More bad news for our scripture believing friends

[Guest]

Ok so little Johnny tells me he learned about evolution from school. I tell him, as the poster boy of neo-mormonism that I am, that evolution is cool because that's how God created man. Next time I'll burn his school science book in protest.

[_bcspace]

Assuming the BCs theory might be correct, that all the other humans that preceded Adam and Eve dd not have spirits that were the children of God, I would then have to ask:

Assuming all humans on the earth now do have spirits that are children of God, could the 7 Billion that exist today all be tied to one man and one woman 6000 or so years ago? I think based on what Dr. W pointed out the answer is no.

Why would they have to be?

[_Chap]

Assuming the BCs theory might be correct, that all the other humans that preceded Adam and Eve dd not have spirits that were the children of God, I would then have to ask:

Assuming all humans on the earth now do have spirits that are children of God, could the 7 Billion that exist today all be tied to one man and one woman 6000 or so years ago? I think based on what Dr. W pointed out the answer is no.

Why would they have to be?

You mean all human beings today, though possessing spirits and being children of God, do not have to be descendants of Adam? I'd like to get that quite clear.

[_jon]

Assuming the BCs theory might be correct, that all the other humans that preceded Adam and Eve dd not have spirits that were the children of God, I would then have to ask:

Assuming all humans on the earth now do have spirits that are children of God, could the 7 Billion that exist today all be tied to one man and one woman 6000 or so years ago? I think based on what Dr. W pointed out the answer is no.

Why would they have to be?

As a follow up, they would (according to Mormonism) all have to be tied to Noah, circa 4,500 years ago.

[_Buffalo]

That's not your definition of official doctrine.

Neither was yours.

Your definition has always been, officially published by the church. Adam God meets that definition.

[_bcspace]

Bump for bcspace. I have seen him quit threads entirely in the past when this point has been brought up, so I should not like to miss his considered reaction yet again ...

You've seen no such thing.

Bcspace has a problem if he wants to believe simultaneously in these two propositions:

(a) All the living beings we currently call 'members of the human race' are descendants of a single human pair, including the members of the human race we call Australian Aborigines (that is, the descendants of those who live in Australia before Europeans arrived there).

(b) That pair of humans lived about 6,000 years ago.

The reason for that is that there is good evidence that human beings entered Australia about 40,000 years ago, when sea levels were low enough to make the crossing from the mainland of Eurasia practicable. See for instance here.. Those people who migrated into Australia cannot therefore have been descendants of Adam. And when the sea levels rose again with the end of glaciation, they were effectively isolated.

So which of (a) or (b) does bcspace want to dump?

Neither must be dumped as I do not propose that all born as spirit children of God must descend directly from Adam and Eve. One cannot also discount other later entries into Australia after the Fall so you have at least two significant problems with your argument.

[_bcspace]

Your definition has always been, officially published by the church.

No. My definition matches the Church; after Correlation in this case. Before that, it's still a pretty good measure except that:

Adam God meets that definition.

No:

1) Adam-God wasn't what BY taught.
2) It doesn't meet the D&C 107 criteria.

[_jon]

Neither must be dumped as I do not propose that all born as spirit children of God must descend directly from Adam and Eve. One cannot also discount other later entries into Australia after the Fall so you have at least two significant problems with your argument.

Except the Church officially states:
Adam is the father and patriarch of the human race on the earth

[_Chap]

Bump for bcspace. I have seen him quit threads entirely in the past when this point has been brought up, so I should not like to miss his considered reaction yet again ...

You've seen no such thing..

We may agree to differ, perhaps. but to business:

Bcspace has a problem if he wants to believe simultaneously in these two propositions:

(a) All the living beings we currently call 'members of the human race' are descendants of a single human pair, including the members of the human race we call Australian Aborigines (that is, the descendants of those who live in Australia before Europeans arrived there).

(b) That pair of humans lived about 6,000 years ago.

The reason for that is that there is good evidence that human beings entered Australia about 40,000 years ago, when sea levels were low enough to make the crossing from the mainland of Eurasia practicable. See for instance here.. Those people who migrated into Australia cannot therefore have been descendants of Adam. And when the sea levels rose again with the end of glaciation, they were effectively isolated.

So which of (a) or (b) does bcspace want to dump?

Neither must be dumped as I do not propose that all born as spirit children of God must descend directly from Adam and Eve. One cannot also discount other later entries into Australia after the Fall so you have at least two significant problems with your argument.

So is it now LDS doctrine that there are human beings alive today who are not descendants of Adam?


(I think we can discount the idea of a few Adamites swimming for many miles over dangerous seas and managing to inseminate so many women in Australia some time after 4,000 BC that all aborigines today are their descendants. )

[_Buffalo]

Your definition has always been, officially published by the church.

No. My definition matches the Church; after Correlation in this case. Before that, it's still a pretty good measure except that:

Adam God meets that definition.

No:

1) Adam-God wasn't what BY taught.
2) It doesn't meet the D&C 107 criteria.

Now you're flat-out lying.