, etc. You don't believe in them.

I believe every one of them and find none to be in conflict with science.

Bcspace, 1931 statement?

The statement made by Elder Smith that the existence of pre-Adamites is not a doctrine of the Church is true. It is just as true that the statement: "There were not pre-Adamites upon the earth", is not a doctrine of the Church. Neither side of the controversy has been accepted as a doctrine at all.
...........
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further. Upon one thing we should all be able to agree, namely, that Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund were right when they said: "Adam is the primal parent of our race."
First Presidency Minutes, Apr. 7, 1931

[_consiglieri]

Basically, there are no "kinds" when it comes to the long term history of the development of life.

Also, in what sense did whales come out of the water?? They had land dwelling ancestors!
Seems like a weird choice of exemplar.

I see Abraham as Joseph Smith's reworking of the Genesis creation account according to the new understandings he was receiving.

It is of especial interest in that we can compare it with a similar reworking of the creation account done by Joseph Smith a number of years earlier in Moses.

Though I understand the Book of Abraham was first published in the early 1840's, I do not know exactly when chapters four and five were translated.

But if we give it a full ten-years between the Abraham account and the Moses account, I think it would have been interesting to see how Joseph Smith might have reworked it once more had he lived another ten years.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri