Zerinus - Do you believe there was death before Adam's fall?

[_I have a question]

How do you account for Labradoodles?

In a paradigm where evolution isn’t an option for you, how do you explain Labradoodles?

[_zerinus]

In a paradigm where evolution isn’t an option for you, how do you explain Labradoodles?

[_zerinus]

What is your version? Is it a version of LDS, or something else?

The fully restored version of Cafeteria Mormonism for Latter-Day Believers.

And that means what?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I suspect Zerinus has little to no scientific knowledge. I think you would find most believing members who are scientifically literate tend to view creation as taking billions of years and evolution part of that creation. Those who don't tend to be more literal. I know some speculate on things like fossils that maybe they came from parts of other creations. They don't understand how it all really works to understand the scientific community is right about the age of the earth and that animals have been around for millions of years, humans over a hundred thousand years.

I find it particularly interesting he doesn't know what to make of the fossil record. Speaking of which, my neighbor showed me a fossilized lizard skull he dug up when doing some yard work. He suggested it was a dinosaur. I just kind of looked at him for a second and said, "Sure sure. Or. You know. It's a lizard." He seemed disappointed I didn't share in his enthusiasm that he'd found a dinosaur.

- Doc

[_I have a question]

Zerinus, I realise the futility of any expectation of you addressing any actual evidence. However, to show the vacuousness of your stated opinion on evolution, I ask you to review the examples of evolution in the attached link and account for them without an acceptance of evolution.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/exam ... ution.html

One such example from the link:

Mexican cavefish once had eyes, but in the caves, eyes were no longer necessary. They have also lost their pigmentation, because they no longer need camouflage from predators.

[_zerinus]

Zerinus, I realise the futility of any expectation of you addressing any actual evidence. However, to show the vacuousness of your stated opinion on evolution, I ask you to review the examples of evolution in the attached link and account for them without an acceptance of evolution.

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/exam ... ution.html

One such example from the link:

Mexican cavefish once had eyes, but in the caves, eyes were no longer necessary. They have also lost their pigmentation, because they no longer need camouflage from predators.

That may be an example of “natural selection,” but not of Evolution. They are not the same thing. I wrote a piece in my blog around ten years ago explaining that, which you can see here:

http://zerinus.blogspot.co.uk/2008/04/with ... ution.html

Most of the links in that post are now broken, but the doctrine taught in it is still correct.

[Guest]

From the link:

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2008

What Do Mormons Think of Evolution?

I have not come across an official statement from the LDS Church that attempts to directly answer that question. The nearest thing that I have found is this statement from the First Presidency, which does not tackle the question head on: Is Evolution true or false?

That was not a First Presidency statement. These are First Presidency statements on Evolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_vi ... h_doctrine

But I think it is fair to say that officially the LDS Church does not accept Evolution. I think it is equally fair to say that the vast majority of LDS do not accept Evolution. Those who might would be a very small minority. Modern LDS scripture also affirms that Adam and Eve were real individuals who were created by God in the Garden of Eden. The only part of the story that may be considered figurative is the teaching that God made Eve out of Adam’s rib.

I think that's a fair assessment. Here are prophetic statements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_vi ... Presidents

Of course the theory of Evolution has several aspects some of which may be true. For example, “natural selection” is something that can be observed in nature. It enables various species to adapt to changes in their environment. If you spray a population of mosquitoes with a given pesticide, for example, a small percentage of them that have a natural resistance to it will survive, and will then reproduce to create a genre that is resistant to that pesticide.

That's not accurate. They don't reproduce to create a resistant population, but rather the population that demonstrated resistance are left over and reproduce. That's a HUGE difference.

But observable natural selection will always take place within a given species. There are no known instances, as far as I know, that through natural selection one species has “jumped” to become a different species. If anybody knows of such examples, I would be interested to hear it.

Who claims that? That's erroneous.

But Evolution, meaning the development of one species into another That's literally not what evolution is.
It's just natural selection occurring over time creating speciation. Eventually the differences become so different the two organisms can't reproduce with one another or they produce infertile offspring. That's when they're considered a different species., and the development of higher life forms from lower ones, is a false theory that has no support either in science That's a patently false statement.or in scripture. I believe that the LDS Church rejects that theory. CFR, please. They teach evolution at BYU. This is in contrast with the Catholic position which appears to be conciliatory towards Evolution. Here is a quote from the Pope:

The Pope . . . also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.Irrelevant.

* * *
In his talk with the priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the United States and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution.Irrelevant.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.” Source: newsmax.com Irrelevant.

I believe that the LDS Church would reject that teaching.Irrelevant. There is in fact no scientific proof for the theory of Evolution.CFR, please. Evolution is widely accepted and taught within the scientific community. How do you not know this? There may be proof for natural selection, as explained above; but that is not the same thing as Evolution.Your particular definition of evolution is inherently erroneous and isn't accepted, at all, within academia. There are also many fossilized remains around which scientists can build a theory. But that remains only a theory. That is not the same thing as scientific proof. I'd be interested in reading what you think scientific theory entails. Would you mind fleshing that out a bit since you brought it up?

The question of how you define a species also becomes relevant here. Interestingly, the scientific definition of species is identical scriptural one! In science, a species is defined as a class of living organisms with identifiable characteristics that can interbreed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. That is the key requirement. For example, a Bulldog and an Alsatian look quite different in appearance; but they are identified as belonging to the same species because they can mate and produce a fertile offspring. On the other hand, there are certain types of woodlice that look identical in appearance, but classed as belonging to different species, because the two cannot interbreed. Some animals of different species can interbreed, but produce an infertile offspring. A horse and a donkey, and a lion and a tiger are two examples. The following are some scientific definitions of species that I found on the Internet:

(biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed

A classification of related organisms that can freely interbreed

A reproductively isolated aggregate of interbreeding organisms.

A group of organisms that can reproduce with each other.

the taxonomic division of freely interbreeding population of wild or naturally occurring individuals below genus.

a group of interbreeding individuals in a population that is reproductively isolated from other groups of organisms

a group of organisms that share similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring.

In the scriptures a species is defined in the same terms:

Genesis 1:

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

* * *

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Thus both science and scripture define a species on the same terms; and there are no known examples in nature, as far as I know, that one species has jumped to become a different species Literally no one claims that. That's a false narrative you either created on purpose or through ignorance.(mutation of viruses perhaps excluded). God has determined the boundaries, and they are impassable. Scientific “theories” are not sufficient to overturn the decrees of God.

What do you think about natural selection resulting in speciation over time and thus creating viable organisms that are essentially mutations from earlier versions of itself?

- Doc

[_Craig Paxton]

1. Do I believe in the literal creation story of the Bible?
2. Do I believe in Evolution?
3. How do I explain the discovery fossils dating back millions of years?

The answer to the first question is Yes.
The answer to the second question is No.

I didn't either until I started to read books on the subject...and now I'm convinced that the evidence that Evolution is real...is overwhelming and that it happened. So you have two choices...you can remain uneducated and hold on to your ignorance...or you can become educated and live in reality.

[_zerinus]

What do you think about natural selection resulting in speciation over time and thus creating viable organisms that are essentially mutations from earlier versions of itself?

- Doc

That is an assumption. It is a theory. It is not an observable phenomenon in nature. If they can still interbreed, then they still belong to the same species, and no "evolution" has taken place. If they can no longer interbreed, then we have different species, and such a phenomenon has never been observed in nature. There may be theories built around it, but a theory is not the same as a scientific fact.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

What do you think about natural selection resulting in speciation over time and thus creating viable organisms that are essentially mutations from earlier versions of itself?

- Doc

That is an assumption. It is a theory. It is not an observable phenomenon in nature. If they can still interbreed, then they still belong to the same species, and no "evolution" has taken place. If they can no longer interbreed, then we have different species, and such a phenomenon has never been observed in nature. There may be theories built around it, but a theory is not the same as a scientific fact.

Out of curiosity have you ever just done Google research on the topic?

For example I just typed in 'speciation + examples' and about a million examples hit:

https://www.google.com/search?q=speciat ... e&ie=UTF-8

Even with pictures:

https://www.google.com/search?q=speciat ... 00&bih=794

Also, I suggest you take a look at what exactly is 'scientific theory':

https://www.slideshare.net/gurung7/unit ... c-theory-p

I get the sense you want to make a strong case for your position, which is fine, however it's helpful to your position if you understand the opposition's terms, definition, and science.

- Doc