Creationism vs. Evolution: "...after its own kind"

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Archaea

It is up to each individual to interpret scripture for himself. And I believe we can find scripture to support this view.

Sure, but either something literally occurred or it did not.

[SeattleUte]

I've never seen anything like this. Two completely unrelated discussions going on in tandem in a single thread. It's like two choirs singing at once out of harmony.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well, lets see, how about the mapping of the human genome and the analysis of genetic relationships between and within species? Did that make it into your junior high textbooks? Retreat to the "it's only a theory" position is virtually a tacit admission that you recognize but just can't admit that you're wrong.

Admit I am wrong about what?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mmm, mostly, although I'd dicker a little with the choice in words. I'd phrase it roughly this way:

The prophet is the arbiter of doctrine and scripture. If you pray to ask God to confirm that what the prophet says is true, and you are earnest, God will confirm to you that what the prophet says is true. Determining the truth of any doctrine or scripture beyond what the prophet has said is true is not possible via spiritual means.

I'll cite a famous example which will undermine this belief.

Do you remember how the famous phrase of "As Man is, God once was, and God is, Man may become"?

Remember it was revealed to Lorenzo Snow before he was prophet, and he was advised to keep it to himself?

We all are entitled to revelations for ourselves, and are not dependent upon the prophet to arbitrate the meaning thereof.

[creekster]

One of you real scientists can correct me if I am wrong, but from my admittedly limited reading the whole macro-micro distinction is not really an issue that most serious scientists concern themsleves with. There does seem to be a long running debate about whether evolution is a steady state process or whether it is a process that happens in fits and starts (the late author Stephen Jay Gould discussed this dispute at length and in an understandable way in his book about the Burgess Shale site) but there is nothign about micro vs. macro, AKAIK. Look, we share more than 94% of our genetic material with a chimpanzee, which is probbaly not our immeditate evolutionary predecessor. So when does one species start and another stop? Species are, after all, only a naming convention and exist truly only in our minds and taxonomy textbooks. The evolutionary process leading from our immediate predecsessor to us was almost certainly gradual. Thus, even if you are tlaking about micro vs. macro, the disctinction probably has no meaning as to homo sapiens and our most imediate predecessor. I freely admit, however, that I am out of my depth here, and am very willing to consider other evidenced positions.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I've got to admit, Tex. This is the most convoluted dodge you have ever attempted. You are so far out on the limb you are defying gravity.

I couldn't possibly disagree more.

We are not talking about deciding what to include in canon here. We are simply talking about a personal belief regarding OT genocide. Sooner is free to do that just as you are free to establish a belief regarding which of the scriptural accounts aren't literal.

If yo don't allow for the possibility of a negative response, you are not asking an honest question. And by the way, here is the scripture:

"each passage" is an exaggeration, Tex. Desiring to know if God sanctions genocide seems to be a perfectly valid search for truth, IMO.

And here is the next verse:

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on this promise. I can't imagine that Moroni intended his promise to be interpreted to mean that God could possibly say "no."

Originally Posted by Archaea

I'll cite a famous example which will undermine this belief.

Do you remember how the famous phrase of "As Man is, God once was, and God is, Man may become"?

Remember it was revealed to Lorenzo Snow before he was prophet, and he was advised to keep it to himself?

We all are entitled to revelations for ourselves, and are not dependent upon the prophet to arbitrate the meaning thereof.

I imagine even SoonerCoug might blanche a little at being compared to Lorenzo Snow. But to this I am comfortable saying: if someone were so far advanced spiritually that God reveals to him such higher truths, the last place that person would go to discuss it would be an Internet message board.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Admit I am wrong about what?

I suppose that is a good question, as you could simply be trolling. It seems that you dispute that there is such a thing as what you have called 'macro' evolution. I think you are wrong about this. You have a belief, based upon your understaindg of the scritpures and your reading of church authorities, which is fine, but you have offered no evidence to contradcit the support for evolution. I think the evidence in support of evolution is very, very strong, and I believe in God and the book of mormon and see no reason to hide behind the "its only a thoery" position.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've never seen anything like this. Two completely unrelated discussions going on in tandem in a single thread. It's like two choirs singing at once out of harmony.

They are actually realted, in a very braod sense, but I won't bring it up as it would add a third choir and I can barely keep up with the one I am in already.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on this promise. I can't imagine that Moroni intended his promise to be interpreted to mean that God could possibly say "no."



I imagine even SoonerCoug might blanche a little at being compared to Lorenzo Snow. But to this I am comfortable saying: if someone were so far advanced spiritually that God reveals to him such higher truths, the last place that person would go to discuss it would be an Internet message board.

IOW, Tex is too proud to admit he might be wrong.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement on this promise. I can't imagine that Moroni intended his promise to be interpreted to mean that God could possibly say "no."

If you don't allow, even philosophically, for the possibility of a negative response, then you aren't being intellectually honest.

Originally Posted by Tex

I imagine even SoonerCoug might blanche a little at being compared to Lorenzo Snow. But to this I am comfortable saying: if someone were so far advanced spiritually that God reveals to him such higher truths, the last place that person would go to discuss it would be an Internet message board.

Another dodge.

Suppose it was something less earth-shaking. Such as ..... hmm .... someone saying that they sincerely believe that God does not sanction genocide, OT stories notwithstanding. How about that? Or what if someone says that they believe the genesis account to be figurative and not literal?