Reader comments
U. scientist says human evolution is going strong
73 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
agnostic aggie | 3:55 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
whats funny is organized religion, virgin birth, seeing stones, rituals,
underwear etc. it is easier to explain the earth than explaining that
gobbledygook.
truthmonger | 4:15 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Evolutionists need to answer two questions:
1. Can they prove something can change into something else entirely over time. This has never been proved. This must proved in a lab. Tests have been done with flies and after thousands of generations they are still flies. Also remember the evelutionary chart of the horse in text books - well a horse is still a horse of course.
2. How did life start originally, don't tell stories or theories or hypothesis, but actaully give proof, and not just on earth but also via the "big bang." This must also be proved in a lab.
1. Can they prove something can change into something else entirely over time. This has never been proved. This must proved in a lab. Tests have been done with flies and after thousands of generations they are still flies. Also remember the evelutionary chart of the horse in text books - well a horse is still a horse of course.
2. How did life start originally, don't tell stories or theories or hypothesis, but actaully give proof, and not just on earth but also via the "big bang." This must also be proved in a lab.
JB | 4:20 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
The real short coming of the Theory of Evolution is that one beneficial gene
mutation has to be followed by no changes or another beneficial mutation, and on
and on , and on.... One destructive mutation like cancer will kill the
creature. Creation and Evolution are very simular except who or what controls
the factors that increase the probability of success. If you take the look at
all of the mutations that would have to occur in order to evolve from pond scum
to a human being, without any intellegent intervention, the probability for
total failure (species that can not mate, can not digest food, hearts can not
handle required volume, etc - all equal death and an end to the species)becomes
highly probable. A species does not have 10,000 years to fix a genetic error.
Today cancer, heart disease, diabeties, etc can be treated.
If you then look at the probability of successful creation having an intellegent creator the chance for success becomes great.
I believe that the Theory of Evolution is science trying to explain creation with out recognizing God's hand. A sientist friend of mine stated that he was looking forward to Celestial Biology 101.
If you then look at the probability of successful creation having an intellegent creator the chance for success becomes great.
I believe that the Theory of Evolution is science trying to explain creation with out recognizing God's hand. A sientist friend of mine stated that he was looking forward to Celestial Biology 101.
Comments continue below
truthmonger | 4:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Mormons believe earth was created out of existing matter.
It relatively modern interpretations of the bible that the six periods are called days. A more accurate interpretion is just six periods. Which could very well be of some indeterminate length. Or not. Or could be that what has been dug up was in the existing matter.
It is one thing to get a darker skin or learn to like milk, It is another to become something entirely different.
It relatively modern interpretations of the bible that the six periods are called days. A more accurate interpretion is just six periods. Which could very well be of some indeterminate length. Or not. Or could be that what has been dug up was in the existing matter.
It is one thing to get a darker skin or learn to like milk, It is another to become something entirely different.
by design | 4:31 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Elder Russell M. Nelson once said in a speech ("The Magnificence of
Man")that believing the human body evolved is like believing an explosion
in a print shop produced a dictionary--a dictionary that could heal its own torn
pages and reprint its own subsequent editions.
Google the speech. It's great.
Google the speech. It's great.
dkj | 4:55 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
I've studied evolutionary science and the scriptures and I just don't
see why they can�t coexist. I think the creation story
from Abraham is very enlightening with phrases such as:
�And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life��
�And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed��
I have enough spiritual evidence that I can firmly state I �know� God created the earth. I�ve also studied evolutionary biology enough to say that I strongly suspect that evolution, in some respect, has occurred.
Who am I to tell God how to create the earth? If He chose to use evolution as the means to create life on earth, fine with me.
I imagine some of the more pharisaical Mormons will be a little surprised when evolution comes up in their Celestial Biology 101 class.
�And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life��
�And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed��
I have enough spiritual evidence that I can firmly state I �know� God created the earth. I�ve also studied evolutionary biology enough to say that I strongly suspect that evolution, in some respect, has occurred.
Who am I to tell God how to create the earth? If He chose to use evolution as the means to create life on earth, fine with me.
I imagine some of the more pharisaical Mormons will be a little surprised when evolution comes up in their Celestial Biology 101 class.
truthmonger | 5:25 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
NO one isn't saying there some limited adaptation going on.
But changing from one species into a completely different one has never been proved. (see previous comment)
And just finding some interesting looking bones and and making up stories about them does not prove anything. Science must be able to prove it in a lab. Or it is nothing more than a scientific guess.
But changing from one species into a completely different one has never been proved. (see previous comment)
And just finding some interesting looking bones and and making up stories about them does not prove anything. Science must be able to prove it in a lab. Or it is nothing more than a scientific guess.
science vs religion | 5:49 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
There is no truth to the Theory of Evolution. Neither is God a
"scientist".
He is an Eternal Father and a Great High Priest.
Remove the Priesthood from this "telestial" planet and it will fall to pieces.
Jesus Christ is a God. He commands this earth, as it is his footstool.
His healing miracles were an alteration in DNA on the spot, as it is estimated that one in four Jewish males of his day were born blind, deaf, crippled, because of the constant intermarraige among these people(Joseph and Mary were cousins)
Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of this world,
does not need slow evolutionary processes to create enough food to feed 5000 people out of five loaves and two fishes, etc etc.
Sorry if I am not dazzled by the so-called modern age of science. I believe there is something much bigger out there, and I am content to wait until God himself reveals it.
Those of you who want to put your faith in evolution, and do not have the courage to think outside their telestial "box", all I can say is that it is your loss.
He is an Eternal Father and a Great High Priest.
Remove the Priesthood from this "telestial" planet and it will fall to pieces.
Jesus Christ is a God. He commands this earth, as it is his footstool.
His healing miracles were an alteration in DNA on the spot, as it is estimated that one in four Jewish males of his day were born blind, deaf, crippled, because of the constant intermarraige among these people(Joseph and Mary were cousins)
Jesus Christ, the author and finisher of this world,
does not need slow evolutionary processes to create enough food to feed 5000 people out of five loaves and two fishes, etc etc.
Sorry if I am not dazzled by the so-called modern age of science. I believe there is something much bigger out there, and I am content to wait until God himself reveals it.
Those of you who want to put your faith in evolution, and do not have the courage to think outside their telestial "box", all I can say is that it is your loss.
Anonymous | 6:18 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Evolution doesn't need to find an adulterer to be its prophet.
Thomas | 7:01 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
"Science vs. religion" --
Great. So I presume that the next time you get sick, you won't go to the doctor.
There's something dishonest about accepting the fruits of science when it helps us, but rejecting the methods of science (which made those fruits possible!) when it conflicts with what we want to believe.
Great. So I presume that the next time you get sick, you won't go to the doctor.
There's something dishonest about accepting the fruits of science when it helps us, but rejecting the methods of science (which made those fruits possible!) when it conflicts with what we want to believe.
God doesnt roll dice-A. Einstein | 7:11 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Evolution's theory of life development reminds me of the story about the
tornado that spins through a junk/used parts supply yard, and creates a 500 SL
Mercedes...
I would like to order 3...
I would like to order 3...
legalese | 8:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Juan, Joseph Smith may have taught continental drift in the 19th century, but he
wasn't the first. Francis Bacon hypothesized on it in the 16th century, and
so did Pellegrini-Snyder (18th century I think). Bacon and Snyder based their
ideas on the geometric fit between the Americas and Europe-Africa. In the early
20th century the meteorologist Alfred Wegener revived the idea, and supported it
with geologic data showing similarities between rock types and fossils in
continents now separated by oceans. The problem with all these hypotheses was
that none could provide a physical mechanism by which continents could move.
Only in the 1960's, with the discovery of sea-floor spreading at ocean
ridges, and sea-floor consumption at oceanic trenches, was the hypothesis of
continental drift confirmed.
Sorry to be long-winded, but the point of this is that scientists don't BELIEVE in hypotheses; they accept them when data are adequate, and reject them when the data require.
For an excellent discussion of the scientific method, see Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
Sorry to be long-winded, but the point of this is that scientists don't BELIEVE in hypotheses; they accept them when data are adequate, and reject them when the data require.
For an excellent discussion of the scientific method, see Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."
dw | 9:12 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic,
misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
thanks for your censorship...
thanks for your censorship...
Why is it... | 10:07 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
...that any story about anything scientific ALWAYS becomes a "Mormons
bashing Non-Mormons" and "Non-Mormons bashing the Mormons" fest??
One day we will all die and then God himself can tell us what the right answer
is...Evolution, Magic, or Something else that we didn't even think of yet.
Illinois Cougar | 10:33 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
Mr. Earnest T. Bass- Well, see I don't need anyone to tell me what to
belief. I actually do read. I have come to understand that the Global Warming
crisis is the latest Bandwagon issue.
Generate a small amount circumstanial evidence,hype it to a bunch of highschool dropouts with public indecency fetishes. Hola!, you get a Great Big Bandwagon careening down the hill. Unfortunately, the bandwagon doesn't have steering or brakes. Eventually it will smash up on the rocks and someone else will start back up the hill to build another bandwagon. Best way to make something really important is to get a hollywood dogooder to start worrying about it.
In 1978, St. Helens blew, throwing millions of pounds of "Greenhouse" gas(and other "stuff") into the atmosphere. A number of the same scientists yelling about global warming now, were just as sure we were in for an iceage.
When 10,000 UN climatologists, Al Gore, and others quit flying in private jets to Indoniesia for "conferences", I'll give it a second thought.
Generate a small amount circumstanial evidence,hype it to a bunch of highschool dropouts with public indecency fetishes. Hola!, you get a Great Big Bandwagon careening down the hill. Unfortunately, the bandwagon doesn't have steering or brakes. Eventually it will smash up on the rocks and someone else will start back up the hill to build another bandwagon. Best way to make something really important is to get a hollywood dogooder to start worrying about it.
In 1978, St. Helens blew, throwing millions of pounds of "Greenhouse" gas(and other "stuff") into the atmosphere. A number of the same scientists yelling about global warming now, were just as sure we were in for an iceage.
When 10,000 UN climatologists, Al Gore, and others quit flying in private jets to Indoniesia for "conferences", I'll give it a second thought.
Einstein | 11:23 p.m. Dec. 11, 2007
I grew up ranked #1 in all of my courses, have a few degrees and have said
"no thanks" to MENSA many times. That said, I know I don't have
all of the answers. Anyone who says macro-evolution is a 100% absolute fact
either doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying to make a
point.
Global warming? No doubt it exists. Some of it caused by mankind? Sure. How much? No one knows. Did Al Gore (inventor of the internet) exaggerate (again) for personal gain? Of course. Doesn't make the message less important, but spare me the scaremongering. For crying out loud, now they don't want us to have Christmas lights because it hurts the environment. Please, get real.
Global warming? No doubt it exists. Some of it caused by mankind? Sure. How much? No one knows. Did Al Gore (inventor of the internet) exaggerate (again) for personal gain? Of course. Doesn't make the message less important, but spare me the scaremongering. For crying out loud, now they don't want us to have Christmas lights because it hurts the environment. Please, get real.
Science vs Religion | 8:48 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
To Thomas:
My real dissatisfaction with today's science began with my career as a medical professional where the MD back office, medical records, among other things were available to me, and my own experience as a cancer survivor. ( I was a Lab Med Tech -Very Scientific-and had a personal business with
collecting Doctor bill's on the side).
And you are right on, I will never go to a Doctor of Medicine for any reason any time!!!!
I cured myself of the cancer, by the way.
My real dissatisfaction with today's science began with my career as a medical professional where the MD back office, medical records, among other things were available to me, and my own experience as a cancer survivor. ( I was a Lab Med Tech -Very Scientific-and had a personal business with
collecting Doctor bill's on the side).
And you are right on, I will never go to a Doctor of Medicine for any reason any time!!!!
I cured myself of the cancer, by the way.
Science vs Religion | 11:42 a.m. Dec. 12, 2007
To Thomas:
I just wanted to add that I think you describe yourself very well.
I just wanted to add that I think you describe yourself very well.
LDS Scientist | 12:19 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
For those Latter-Day Saints involved in this discussion, you would be
well-advised to stick with the Church's official positions on evolution and
the age of the earth. That position is decidedly neutral on evolution--in fact,
it says nothing at all about evolution of plants & animals--and there is no
position on the age of the earth. You can find the BYU Library Packet on
Evolution on the web. It is signed by the BYU Board of Trustees, which includes
the First Presidency. All other statements are opinion, not doctrine.
I, for one, find no conflict between science and revealed religion. The only conflicts arise when we misunderstand or misrepresent one or the other.
I, for one, find no conflict between science and revealed religion. The only conflicts arise when we misunderstand or misrepresent one or the other.
Sad People | 12:49 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
There is nowhere in the scriptures that say evolution is not valid. They also do
not say it is valid either. If you are arguing against it, leave your religion
out of it, and base it on your own opinion.
Science vs Religion | 3:36 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
To LDS Scientist and Sad:
Elder Russell M Nelson seems to have no trouble with taking on the theory of evolution as bunk, as he did in an interview this year. He also said no other Apostle gave it any credence, either.
One doesn't always need a "revelation" concerning matters that can be determined by common sense and reasoning ability.
Elder Russell M Nelson seems to have no trouble with taking on the theory of evolution as bunk, as he did in an interview this year. He also said no other Apostle gave it any credence, either.
One doesn't always need a "revelation" concerning matters that can be determined by common sense and reasoning ability.
LDS Scientist | 4:28 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
"Science vs Religion" did exactly the wrong thing--rely on personal
opinion. Try relying on official position, and you'll be on a firmer
foundation.
I could also provide opinions of many other General Authorities that support evolution (including some from Russel M. Nelson), but that accomplishes nothing. Only the Church's official position matters.
I could also provide opinions of many other General Authorities that support evolution (including some from Russel M. Nelson), but that accomplishes nothing. Only the Church's official position matters.
truthmonger | 5:36 p.m. Dec. 12, 2007
I'm still waiting for laboratory proof that one species can turn into
another, or that the big bang created life, anyone? bueller ? bueller?
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Van Gundy marvels over Sloan 9:24 p.m.
- Charges dropped in 'Moon' taping 9:23 p.m.
- TV hero Gene Barry dies at 90 9:23 p.m.
- Eric Church nurses broken foot 9:23 p.m.
- Court to rule on Polanski appearance 9:23 p.m.
- Cuomo leaving ABC morning show 9:23 p.m.
- Gervais says stars in for teasing 9:23 p.m.
- Toby Keith stands by U.S. war efforts 9:23 p.m.
- 'Avatar' game an average shooter 9:23 p.m.
- Obamas, Winfrey talk gifts 9:23 p.m.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
277 - BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall195
- Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax143
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- LDS to emphasize helping needy106
- Revive full food tax?106
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill105
David Rankin, one of Utah's youngest and ablest astrophotographers has...
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Can you tell I just got out of a budget meeting with Gov Gary Herbert?
Latest comments
Where are the rest of them? Like region 7?
Mike Davis you are the man, defense, offense you have it all way to go booyah!
All of these BRILLIANT arguments are really convincing me...How about all of...
I have been trying for 2 years to get tickets, but they are computer...
Royal blue is best for special occasions ONLY. Our current blue is the...
I agree. It is great to see old school loyalties from an organization in such...
In keeping up with the media reports of this case, I honestly think both...
Far more gun owners have accidentally harmed their own families than have...
When coaches leave, players should be allowed to leave as well, without...
Congratulations to all. This award means a lot as it was voted upon by...
Advertisements