- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
For anyone who wants ammunition to use when members say we don’t believe in evolution, I present the following: “Things I Did Not Know: Dinosaurs in the Manti Temple”http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/things-i-did-not-know-dinosaurs-in-the-manti-temple/ How cool is it that we have a painting of dinosaurs in a temple?!
:clap: 
Old-Timer wrote:For anyone who wants ammunition to use when members say we don’t believe in evolution, I present the following:
“Things I Did Not Know: Dinosaurs in the Manti Temple”http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/things-i-did-not-know-dinosaurs-in-the-manti-temple/ How cool is it that we have a painting of dinosaurs in a temple?!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: My first interest on life at 5 years was paleontology, still is a pretty interest.
I’m happy to hear it. Thanks for posting Ray.
There are also dinonosaurs on petroglyphs in Utah. Dinosaur footy prints besides human ones at Glenn Rose Texas among a few other places. Ica stones of Peru. The accounts of Pliny the Elder, Homer, Marco pollo, to name a few describes dinosaur like critters they called dragons. The Evangelical crowd really have taken it and ran with it and they have some very interesting concepts. I read very interesting book called “dragons or dinosaurs” which has good points about the fallibility of carbon dating. It was actually very edifying when Darwinism has eroded faith so much in Creationism. Oh, a mural. When I read the title I imagined a mini Dinosaur Wall like the one at Carnegie Quarry tucked away somewhere in the temple. A mural is cool too. I guess.
🙂 I just let the “Seriously.” at the end of the topic title let my imagination run wild. Hey, just be glad I didn’t start out by imagining a terrarium.
As long as it’s not Adam & Eve riding a dinosaur! The fact that there are dinosaurs in the Manti Temple does not prove a belief in evolution. Creationists have no problem with dinosaurs. There is a great deal of myth about dinosaurs and creationists in the evolutionist camp. I think that when the true history of the world is known, the theory of evolution will rank as the greatest, most ridiculous fraud ever foisted on mankind. When you step back and think about it, the theory is laughably absurd.
I have yet to encounter an evolutionist who can explain how “natural selection” would have selected components to perform functions that did not yet exist and when those components provided no “advantage” because the function they would perform did not even exist yet. Or, try getting an evolutionist to explain how consciousness and sentience would have evolved. The story of the frog and the prince is more credible than evolution.
We see this very differently, Mike. That’s fine. mikegriffith1 wrote:The fact that there are dinosaurs in the Manti Temple does not prove a belief in evolution. Creationists have no problem with dinosaurs. There is a great deal of myth about dinosaurs and creationists in the evolutionist camp.
I think that when the true history of the world is known, the theory of evolution will rank as the greatest, most ridiculous fraud ever foisted on mankind. When you step back and think about it, the theory is laughably absurd.
I have yet to encounter an evolutionist who can explain how “natural selection” would have selected components to perform functions that did not yet exist and when those components provided no “advantage” because the function they would perform did not even exist yet. Or, try getting an evolutionist to explain how consciousness and sentience would have evolved. The story of the frog and the prince is more credible than evolution.
I also see this very differently from you, Mike. There is a great deal of myth about dinosaurs and “evolutionists” in the creationist camp. I think that when the true history of the world is known the idea of creationism will be (one of) the greatest, most ridiculous frauds ever foisted on mankind. When you stop and think about it, the very idea that Earth was created in 6 says, is only 6,000 years old, and that Eve was created from one of Adam’s ribs is laughably absurd.
Maybe you should stop asking evolutionists (whatever they are) and ask God. I’m not saying He’ll answer, but He might. FWIW, I generally associate sentience with our spirits – but like the rest of what I wrote here, that is nothing more than my opinion, just as what you wrote is yours. Truth is we don’t know how God did it and I bet we’ll all be quite surprised when (and if) we do learn it.
We, of all Christians, have the theology to accommodate an evolutionary process of creation – and the current First Presidency statement on evolution (written in 1909 and reprinted in the Ensign in 2002) explicitly leaves open the possibility that Adam began his human life as “a germ embryo that becomes a man”. Ultimately, it says we don’t know exactly how humans were created – insisting only that Adam and Eve were the first humans and that we are children of God who are distinctly different in that way from the animal kingdom. Most members, including many leaders at all levels, have no idea what the official statement actually says – since they don’t bother reading it closely enough to see and understand the key sentence that leaves open the possibility of evolution being part of God’s process of creation. Most Biblical creationists reject evolution because they assume evolution requires the non-existence of God,
but that doesn’t have to be so.I understand and can accept rejections of that view of evolution by theists, but many use that assumption to reject evolution in its entirety – which is patently absurd, given the overwhelming evidence for an evolutionary development of life on this planet. I personally love the view of God as a master scientist, but whether or not God used an evolutionary process, the Pearl of Great Price talks of creative periods of organization – and those periods are not limited to any particular, uniform time length. Further, even in the Biblical account, “days” (as we know them now by the rising and setting of the sun) didn’t exist until the third day – a point 6 day creationists and 6,000 year advocates gloss over completely or twist into a pretzel in order to explain. Religion doesn’t need to be in opposition to science, especially, again, when a theology exists that is expansive enough to accommodate whatever science uncovers.
Been a long time since I was in the Manti Temple, but I remember the dinosaurs. Trying to remember what other animals were depicted in the sam mural. Probably not consistent I would think. By the way evolution is not a theory anymore, it has been pretty much been proven as fact. Whether God had a hand in it or not is speculation, but the fact that all life forms on the planet had a common ancestor is not up for debate among those who are open to the science, and are not out to disprove it as their main goal. Might as well claim the earth is flat. That is how much science you have to refute to deny evolution.
Cadence wrote:Been a long time since I was in the Manti Temple, but I remember the dinosaurs. Trying to remember what other animals were depicted in the sam mural. Probably not consistent I would think.
By the way evolution is not a theory anymore, it has been pretty much been proven as fact. Whether God had a hand in it or not is speculation, but the fact that all life forms on the planet had a common ancestor is not up for debate among those who are open to the science, and are not out to disprove it as their main goal. Might as well claim the earth is flat. That is how much science you have to refute to deny evolution.
I think this below is a podcast I listened to from FAIR and this BYU professor says, “it is an undisputable fact”.
http://blog.fairmormon.org/2011/11/17/fair-conversations-episode-12-steven-l-peck-on-evolution-part-1-of-2/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://blog.fairmormon.org/2011/11/17/fair-conversations-episode-12-steven-l-peck-on-evolution-part-1-of-2/ It’s taught at BYU in the Science Department. That makes it fact, right?
:silent: Old-Timer wrote:It’s taught at BYU in the Science Department.
That makes it fact, right?
:silent:
Not what I was saying, but just an interesting fact. The one funny thing about this is that he did say that the administration does not get in the middle of the religion department and the sciences.I talked with a former Bishop of mine on this subject and he said that when he went to the Y he had one semester where he had a religion class that the teacher basically said evolution was wrong, then he went to biology where the professor was clear that evolution was a very correct principle.
Sorry, LookingHard, that was my attempt at a joke. I didn’t mean to imply that’s what you said or meant. Humor can be hard to translate with just words on a screen. I also have heard about the conflict between Religion and Science classes at BYU with regard to evolution. It’s a shame.
mikegriffith1 wrote:The fact that there are dinosaurs in the Manti Temple does not prove a belief in evolution. Creationists have no problem with dinosaurs.
I agree. But I don’t really think evolution in and of itself as a theory is the most laughable thing ever. That’s too strong a statement, unless there are specific evolutional claims you are referring to.
I view creation as a process, so it all can make sense as one theory, with dinosaurs being part of creationist camps. I think it makes sense the evolutionary process could be part of God’s creation process, especially since God’s time frame is very different than ours.
My dad told me he thought that since creation was not ex-nihilo, that parts organized to create this world could come from prior worlds that had dinosaurs or other things.
That’s a possibility to me. Besides, I need gas to drive to the temple.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.