Do we know how the earth’s history as indicated from fossils fits with the scriptures?

[bookofmormanman]

http://lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/m...1ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

God is the creator of our earth and of all life on the earth. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. … And God created … every living creature that moveth. … And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” (Gen 1:1)
Among the life forms God created were apparently many species now extinct. Fossil-bearing rocks are common on the earth, and these fossils represent once-living organisms, preserved now as part of the earth’s rocky crust. Paleontology is the branch of science that studies these fossils to collect information about the past. But one does not need to be a paleontologist to find fossiliferous rocks—they are more common than most people imagine, and almost anyone can find fossils near home. These fossils may include microscopic invertebrate and plant remains, a myriad of fossilized sea shells, and even the fossilized bones of the large terrestrial animals, the dinosaurs. (Local and national laws generally protect fossil deposits, and would-be-collectors should be aware of these restrictions. People are free, however, to examine fossils in place without removing them, thus preserving their scientific value and meeting the intentions of the protective laws.)

 

[gmelrod]

Of course, the findings of science and the statements made in the scriptures are not entirely exclusive of each other. Often, the one augments knowledge supplied by the other. A case in point is an event in Church history when a prominent paleontologist, through his study of fossils found on the American continent, supported statements made in the Book of Mormon that were disputed by some nonmembers. A story published by the New York Tribune on 17 November 1873 relates a meeting in Salt Lake City between President Brigham Young and Professor O. C. Marsh of Yale University. Professor Marsh was one of the leading paleontologists of his time in America. His specialty, fossil horses, was the subject of the two men’s conversation.
Brigham Young sought information concerning the occurrence of horse fossils, especially in America. His purpose was to answer critics who challenged the mention of horses on this continent in the Book of Mormon. Everybody knew, said the critics, that there were no horses in America until the Spaniards introduced them. Professor Marsh’s research of horse fossils, however, clearly established the presence of modern horses in America long before the appearance of Spanish people in America.
The Tribune article concludes with the following: “So, while most theologians are regarding the developments of the natural sciences with fear and trembling, the chiefs of the Mormon religion are prepared to hail the discoveries of paleontology as an aid in establishing their peculiar beliefs.”

I hate to criticise this post since it is so well written and clearly lays out a defence for a posistion I also support. But I think it is important to note that Dr. Marsh's discoveries did not actualy support the existance of modern horses during the time of the Book of Mormon.

It is true that the dawn horse (Eohippus) evolved on the North American continent 55 million years ago and the diffrent species that arose out of this ancestor spread across a land bridge between Alaska and Russia to the rest of the world. But due to climate change and possibly human hunting the modern horse vanished from the continent around 8000 BC, more then seven thousand years before the Jaredites were supposed to arive in the New World.

I posted this not to start a new debate on LDS scripture but to show how science at times seems to support religious claims while at other times contradicts them. But I agree with the main point in the texts. Science is not to be feared simply because it is science. Turth takes many forms and can come to us in many ways. We should seek a way to integrate our reason based knowledge with our faith based knowledge. God exists. He created this beautiful world that surrounds us. And he gave us minds of scope and ambition that we may discover the workings of his creation, learn his methods and marvel even more in the artistry of his craftsmaship.

 

[Prometheus]

In Genesis, plants grew before the sun existed. I don't see how that can be reconciled with science. It also states that whales were created in the water, while evolutionary theory says that the ancestors of whales were originally land-dwelling.

It's been tried over and over again to reconcile creationism with evolution and the other sciences, but it requires making up your own interpretations of scriptures and stretching meanings more than you'd think you'd have to with the words of the creator.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The sequence of the creation of life on earth as recorded in Genesis—first plants (Gen 1:11-12), then animals (Gen 1:20-23)—is duplicated in the fossil record: ...

What sham science shows chordata antedating land-based insects?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is totally unimportant whether Fossils relate to the Bible stories.

The amazing thing,is that Bible stories written down after years of the verbal tradition from the stone age onwards has any thing right at all.

 

[painted wolf]

Unfortunatly modern Equis caballis or E. przewalskii was not in North America. We had several horse species but the only Equis we had went extinct during the ice age. (E. occidentalis)

Also gentics shows that Native Americans arn't decended from Isralites.

its true though that Fossil Reccords are unimportant to the Bible...if one takes the Bible as a set of parables and such to live and learn by.
But if you are a literalist, then things change. The fossil reccord, indeed almost all of science is a threat.

wa:do

 

[bookofmormanman]

Genetic attacks on the Book of Mormon focus on the fact that Amerindian DNA seems closest to Asian DNA, and not DNA from "the Middle East" or "Jewish" DNA. However, this attack ignores several key points.
Lehi and his family are clearly not Jews. They belong to the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3, 1Nephi 15;4), and married into Ishmael's family, the tribe of Ephraim. These tribes were carried away captive by the Assyrians, and did not contribute greatly to the current genetic mix of the Middle East.
Furthermore, the Middle East is located at the crossroads of three continents, and has seen a great deal of immigration, mixing, and intermarriage. To use modern Middle Eastern DNA as the "standard" against which to measure what Manasseh and Ephraim DNA must have been like 2600 years ago is extraordinarily sloppy science.

Source.

 

[Mike182]

bookofmormonman, if you put some spaces between your paragraphs it would be a lot easier to read

i doubt that even the people of 6000 years ago had trouble guessing that the earth and the sun and the moon and the stars and the grass and the plants and the water came before the animals and the humans - the fact that this guess is represented in some stories means nothing to me, as it proves nothing.

 

[painted wolf]

people who attack the genetic evidence seem to forget that the genetic tracers used to track anchient population movements go back tens of thousands of years. It isn't just comparing 'modern' genetics but the mutations that go back further than recorded history.
Unless the "Manasseh" and "Ephraim" are completely devoid of previous generational markers (and have gone totally extinct) than theier influence on genetics can not be erased or mistaken. No matter how much time has gone by.

wa:do

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Genetic attacks on the Book of Mormon focus on ... To use modern Middle Eastern DNA as the "standard" against which to measure what Manasseh and Ephraim DNA must have been like 2600 years ago is extraordinarily sloppy science.

Speaking of "extraordinarily sloppy science", I ask again: what sham science shows chordata antedating land-based insects?

 

[Katzpur]

Bookofmormanman, I have a question for you...

Do you know how to spell Mormon?

 

[DeepShadow]

people who attack the genetic evidence seem to forget that the genetic tracers used to track anchient population movements go back tens of thousands of years. It isn't just comparing 'modern' genetics but the mutations that go back further than recorded history.

Agreed. I actually like the genetic data, because it supports the case for Mulekites having a Jaredite ancestry. My thread on "Were the Mulekites Actually Jaredite Descendents?" has gone a long time without a hit. Care to join the debate?

 

[Tiberius]

Seems to me like the OP has decided that science agrees with religion. A classic example of reaching your conclusion before finding the evidence.

 

[Druidus]

Seems to me like the OP has decided that science agrees with religion. A classic example of reaching your conclusion before finding the evidence.

A classic example of bending logic, reason, and knowledge simply to support a construct of faith.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

>Do we know how the earth's history as indicated from fossils fits with the scriptures?

Its history fits very well with the Baha'i scriptures, IME!

I quote:

LXXXII “... The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets.”
--Gleanings, p. 182

Best!

Bruce

 

[doppelganger]

To use modern Middle Eastern DNA as the "standard" against which to measure what Manasseh and Ephraim DNA must have been like 2600 years ago is extraordinarily sloppy science.

Even if that weren't a straw man, what you are describing as "sloppy science" is still way better than taking the text literally based on faith.

 

[nicholashilliard]

In Genesis, plants grew before the sun existed. I don't see how that can be reconciled with science. It also states that whales were created in the water, while evolutionary theory says that the ancestors of whales were originally land-dwelling.

It's been tried over and over again to reconcile creationism with evolution and the other sciences, but it requires making up your own interpretations of scriptures and stretching meanings more than you'd think you'd have to with the words of the creator.

prometheus, in the account of genesis according to the message in verses 3-5 god spoke "light" and light appeared. is it false to assume that plants can grow in light not just sunlight? is not possible for someone to grow a plant in a closet cut off from the suns rays with only artificial light? and your little statement about whales is also a misconception. translated the word in the original texts is a term used for large creatures. i.e. the leviathan of the book of job. infact the same word is used with a different translation. dinosuars and other prehistoric behemoths were not yet discovered at the time of translation.

in conclusion, youll believe what you want. just dont believe it on false pretenses and lies youve been taught. find out for yourself.

 

[painted wolf]

so god had a giant light bulb?

wa:do

 

[nicholashilliard]

so god had a giant light bulb?

yes. a giant light bulb. is it really that hard to believe?

 

[Panda]

Thats a bit stupid isn't it? I mean common sense would be to make the sun before the plants.