Last week I posted a quote about evolution and creationism. At the end it mentioned that it was sad that people aren't educated about the other scientifically viable theories for the beginning of the earth. I was only taught one, and as far as I knew, there was only one. But there are more. Here is a theory I found in the Old Testament institute manual that I find fascinating:
"A second theory argues that Abraham was told through the Urim and Thummim that one revolution of Kolob, the star nearest the throne of God, took one thousand earth years (see Abraham 3:2-4). In other words, on could say that one day of the Lord's time equals one thousand earth years. Other scriptures support this theory, too (see Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8). If the word day in Genesis was used in this sense, then the earth would be approximately thirteen thousand years old (seven days of a thousand years each for the Creation plus the nearly six thousand years since Adam's fall). Some see Doctrine and Covenants 77:12 as additional scriptural support for this theory.
"Although the majority of geologists, astronomers and other scientists believe that even this long period is not adequate to explain the physical evidence found in the earth, there are a small number of reputable scholars who disagree. These claim that the geological clocks are misinterpreted and that tremendous catastrophes in the earth's history sped up the processes that normally may take thousands of years. They cite evidence supporting the idea that thirteen thousand years is not and unrealistic time period. Immanuel Velikousky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity. These books are Worlds in Collision, Ages in Chaos, and Earth in Upheaval."
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Sunday, December 1, 2013
A Sunday citation
Here is a great quote that I found in the Old Testament institute manual. This quote is by Dr. Harold G. Coffin, who was (I don't know if he's still there) a professor of paleontology and research at the Geoscience Research Institute, Andrews University. For those wanting to read the full quote with all the evidence he presents, click here.
"On a television panel celebrating the centennial of Charles Darwin's book, Origin of Species, Sir Julian Huxley began his comments by saying, 'The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun. [Sol Tax and Charles Callender, eds. Issues in Evolution, p. 41.] This is a confusing statement that tells only part of the truth. First, the word evolution must be defined.
"The world itself merely means 'change,' and on the basis of this definition, evolution is a fact. However, most people understand evolution to mean progressive change in time from simplicity to complexity, from primitive to advanced. This definition of evolution is not based on fact. The study of inheritance has revealed principles and facts that can prove evolution--if we understand evolution to mean 'change.' But the obvious minor changes occurring to living things today give no basis for concluding that limitless change has happened in the past. ...
"Yes, new species of plants and animals are forming today. The almost endless intergradations of animals and plants in the world, the fantastic degeneration among parasites, and the adaptations of offense and defense, lead to the inevitable conclusion that change has occurred. However, the problem of major changes from one fundamental kind to another is still a most pressing unanswered question facing the evolutionist. Modern animals and plants can change, but the amount of change is limited. The laboratories of science have been unable to demonstrate change from one major kind to another, neither has such change happened in the past history of earth if we take the fossil record at face value.
"Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!" (Coffin, Creation, pp. 13, 15.)
"On a television panel celebrating the centennial of Charles Darwin's book, Origin of Species, Sir Julian Huxley began his comments by saying, 'The first point to make about Darwin's theory is that it is no longer a theory, but a fact. No serious scientist would deny the fact that evolution has occurred, just as he would not deny the fact that the earth goes around the sun. [Sol Tax and Charles Callender, eds. Issues in Evolution, p. 41.] This is a confusing statement that tells only part of the truth. First, the word evolution must be defined.
"The world itself merely means 'change,' and on the basis of this definition, evolution is a fact. However, most people understand evolution to mean progressive change in time from simplicity to complexity, from primitive to advanced. This definition of evolution is not based on fact. The study of inheritance has revealed principles and facts that can prove evolution--if we understand evolution to mean 'change.' But the obvious minor changes occurring to living things today give no basis for concluding that limitless change has happened in the past. ...
"Yes, new species of plants and animals are forming today. The almost endless intergradations of animals and plants in the world, the fantastic degeneration among parasites, and the adaptations of offense and defense, lead to the inevitable conclusion that change has occurred. However, the problem of major changes from one fundamental kind to another is still a most pressing unanswered question facing the evolutionist. Modern animals and plants can change, but the amount of change is limited. The laboratories of science have been unable to demonstrate change from one major kind to another, neither has such change happened in the past history of earth if we take the fossil record at face value.
"Constant exposure to one theory of origins, and only one, has convinced many that no alternative exists and that evolution must be the full and complete answer. How unfortunate that most of the millions who pass through the educational process have little opportunity to weigh the evidences on both sides!" (Coffin, Creation, pp. 13, 15.)
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
A Sunday citation ... or a few, actually
These quotes about creation and the theory of man's origin from the animal kingdom really struck me. I think they are definitely worth considering.
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was 'the first of all men, and we are therefore duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father." (First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R Winder, Anthon H. Lund,], as cited in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.)
I have often thought that we are just beginning to understand the processes of the earth, and that to think that the theory of evolution is the absolute, whole truth of the beginning of the earth is narrow-minded. We learn more every day in science. Here is a quote that supports my thoughts:
"Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by the Latter-day Saints. ... That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man." (Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:155.)
Here is another fascinating quote:
"I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it can not be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. ...
"Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world, for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe that?" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141-142.)
"It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth, and that the original human being was a development from from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was 'the first of all men, and we are therefore duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father." (First Presidency [Joseph F. Smith, John R Winder, Anthon H. Lund,], as cited in Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:205.)
I have often thought that we are just beginning to understand the processes of the earth, and that to think that the theory of evolution is the absolute, whole truth of the beginning of the earth is narrow-minded. We learn more every day in science. Here is a quote that supports my thoughts:
"Any theory that leaves out God as a personal, purposeful Being, and accepts chance as a first cause, cannot be accepted by the Latter-day Saints. ... That man and the whole of creation came by chance is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable that if man came into being by the will and power of God, the divine creative power is limited to one process dimly sensed by mortal man." (Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1:155.)
Here is another fascinating quote:
"I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it can not be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so. ...
"Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world, for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible. Are you prepared to believe that?" (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:141-142.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)