Creation of the earth

[Carrapicho]

Reference: http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/64319/

Okay, I really have no problem with the answer from Hamilton (and Pilgrim). I just had a personal opinion I wanted to share.

In Hamilton's penultimate paragraph, he says:

I do believe dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago because that's what all the evidence and peer-reviewed scientific literature indicates. I can't imagine our Heavenly Father creating the world in 6 days, while at the same time taking great care to make the world confusing for future scientists. Can you see him planting dinosaur bones, making the rocks look 4.5 billion years old, and creating all living things so that they appear to have come from evolution? I think those things actually happened.

Now, I don't know Hebrew, but the footnote for the word "create" as used in the OT (specifically Genesis 1:1) means shaped, fashioned, or organized. Those of us who have been through an endowment session know that the language there is more along these lines. The world was organized or formed, not necessarily created out of nothing.

It is my own personal belief that our world as we now know it could very well be under 10,000 years old, but the materials of which it was organized or formed (rocks, fossils, even ancestors of animals and humans, etc) existed as part of other worlds. Meaning, I'm not sure that dinosaurs actually walked this earth, but they may have walked on the rocks from which this earth was made. I also remember reading something just yesterday (was it on the board or that article that Hamilton linked to about Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Jr?) that said there may very well have been humans on the earth before Adam and Eve, but that Adam was the first one into which Heavenly Father put one of His spirit children, thus making him the first Man.

I would elaborate on this, but I'm having trouble articulating my thoughts.

Is this even possible? I haven't studied evolution, nor do I even know much about science (I'm more of an artsy person...), but I just thought I'd get my theory out there and start some discussion. This stuff fascinates me.

[Digit]

You might enjoy this question and answer from the Physics StackExchange website. It discusses ideas in the scientific community of how many times the atoms of our planet have been used for stars, but would seem to be relevant to your question of planets because my understanding is that planet matter (especially rocky planet matter like that of our earth and our bodies) consisting of heavier elements formed from previous stars going supernova (Population II stars, from the link I gave).

[Tao]

Aye, and that's the crux: scientists don't believe in creatio ex nihilo any more than mormons do. Aging the materia of space is no simple task, but a large part of the terrestrial aging (how old the Earth is, not how old the bits are that make up the earth) involves measuring elements and gasses and determining the ratios that were were set during the formation of the earth. While it is possible that all this creation occurred elsewhere prior to the acts of Genesis, (happy teacher tidbit: read Moses carefully, see if you can't find two consecutive creations, then look for the same in the temple.) but it currently seems quite a stretch to assume that all the work went on elsewhere, got moved here and stitched back together, sans evidence, all to establish Adam as God's first creation on the Earth.

Also, one thing we have to understand about Biblical study is that relationship was far more important to the ancients than fact. Astute readers and anti's everywhere have come across what seem to be glaring inconsistencies in scripture; two accounts of the same thing rarely mesh as well as we would expect. Perhaps we err when we rush to point out the difficulty in transcription and other (very real) challenges, while failing to realize that quite honestly, the ancients had no desire nor intention to transcribe events factually as we would a in a newspaper or journal. Simple case-in-point: Joseph was Jacob's firstborn (בְּכוֹר), and received the birthright as such. We are often want to try to figure out how exactly each of his elder brothers 'lost' the birthright, and passed it on to Israel's eleventh son, thus separating 'brithright' from 'firstborn'. Obviously Joseph wasn't born first, so he can't be firstborn. That's simple logic. But that's not how the ancients thought. Joseph's role and relationship was that of firstborn, and so he was.

Many other seemingly difficult passages can be better understood in this light. Was Adam the first of God's creation to walk the earth? Yes. Does that mean that there was nothing God made living before him? No. Yet Adam was, and always will be, first.

[Damasta]

I a hangup with the idea that dinosaurs roamed another planet which was subsequently destroyed. Why hasn't that Earth and those dinosaurs been resurrected? The period of their probation is obviously past and the resurrection is available to all living things, regardless of conduct.

[Katya]

Also, one thing we have to understand about Biblical study is that relationship was far more important to the ancients than fact. Astute readers and anti's everywhere have come across what seem to be glaring inconsistencies in scripture; two accounts of the same thing rarely mesh as well as we would expect. Perhaps we err when we rush to point out the difficulty in transcription and other (very real) challenges, while failing to realize that quite honestly, the ancients had no desire nor intention to transcribe events factually as we would a in a newspaper or journal. Simple case-in-point: Joseph was Jacob's firstborn (בְּכוֹר), and received the birthright as such. We are often want to try to figure out how exactly each of his elder brothers 'lost' the birthright, and passed it on to Israel's eleventh son, thus separating 'brithright' from 'firstborn'. Obviously Joseph wasn't born first, so he can't be firstborn. That's simple logic. But that's not how the ancients thought. Joseph's role and relationship was that of firstborn, and so he was.

Many other seemingly difficult passages can be better understood in this light. Was Adam the first of God's creation to walk the earth? Yes. Does that mean that there was nothing God made living before him? No. Yet Adam was, and always will be, first.

I forgot to say that I really like this way of approaching the situation.

[Portia]

I guess I don't see why young-earth creationists are so eager to shortchange the earth. The geologic scale is "proven" as much as anything can be "proven." It's a whole lot more set in stone (pun intended, etc., etc.), than, say, quantum mechanics. This isn't even the ever-contentious issue of the descent of (wo)man through natural selection and biological evolution . .. it's rocks. They're old. Millions of years old. How does this affect any Mormon's faith? Why do we have to grasp at straws at pretty straightforward things? I'm just genuinely baffled. I was always taught that the Bible isn't "translated correctly," to put it in Mormon parlance, anyway. I.e., it ain't a geology textbook.

The dinosaurs lived in tropical swamps, which were (sometimes!) a good environment to fossilize their bones . . . if they weren't eaten by critters first.

I don't believe in an original ur-human. I think there were a handful of original founder groups. So "Adam" can only be metaphorical to me.

[Dragon Lady]

Well, if you really want to be pure-doctrine, as in, exactly what the words say (because, clearly, King James translators were more inspired than the original writers) and exactly what prophets say, then you can always go with the idea early prophets put forward that part of the Fall was that the earth literally fell through space from where it used to reside near Kolob to the place it resides now. And if you believe that, then whose to say what that kind of physical change on the earth could do to carbon dating? Maybe earth really is 7,000 years old, and carbon dating is wrong when you go back far enough. Because, traveling through space at great speeds may… make carbon disappear faster.

[Whistler]

I was reading about the earth's formation and about how much of it was spent with water hanging out in gas form (water vapor?). It made me think of the Genesis account of the water needing to be separated from the heavens? Which seems somewhat legit.

[Portia]

I was reading about the earth's formation and about how much of it was spent with water hanging out in gas form (water vapor?). It made me think of the Genesis account of the water needing to be separated from the heavens? Which seems somewhat legit.

Sounds interesting! What publication was this in?

[Whistler]

um... <i>The Manga Guide to the Universe</i>

[Whistler]

it's totally for an article I'm writing

[Commander Keen]

I don't believe in an original ur-human. I think there were a handful of original founder groups. So "Adam" can only be metaphorical to me.

I don't come around here or comment too often, but this caught my attention.

Assuming we're operating in the scope of revealed knowledge (that is, we're making these conjectures about dinosaurs, etc., because it's something that hasn't been revealed to us and is thus more open to interpretation), how can you say this about Adam, and by implication, Eve? Modern prophets and apostles have taught time and time again about the literal existence of our first parents, without any sort of ambiguity in the slightest.

Then again, you may very well not be operating with the same beliefs as myself, since I don't really know you personally. Either way, I would be interested in hearing your justification/explanation.

[Rifka]

Along with dragon lady's point, if you really want to be literal, take a look at the hebrew] word used in the King James version of Genesis 1 for "day". The word is yowm, and one of the definitions is a time period. So, with that definition the world could have been created in millions of years. I personally don't have a problem defining each "day" that way and thereby allowing for dinosaurs to have existed for millions of years before man.

[Digit]

In light of modern scientific evidence, how do LDS apologetics regard the statement

There were no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.

from here? Do most no longer cling to that belief at all, or do they have an interpretation that allows for plants and animals to decompose and become fossils while the statement of "no death and no children" remains true?

[wired]

In light of modern scientific evidence, how do LDS apologetics regard the statement

There were no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.

from here? Do most no longer cling to that belief at all, or do they have an interpretation that allows for plants and animals to decompose and become fossils while the statement of "no death and no children" remains true?

I regard it as a statement unduly influenced by Elder McConkie's view of the creation and pre-Fall status of the earth.

James E. Talmage FTW.

[Wisteria]

As someone who has studied evolution and is scientifically trained and all that good stuff, I want to put in a few cents. First, Rifka, very good point about the original word used for "day" in the Bible. If you think about the wording in the endowment session during the creation of the earth, it actually goes along with that idea nicely. Second, while I won't categorically say that it's impossible for creatures whose fossilized remains we've found to have come from other planets, I do find it harder to believe in light of the way they're arranged in stratified layers, just so.
Third and fourth, please, please everyone remember to take statements made by religious leaders and also by scientists about the creation of the earth with a grain of salt. Anyone who took the biology core courses at BYU read and wrote small papers on a packet that was compiled by the biology professors of all the official statements made by the church on the subject (as in, formally released and signed by the First Presidency). I found a web page with two of them- I seem to remember more, but it's been a few years. You can find it here. http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/E ... ments.html So remember, these are the only *official* things the Church has said about the physical origin of man. (The first one, incidentally, was released to coincide with the hundred eyar anniversary of publication of "On the Origin of Species.")
Remember that the gospel exists to tell us *why* man is made, not *how* he is made.
And lastly, and this is important, please do not ever treat scientific statements as the end-all any more than religious speculation on how the earth was formed. I say that as a scientist myself. Science is a way of discovering things through trial and error and brilliant assumptions. It's a very good way to do things, but science exists in a series of paradigms which are constantly changing as our knowledge base grows and expands, and our technology advances and makes more and more things possible for our discovery. This is very exciting, but it requires that we take this knowledge with a grain of salt, since it may very well turn out that our "knowledge" was simply a supposition based on the current data available (please see Classical Physics for a prime example of this). So, while I have no problem acknowledging that evolution happens (and let's get our terms straight here, friends, evolution simply refers to a genetic shift over time based on environmental pressures, it doesn't have to refer to man's ascent from lower life forms), and I acknowledge that we've found fossils for many animals that no longer exist, including humanoid ones, I reserve the right to be skeptical. We can learn a lot from studying fossils and preserved remains, but to make absolute statements about animals that have been extinct for thousands or millions of years based on a few bones is, to be perfectly honest, somewhat ludicrous in my opinion. Any good molecular biologist will tell you that sample size is critically important when one wants to prove an idea, and one problem with paleontology is that the sample size is inherently very low. So yes, these animals did exist, but I am not inclined to make leaping assumptions about them based on one or two, or even ten fossilized specimens.
This is a lot longer than I intended, but there's my opinion for you. For what it's worth.

[Whistler]

In light of modern scientific evidence, how do LDS apologetics regard the statement

There were no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations.

from here? Do most no longer cling to that belief at all, or do they have an interpretation that allows for plants and animals to decompose and become fossils while the statement of "no death and no children" remains true?

I regard it as a statement unduly influenced by Elder McConkie's view of the creation and pre-Fall status of the earth.

James E. Talmage FTW.

yeah, it's my understanding that the Bible dictionary is not doctrine and is based off some protestant dictionary. Also, thanks for the reality check, Wisteria.

[Rifka]

yeah, it's my understanding that the Bible dictionary is not doctrine and is based off some protestant dictionary. Also, thanks for the reality check, Wisteria.

I don't know about a protestant dictionary, but I do know that a lot of the Bible Dictionary was written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Also, it's not doctrine, but it is included in the standard works and I would be willing to bet the brethren are really particular about what facts they allow to be printed in the standard works. Take that as you will.

[TheAnswerIs42]

yeah, it's my understanding that the Bible dictionary is not doctrine and is based off some protestant dictionary. Also, thanks for the reality check, Wisteria.

I don't know about a protestant dictionary, but I do know that a lot of the Bible Dictionary was written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Also, it's not doctrine, but it is included in the standard works and I would be willing to bet the brethren are really particular about what facts they allow to be printed in the standard works. Take that as you will.

Brother Bott says it isn't doctrine. Because he kept finding mistakes in it, and I think he was at one point on a committee that was rewriting it.

[Dragon Lady]

Actually, I remember learning once that it was based on a protestant dictionary and tweaked as needed. And it is definitely not considered official doctrine or canon. (Yes, I'm sure it was approved by the 1st presidency at the time, but that doesn't make it official doctrine. It is still liable to have mistakes.)