What Do Mormons Believe About The Genesis Creation Story?

[mdb]

I believe evolution should be taught as scientific truth. ...

The Traveler
[/b]

Truth... I see. Let's look at just one of the multitude of flaws in evolution (from a scientific standpoint).

The strata layers evolutionists use to date fossils, are dated by what the evolutionists call "index fossils." More clearly, fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it (this is called circular reasoning). In each stratum there are a few fossils which are not observed quite as often in the other strata. As a pretext, these are the fossils which are used to "date" that stratum and all the other fossils within it. These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates (back-boneless sea animals).

"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’ - fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age." [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198]

How can evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to index fossils? The answer is: theory. Darwinists theorize which animals came first - and when they appeared on the scene. And then they date the rocks according to their theory - not according to the wide mixture of fossilized creatures in it, but by assigning dates based on their theory to certain "index" fossils. Therefore, conclusions about which fossils came first are based on evolutionary speculation and nothing more. It was the evolutionary theory that was used to date the fossils, not the strata nor the "index fossils".

Evolution is based on the faith of a theory. Why should it be taught as truth?

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>
I personally have no problem in teaching science in schools. I also believe religion should also be taught in schools as a bassis for understanding culture and history. We really cannot understand the evolution of laws without understanding the effects of religion on society.[/b]

Agreed, I would have loved that when I was in school.

M.
[/b][/quote]

Thanks - me too.

The Traveler

<div class='quotemain'>
I believe evolution should be taught as scientific truth. ...

The Traveler
[/b]

Truth... I see. Let's look at just one of the multitude of flaws in evolution (from a scientific standpoint).

The strata layers evolutionists use to date fossils, are dated by what the evolutionists call "index fossils." More clearly, fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it (this is called circular reasoning). In each stratum there are a few fossils which are not observed quite as often in the other strata. As a pretext, these are the fossils which are used to "date" that stratum and all the other fossils within it. These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates (back-boneless sea animals).

"Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’ - fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age." [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198]

How can evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to index fossils? The answer is: theory. Darwinists theorize which animals came first - and when they appeared on the scene. And then they date the rocks according to their theory - not according to the wide mixture of fossilized creatures in it, but by assigning dates based on their theory to certain "index" fossils. Therefore, conclusions about which fossils came first are based on evolutionary speculation and nothing more. It was the evolutionary theory that was used to date the fossils, not the strata nor the "index fossils".

Evolution is based on the faith of a theory. Why should it be taught as truth?
[/b][/quote]
There are many error made in interpreting data. That fact that Judas misinterpreted the data Jesus gave him does not disprove the notion of Christianity. I can give many more interesting "errors" on science including theories of how different species have evolved. I would also point out that index fossils are not the only means geologist utilize for dating.

In general I would say the creditability and accuracy of science throughout the history of such things is somewhat better than the creditability and accuracy of religious theorist speculating over scientific principles.

The Traveler

[the_jason]

Modern prophets have spoken of the creation as being 6 creative periods, referred to as days. There is no official position as to whether they were days as we now know them or not, because it has not been revealed to us, nor is it important how long the "days" were.

Here's my thought: If all things are done in wisdom and order, than the creation wouldn't have been just slapped together in less than a week. Much preparation would have gone into how things were created. It was such a large task that he enlisted the help of Jehovah and Michael (Jesus and Adam, respectively). I'm not sure days, hours, weeks, etc. were defined at that time, so the 6 days of creation were more like stages of creation rather than chronological time frames.

yep, since there really is no time for the gods, then the 6 days don't really refer to periods of time, maybe stages of creation. that's my op. remember also, that a day doesn't refer to time really, but a speed of complete 360 rotation, which can be measured, on earth it's 24 hrs, but i believe on pluto it equates to something like 250 earth years, and on jupiter it's only 11 hrs.

god created light before he created the sun, and refers to the first stage as a day, even though there was no sun and no rotating earth in that 1st day.

personally, i find human organic evolution implausible. how come even the most secular historians can only trace actual civilization and the written words to 10,000BC at the earlist? whereas evolution posits millions upon millions of years of slow gradual development, history (meaning his-story, the story of man) begins ever so suddenly circa 8-12,000 yrs ago.

i don't think there are any general authorities in the church who even mildly support the idea of man evolving from lower life forms (from some primordial ape, from some single cell etc). the LDS church's official position is that God created man from a higher state and that since Adam we have actually degressed (physically and socially) not progressed.

Adam was a perfect immortal human being.

His father was not some 99% man ape and his mother was not some 99% woman ape, and God didn't decide at that point that he would now place a man spirit in Adam's body.

Also, according to the scriptures, there was no Fall before Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, hence there was no mortality, no death, but no birth too. If the race of Adam evolved over millions of earth years, then each generation would never have died and all would have been in existance at the time of the Fall, including all those single celled organisms who Adam would have called greatx1000000.... grandpa!

but, evolution as a theory requires death and mortality.

in a word, it's total bullshIt if you ask me.

[prisonchaplain]

I believe evolution should be taught as scientific truth. I do have a problem with teaching evolution as random chance.[/b]

Is the theory that species can evolve into different species an established fact. Few people question "microevolution"--that we adapt to our environments. However the monkey-to-human development finds detractors, even from non-evangelicals.

The problem in my mind is that "Intellligent Design" has become just another form of creationist theory attempting to explain a 6,000 year old earth and that just does not fit the evidence. It is an effort the try to make the evidence fit a theory.[/b]

And, quite frankly, I believe the associations that organize science-educators have become hostile towards any theories, other than classic, random-chance evolution. Intelligent Design is not Young Earth Creationism. The YEC adherents accuse the ID adherents of compromising--selling out. My understanding is that ID merely suggests that there is too much intelligence, too much design to our universe, to believe that it all happened randomly. Perhaps, it is not illogical to postulate that some kind of intelligence designed the universe?

The secular fundamentalists see that as code talk to Fundamentalist Christian Young Earth Creationism (a foot in the door, so to speak), and will have none of it. Thus, they ultimately set up Random Chance Evolution as a faith system vs. Young Earth Creationism, and pretend that there can be nothing in between--even though probably 95% of the world is in that chasmous middle.