Yet you did not say which one supported your case. I've seen those before. None of them do.
Of course a number did, but I do not expect one so baised to admit it.
And given recent experience, I certainly don't expect you to point out any specific one and where you think it precludes evolution. So I don't think you believe your own words.
If BC Space is really interested in how his science and religion harmonization project is going, he should go ahead and do the thought experiment described in my earlier post about the lecture at MIT. What does he think would happen when he tried to convince professionals as to the value of his "revealed" science?
I haven't proposed any new science so this is non sequitur. The "project" is really all about showing how an LDS person can accept all science on the matter of evolution (and any other subject) without coming into conflict with LDS doctrine.
Then he should think about how his harmonization hypotheses would go over as a talk in Sacrament Meeting.
Haven't done a Sacrament meeting with that. But I have done it in a Stake Conference; just a statement that one can accept evolution without conflicting with LDS doctrine and without going into further details. In various Sunday schools and Priesthood quorum meetings, I have said the same both as teacher and class member and have gone into details as I have done here. I have never associated my hypothesis with doctrine (because it isn't), but I have stated that the official doctrine of the Church is that there is no doctrine for or against evolution and so one can accept it or not or in part as long as they accept actual doctrines like the Fall.
There are indeed some members with which this did not sit well and some who were appreciative of it. No one in a position of priesthood authority over me rebuked or corrected me in any authoritative sense (some simply disagreed, but others agreed as I have stated). I was not released (dang!) and I continue to serve in the Church in what some would see as a fairly important calling.
Of course as I related earlier, when I was about 15, my quorum advisor and my bishop were really hot to correct my error in accepting evolution, but the Stake Pres. intervened on my behalf.
Wild, ad hoc, make-it-up-a- you-go-along speculation often gets a pass in religion. In science one faces a much tougher audience. Credible evidence is required. BCSpace has none to offer, at least on the science side of the discussion.
Buffalo wrote:bcspace wrote:
Well now that you're finally quoting something, how does this preclude evolution? The direct offspring is the spirit, not the body, and by this logic of yours, God scooping up handfuls of mud and clay to make a body also contradicts the 1909 statement.
Rather, the fact of the matter is that the physical body going through the process of evolution to be created meets the standard set forth by the 1909 statement since the physical body is not the direct and lineal off spring of Deity. Jesus Christ is the only Begotten of the Father and therefore it is only the spirit that is being referred to here.
So, process of evolution to create the body, and then it is combined with a literal spirit child of God. No contradiction.
But man can't be formed in the divine image. Our features are a legacy of our simian ancestry, and they came about through random mutation and natural selection.
Like I said, you're contradicting both your religion and science. Your attempt to harmonize them isn't working.
If BC Space is really interested in how his science and religion harmonization project is going, he should go ahead and do the thought experiment described in my earlier post about the lecture at MIT. What does he think would happen when he tried to convince professionals as to the value of his "revealed" science?
Then he should think about how his harmonization hypotheses would go over as a talk in Sacrament Meeting.
He would not be able to convince any serious student in any science class I can think of, and my guess is that he would not feel much of support for his ideas in Sacrament Meeting, either.
Wild, ad hoc, make-it-up-a- you-go-along speculation often gets a pass in religion. In science one faces a much tougher audience. Credible evidence is required. BCSpace has none to offer, at least on the science side of the discussion.
But then again, bcspace has not asked science to accept anything different about what science already accepts. As for matters of faith, science doesn't speak to the historicity of it and will probably never be able to do so.
So really what we have here is a strawman, with critics unwilling and seemingly unable to argue the merits of whether or not LDS doctrine and evolution can go together without conflict and shifting to whether or not atheism is correct (which science also can't address).
One of the biggest obstacles to the spread of atheism is the existence of those who are religious and can accept evolution at the same time. So not having any counter argument, they resort to the invective of simple denial without any basis. The only way for them to successfully attack this is, in my case (LDS), to try and show how evolution might be incompatible with LDS doctrine. And as we have seen, it can't be done and they are very unwilling to trot out statements which they claim support their case but they must avoid doing so at all costs because those statements really don't support them and they know it.