Evolution and God

[Mr Spinkles]

Evolution is a natural explaination for how humans (and indeed all life forms) came into being. A lot of theists strongly oppose the idea of evolution. Why? Evolution does not prove God did not make humans any more than meteorology proves God does not cause the wind to blow.

For the sake of argument, let's assume God exists, and He created human beings. In fact, let's assume that God created everything. Now, we already know how human babies are born, we know how animals survive, etc. etc. But theists do not have a problem with any of these natural explainations...that is because most theists have resolved that although the natural explaination for, say, how babies are born (sperm and egg come together, embryo development, XY chromosomes, and so forth) is correct, God still makes babies, because God sets these natural processes in motion in the first place.

So what is the big deal with evolution? I mean, it's all well and good to believe that God makes babies, but isn't it a good thing that scientists found out exactly HOW God does this, via natural processes? If you believe God created our species, that's super--but wouldn't we like to know HOW, exactly, God acheived this? Perhaps God did create humans, and evolution was how He did it.

It saddens me to see so many theists reject evolution...there was a time when religious men like Gregor Mendel studied the natural world because studying the natural world gave them a better understanding of God.

 

[Yerda]

A damn good point mate!! I think Darwin's theory of natural selection (although not being the whole story of evolution) is what has made the religions stand up against the idea of evolution. Absolutley nowhere does it say God could not have started evolution, similarly it does God does not exist because gravity does. Yet religious people can accept one natural force and not another.

Newton however did not refute the bible. For evolution to have progressed as far the earth must be much older than the bible claims. Ah well if the facts don't fit, more fool the facts.

 

[Yerda]

Sorry - the third line should read "similarly it does not say that God does not exist because gravity does."

Sorry guys

 

[Master Vigil]

Alot of theists don't like the idea that humans came from apes. Because humans are supposed to be superior and special. We are in fact just animals, but alot of christians believe we are above animals. And how could they accept an idea where supreme human beings came from simple apes?

 

[KBC1963]

Evolution is a natural explaination for how humans (and indeed all life forms) came into being

If it is so natural an explanation then why is there no solid proof? how come we don't find any transitional creatures? would it not make sense that we should find tons of bones of creature that were on their way to becoming what they are now?
Evolution is a man made theory that even its inventor determined was wrong before he died and ever since that time science has tryed to prove it as a reality but after all this time with hundreds of years of research and who knows how many millions of dollars we still have squat for evidence. What really gets me is that you will believe a theory made by a man that you have never known but on hearing alone will follow and deny GOD. common sense should kick in and tell you that if you follow another mans theorems then you are not much of a man yourself because we are all equal, couldn't you come up with an original theory yourself? How much more is known now than when that tired old theory came out? do you think he would have come up with the same theory with as much evidence as there is against now, remember his assumption was based on unknowns and he hoped that further research would prove him right.

Ro 1:24
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Ro 1:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Ro 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[Linus]

First of all let me clarify that ther are 2 types of evolution.

1. micro evolution- the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The strong genes of a species are passed down to the next generation. The spieces eventually changes, but it still remains the same species.

Christians, and other theists too, I would think, have no problem with htis idea. We have seen it occur not only other creatures, but in humans as well. It is what lets us be different.

2. Macroevolution- the process of eventually changing from one spieces to another through generational genetic changes.

Here is where theists have a problem. There are several reasons for this.

It contradicts creation accounts
It has not been proven
There are too many gaps in the theory to be convincing
among other, more specific reasons.

Just thought I'd clarify a little before this debate gets heavy

 

[KBC1963]

1. micro evolution- the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The strong genes of a species are passed down to the next generation. The spieces eventually changes, but it still remains the same species

Linus you are mostly correct I think but I will clarify one thing just incase there is any question.

microevolution is an impossibility- using the term evolution even at a tiny level gives one the idea that bit by bit a creature becomes more than what is was. the process your describing is in reality microadaptation and this is a constant occurance since we have many genetic traits inherent in our gene structure they may come out or hide based on environmental influence. The gist of what I am saying is this you will never be any more evolved than you are now using genetics, you can only trigger those that you do have and since we are all the result of 1 original pair of parents (for either evolution or biblical thinkers) we will never have any more or better genetic material than the first parents had.

p.s A thiest is an evolutionist as well considering that evolution is a belief in something unproveable. So we might just as well list that as a religion right along with the rest of them and as a final note athiest have beliefs as well, they believe in the senses so really they should be called sensualists, (hey I may have made a new word) which would be the belief that all there is for reality is what you can directly sense and untill it can be proven that all there is , is what can be sensed then thiers is only a belief just as all the rest of us.

 

[Linus]

Exactly, KBC1963. Your point was right on. But I only use the term evolution because that is what it is commoly called.

Anyway, what you said is one of the gaps the the evolutionary theory. How can we (or any organism for that matter) evolve into a new species unless new genes are introduced into the gene pool? It's impossible.

 

[Muad'dib]

First of all let me clarify that ther are 2 types of evolution.

1. micro evolution- the process of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The strong genes of a species are passed down to the next generation. The spieces eventually changes, but it still remains the same species.

Christians, and other theists too, I would think, have no problem with htis idea. We have seen it occur not only other creatures, but in humans as well. It is what lets us be different.

2. Macroevolution- the process of eventually changing from one spieces to another through generational genetic changes.

Here is where theists have a problem. There are several reasons for this.

It contradicts creation accounts
It has not been proven
There are too many gaps in the theory to be convincing
among other, more specific reasons.

Just thought I'd clarify a little before this debate gets heavy

Give me a break! Honestly, you must not be thinking. Think about how long life has existed on this planet. Three and a half to four billion years. You agree that micro evolution is possible. What do you think when you get three and a half to four billion years worth of micro evolution? We know full well that micro evolution itself can effect dramatic changes within a species. Billions of years worth of dramatic, micro evolutionary changes should equal macro evolution.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Sorry - the third line should read "similarly it does not say that God does not exist because gravity does."

Sorry guys

***Mod Post***

You can edit your own posts, no need to double post. Just click on the edit button and make your corrections.

 

[Master Vigil]

I would say that evolution even though not fully proven, has been proven far greater than the bibles creation story. There is absolutely nothing but the bible that proves the creation story. And you can't have circular reasoning so there is almost absolutely nothing that proves it. However, there is much evidence that proves micro and macro evolution. Though science is not infallible and neither is the bible. Science just seems to be winning at the evolution game.

 

[Linus]

Give me a break! Honestly, you must not be thinking. Think about how long life has existed on this planet. Three and a half to four billion years. You agree that micro evolution is possible. What do you think when you get three and a half to four billion years worth of micro evolution? We know full well that micro evolution itself can effect dramatic changes within a species. Billions of years worth of dramatic, micro evolutionary changes should equal macro evolution.

You can't prove that life has existed for billions of years. And even after four billion years of microevolution I would expect to get a few species that just looked a little different than when they started.

A monkey cannot and never could evolve into a person. Do you want to know why? Because that monkey's parents were still monkeys. And that monkey must mate with another monkey to make more monkeys. If there were a gene that caused monkeys to lose all their hair, they would still be a monkeys no matter how far and how wide that gene spread. They would still think and act like monkeys. The only thing that might change would be the smell.

 

[Pah]

...

A monkey cannot and never could evolve into a person. Do you want to know why? Because that monkey's parents were still monkeys. And that monkey must mate with another monkey to make more monkeys. If there were a gene that caused monkeys to lose all their hair, they would still be a monkeys no matter how far and how wide that gene spread. They would still think and act like monkeys. The only thing that might change would be the smell.

All mutations that convey a better chance for survival in the environment are accumulated. At some point, that accuumulation becomes another species. You seem to not understand how many different species of primate there are and how diverse the the order is.

 

[Master Vigil]

"A monkey cannot and never could evolve into a person. Do you want to know why? Because that monkey's parents were still monkeys. And that monkey must mate with another monkey to make more monkeys. If there were a gene that caused monkeys to lose all their hair, they would still be a monkeys no matter how far and how wide that gene spread. They would still think and act like monkeys. The only thing that might change would be the smell."

Well there it is, we are only monkeys after all.

 

[dan]

"Micro-evolution," as it was called, is commonly referred to in the scientific community as adaptation; and it is the only thing that can be observed and proven. Unfortunately for evolutionists, it proves absolutely nothing. Evolution in the sense of changing from one species to another has never and can never be observed or proven. It will remain a theory as long as man exists.

Evolution and the Bible are irreconcilable. You must believe one or the other. Evolution does not account for the entrance of death or sin into the world, and thus negates the story of Adam and Eve (whether you interpret it allegorically or literally). If you think they can be married to each other then you understand neither with enough comprehension to make a judgment regarding them.

Following are excerpts from books and articles written by scientists of the last hundred years critiquing various aspects of the theory of evolution.

T.N. George: "In the anthropocentric view, evolution's progress is marked by the apearance of successively higher forms of life. In the light of evidence now available such a view invites rejection. A line of evolution is a convenient fiction. There is no steady march of progress. The reptiles did not evolve out of the ruling amphibians, or the mammals out of the ruling reptiles. The general picture is not one of continued advance (even as measured by arbitrary yardsticks), but of replacement. There manifestly has been no progressive evolutionary rise from one group to another. It is impossible to discern a single over-riding motif in evolution."

O. Dodson & W.B. Saunders: "TOday Goldschmidt can speak of the bridgeless gap between species. This discontinuity, never explained, presents the second major problem of evolution. All of the extant classes of Mollusca were present already in the Cambrian. The classes were just as distinct then as now and so paleontology is of no help in deciding what the relationships between the phylum may be. Organisms showing the transition from the trilobites to the other anthropod types are entirely lacking and it may be that the several groups arose independently."

M. Lamotte: "Lacking a rigorous logical demonstration, which is rendered impossible by the very nature of the field, we have not an acceptable theory of the mechanisms of evolution."

K.E. Bock: "It was long ago recognized that evolution was a dead horse - but there was nothing to take its place: 'This theoretical bankruptcy has forced us back into the evolutionist fold in spite of ourselves,' since we must have some 'methodological framework within which we can seek generalization about cultures.'"

M. Jacobs: "Although details of most of these changes are inadequately evidenced by the fossil discoveries, the anthropologist uses as his frame of reference the concept of developmental levels. This serves as a menas of classification in time. He presumes that subsequent discoveries will fit into one or another revision of an always tentative scheme of levels. This is the course of evolutionist thinking."

A.N. Wallis (in a Presidential Address before the American Anthropological Society): "The concept, which is hundreds of years old, is not based on the eivdence, which is inadequate to support it; instead the evidence is made subservient to the concept, the 'frame of reference' into which it must be fitted."

H. Grundfest: "Darwin's combination of two blind forces, variation and natural selection, operating together inexplorably in evolution is still as valid as ever. However, to specify these factors quantitatively precisely has been the effort of the last hundred years, and is still largely unsuccessful. That data in some areas are implausibly bizarre, among them some which Darwin himself found in various plants."

T.S. Westoll: "The early classical evolutionary tree of the horse, beginning in the small dog-sized Eohippus and tracing directly to our present day Equinus, was all wrong. The direct line of descendants of Eohippus led to a horse-like animal Hypohippus, which became extinct and thus ended the line. All evolution is made up of such 'finite stage' or blind alley patterns, with offshoots starting up new side-lines. Through a series of offshoots present animals stocks are developed."

I've got lots more, but I don't feel like writing all night long.

 

[Sunstone]

For the sake of argument, let’s assume evolution is true, and that we are descended from a common ancestor which some 6 or 7 million years ago we shared with the other two species of chimpanzee.

If that were the case, then I would have to agree with Mr. Spinkles that there is nothing about evolution which precludes the existence of a god. That is, you can assert without contradiction both that evolution is true and that a god exists.

But would evolution disprove the existence of the biblical God? When I first heard of the theory of evolution, I was inclined to believe that it did not disprove the existence of the biblical God. That is, I was inclined to believe that you can assert without contradiction both that evolution is true and that the biblical God exists.

Yet, nowadays, I have my doubts about that.

I began to doubt that evolution and the biblical God were compatible after seeing so many Christians up in arms against the theory of evolution. I reasoned it was unlikely Christians would be up in arms against that theory if that theory were truly compatible with the biblical God.

Yet, I’m unsure why it is incompatible.

Reading Master Vigil’s post, I can see one reason why the theory of evolution might be incompatible with the biblical God. That is: Many Christians seem to believe that God created us superior to the other animals, and they also seem to believe that the theory of evolution fails to allow room for the claim that God created us superior.

Reading Linus’s post, I can perhaps see another reason why the theory of evolution might be incompatible with the biblical God. That is, if I have understood Linus correctly, then many Christians seem to believe that the biblical account of creation must be literally true for the biblical God to be true – and that the theory of evolution, by contradicting the literal truth of Genesis, implies the non-existence of the biblical God.

Is that it? Or, are there any other specific reasons why the theory of evolution is incompatible with the biblical God?

 

[Linus]

All mutations that convey a better chance for survival in the environment are accumulated. At some point, that accuumulation becomes another species.

No it doesn't. Every species has a different genetic make-up than an other. In order for a new species to emerge completely new DNA must be incorporated into the existing gene pool. The only way this can happen is if there is inter breeding within species. Interbreeding however does not constitute evolution.

You seem to not understand how many different species of primate there are and how diverse the the order is.

I understand perfectly well. But the only way that each species can emerge as separate oranisms is through reproduction. Their parents were the same species and their parents and theirs

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think, with an honest look at the facts, most people agree that evolution takes place....in fact, evolution is a settled fact in biology, just not the precise means of evolution. KBC-- there are lots of transitional fossils of homonids which have both uniquely human and uniquely ape characteristics. See http://www.origins.tv/darwin/hominid.htm#Transitionals for pictures of these fossils and explainations of the human and ape characteristics found in them.

A little background: a species breaks off into two different species when a group within one species is isolated in some way (chemically, geographically, etc) and changes enough genetically that the isolated group will no longer breed with the rest of the species. This group has now become a new, different species, and will follow a different path of change/evolution than the rest of the species from which it came. A new branch has just sprouted in the great tree of evolution, so to speak.

dan: Here is one example of the observed evolution of a new species:

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

I encourage anyone who wants to know more about observed instances of species evolution to visit http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html The part I quoted is under "5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation".

Remember: the basic premise of evolution is that new species do not appear out of thin air. If you can accept this premise then you accept evolution in principle.

At any rate, this thread is not supposed to be about whether or not evolution occurs....the point of my thread is that, assuming evolution does occur, does it necessarily mean God can not exist?

I do not think so, but because many theists believe (incorrectly) that evolution disproves God (moreso than Newton's laws, for example) they are already biased against the idea and do not look objectively at the facts. They believe that accepting evolution means denying God, and since they do not want to deny God, they reject evolution without objectively reviewing the abundant evidence which supports it.

The same thing happened for years after Galileo showed that the Earth revolves around the Sun (not the other way around)....Christians said it was only a theory with no proof and no way to ever prove it....in reality they were putting their fingers in their ears and not looking at the facts objectively.

 

[Muad'dib]

You can't prove that life has existed for billions of years. And even after four billion years of microevolution I would expect to get a few species that just looked a little different than when they started.

A monkey cannot and never could evolve into a person. Do you want to know why? Because that monkey's parents were still monkeys. And that monkey must mate with another monkey to make more monkeys. If there were a gene that caused monkeys to lose all their hair, they would still be a monkeys no matter how far and how wide that gene spread. They would still think and act like monkeys. The only thing that might change would be the smell.

I can so prove that life has existed for billions of years. It’s called a “rock”. Rocks can contain 2 kinds of evidence for life: fossil evidence and evidence of organic material. The 1st cannot be mistaken; if those fossils are dated as 3.2 billion years old, then life has existed for at least 3.2 billion years. The 2nd can indicate one of two things: that life already existed, or that the organic components needed to form life (nucleic acids for example) already existed. Either way, scientists know for sure that there was definitely life 3.2 billion years ago.

So, we know from fossilized evidence of single cellular organisms that life existed on earth at least 3.2 billion years ago. Admit it or be laughed at.

Furthermore, despite your irrational beliefs, there is transitory evidence to support evolution. Since I am sure you don’t care about the transitory evidence for the evolution of hyracotherium vasacciense into the modern horse, I’ll cut to the chase: there is transitory fossil evidence for the evolution of ardipithicus ramidus to homo erectus to homo sapiens sapiens.

Ardipithicus ramidus: 5 to 4 million years ago. (The remains are incomplete but enough is available to suggest it was bipedal and about 4 feet tall.)

Australopithecus anamensis: 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago. (Its body showed advanced bipedal features, but the skull closely resembled the ancient apes.)

Australopithecus afarensis: 4 to 2.7 million years ago. (It was between 3'6" and 5' tall, fully bipedal, and its build (ratio of weight to height) was about the same as the modern human but its head and face were proportionately much larger. Brain capacity of 450 cc.)

Kenyanthropus platyops: 3.5 million years ago. (Discovered by Justus Erus in 1999 at Lomekwi in Kenya. This is a mostly complete, but heavily distorted, cranium with a large, flat face and small teeth. The brain size is similar to that of australopithecines.)

Australopithecus africanus: 3 to 2 million years ago. (Bipedal, slightly larger in body size. Brain capacity ranging up to 500 cc but not advanced enough for speech. The shape of the jaw was now like the human.

Australopithecus garhi: 2.5 million years ago. ( Discovered by Yohannes Haile-Selassie in 1997 at Bouri in Ethiopia. This is a partial skull including an upper jaw with teeth.)

Australopithecus aethiopicus: 2.6 to 2.3 million years ago. (Brain sizes were still about 500cc, with no indication of speech functions.)

Australopithecus robustus: 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago. (Brain size was up to 525cc but still no indication of speech capability.)

Australopithecus boisei: 2.1 to 1.1 million years ago. (The brain size was about the same as robustus.)

Homo habilis: 2.4 to 1.5 million years ago. (The brain size within this one species ranges from 500cc in earlier specimens to 800cc toward the end of the species life. There’s your microevolution! Brain shape shows evidence that some speech had developed. 5' tall and weighed about 100 pounds.)

Homo georgicus: 1.8 million years ago. (Discovered in 2001 at Dmanisi in Georgia. It consisted of a mostly complete skull, including a lower jaw belonging to the same individual. At around 600 cc, this is the smallest and most primitive hominid skull ever discovered outside of Africa. This skull and two others discovered nearby form a near-perfect transition between H. habilis and ergaster.

Homo erectus: 1.8 million to 300,000 years ago. (The brain size ranges from about 900cc in early species 1200cc—almost the equivalent of modern man!—in later specimens. The species definitely had speech, plus tools, weapons, fire, and the ability to cook.)


Homo ergaster: 1.7 million years ago. (Discovered in 1975 at Koobi Fora in Kenya. This superb find consisted of an almost complete cranium. The brain size is about 850 cc, and the whole skull is similar to the Peking Man fossils.)

Homo antecessor: 780,000 years ago. (Discovered at Atapuerca in Spain. This is a partial face of a child who was probably about 10 to 11.5 years old.)

Homo neanderthalensis: 60,000 years ago. (Discovered in 1886 at the Grotto of Spy d'Orneau in Belgium. This find consisted of two almost complete skeletons. The excellent descriptions of the skeletons established that they were very old, and largely discredited the idea that the Neandertal physique was a pathological condition, but also erroneously concluded that Neandertal Man walked with bent knees.)

Homo sapiens (archaic): 200,000 to 500,000 years ago. (Provides the bridge between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens sapiens. Many skulls have been found with features intermediate between the two. Brain averaged about 1200cc and speech was indicated.)

Homo sapiens neandertalensis: 150,000 and 35,000 years ago. (Lived in Europe and the Mideast. Neandertals coexisted with H.sapiens (archaic) and early H.sapiens sapiens. It is not known whether he was of the same species and disappeared into the H.sapiens sapiens gene pool or he may have been crowded out of existence (killed off) by the H.sapien sapien. Recent DNA studies have indicated that the neandertal was an entirely different species and did not merge into the Homo sapiens sapiens gene pool.)

Homo sapiens sapiens: 120,000 years ago. (Modern humans have an average brain size of about 1350 cc.)

There you have it—transitory evidence for the macroevolution of humans from Ardipithicus ramidus, which was essentially a large “monkey”.

 

[KBC1963]

Muad'dib,
I have considered much of the evidences that you and Mr. Sprinkles have pointed to but I have gone a step further, I looked into the foundations of how they arrive at many of their conclusions about age of objects and species determination and there are many problems in both areas.

1) age and dating technics are unproven and rely on supposition and in many cases use circular reasoning in their use. there are so many papers out there that prove the inaccuracy of current dating technics that it is easier for you to just look them up yourself.

2) fossil evidences that are used to indicate relatives to man are not found with tags on them saying who they are and where they came from so everything about a fossil is suppositional in nature. It is a well known fact that all living things occasionally have mutated babies and tho the mutation doesnt continue it is possible that after it dies it could later be dug up and incorrectly judged as an ancestor rather than a mutation, I ask you how many things ever found where judged a mutation? and yet we know all too well that this occurs, people are born with many oddities and skulls are equally able to be mutated.

3) If evolution were true then we should be able to easily and continuously find transitional species for everything but thats not happening, the evidences that are used in most cases are uniques, I would say that if there was a line of our ancestors that were 4 ft tall (and not a midget) as a norm for them then we should be able to find many such skeletons since an evolutional change would take thousands of years and if you can find one then where are all his relatives, where are all the ones that were 4'-6' tall? Where is the continuous line before and after?
why is there no continuous line with piles of evidences to back them up.

4) I would also like to point out that there are many things dug up that show almost no change at all, how is this reconciled with evolution? is evolution selective now?

The assumption that scientist are always correct and that thier determinations are correct is a fallacy and to blindly believe them is your bad.

[Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time…over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.The lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled. This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."]

I believe that the only "incredibly stupid" thing a person can do is blindly believe what other people say without ever looking themselves at the foundations that those people use to make thier claims.This is why there are so many religions, people not looking at the foundations just buy into it because it is easier to follow blindly than to waste time checking carefully because it actually takes a bit of work to determine true and false.

My brother is a degreed Archaeologist and I have been able to see first hand how they use deductive reasoning "based on" something else and it is amazing how many things can be reasoned one way or another when based on another supposition so for you to truely have a good understanding of each of the cases you used as evidence you should also look at the reasoning that brought them to that conclusion, because anyone can get a degree and go out there and dig something up and make assumptions. My brother has racks of fossils and he has them all labeled according to his deductive reasoning but I have watched him rename some of his items because he became aware of an incorrect assumption. How many scientific things have been disproven after years of use as a bases of thought?

One of the greatest analogies that I use now to show just how blind following can really make you look stupid is this;

How many people believe in the book of mormon? The entire book deals with a tribe of jews that moved to the americas and thier subsequent life here, so by all rights somewhere along our archaeological journey we should find evidence of jews being here or some of the things they used and seeing as how this supposedly happened within a few thousand years then there should be evidence abounding but all is not so, since The Book of Mormon has failed every archeological test applied to it.

According to the Smithsonian Institute of Washington, D.C., USA, the following items (which, according to The Book of Mormon, existed in the Americas between 600 B.C. and 421 A.D.) have absolutely no evidence for existing in the America's during the time in question:

Silk - Alma 4:6, Nephi 13:7, Alma 1:29
Horses - Enos 1:21, Alma 18:9, 3 Nephi 3: 1, Nephi 18:25
Steel - Jarom 1:8, 2 Nephi 5:15,16, 1 Nephi 4:9, 16:18
Iron - 2 Nephi 5:15, 20:34, Jarom 1:8, Mosiah 11:8
Coins - Alma 11:5-19
Donkeys - 1 Nephi 18:25, Mosiah 5:14, 12:5
Cattle, Cow, and Oxen - Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22, 6: 1 Nephi 18:25
Pigs - 3 Nephi 7:8
Grain and Wheat - Mosiah 9:9; Helaman 11:17

If The Book of Mormon is true, certainly some evidence for the items mentioned above should have been unearthed by modern-day archeologists. But where are the objects of steel, iron, and brass that are mentioned throughout The Book of Mormon? Has anyone uncovered even one coin as mentioned in the book of Alma? Mormon 6:9-15 states that many thousands of men fought a great battle armed with swords, bows, arrows and axes, but have archaeologists discovered any of these items dating back to that time period on this continent? According to Ether 15:2, two million Jaredite peoples (men, women and children) were killed in battle, yet there is not a trace of this battle anywhere. Ether 15:15 claims that men, women, and children armed with shields, breastplates, and headplates, fought a great battle with much loss of life -- yet not one article of battle has been found to date!!!!!!!!


Here are some questions for all of you that believe in evolution;

If all life evolved then why is there still death?
why hasnt every living thing overcome or evolved beyond death?
since our dna supposedly changes to overcome bad environmental influences
then I would say death should have been the first thing to overcome, now keep in mind
that turtles,whales etc... can live far longer than humans and tree's can really make us look bad so I must ask the question; If we all are decendants of one original start of life why the differences in lifespans?
should I not be able to live as long as a tree seeing I am an evolved decendant from our common ancestor?