Ultimate prejudice?

[_Tarski]

I mean, how much more obvious does it have to be to conclude this story is nothing more than a myth? It almost literally SCREAMS myth in bold, red, neon letters..

Indeed, how is this not just obvious?
sigh.

[_bcspace]

The very fact that bc space believes in the Adam & Eve myth pretty well destroys any credibility he might have.

How do you know it's a myth?

I mean, how much more obvious does it have to be to conclude this story is nothing more than a myth? It almost literally SCREAMS myth in bold, red, neon letters.

Perhaps you could point out these neon letters? Perhaps they are floating behind those pink elephants you're seeing too?

Adam & Eve are as historical as Ferengis and Ewoks.

CFR

[_bcspace]

For BC Space please read this:

Done!

The First Presidency, under the leadership of President Joseph F. Smith, issued an official statement in which it repeated this rejection of the idea that man evolved from lower life forms:

It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon the earth, and that the original human was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was "the first man of all men" (Moses 1:34) and we are therefore duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. -- The First Presidency, Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund

Where is the rejection? These are indeed the theories of men, but that does not constitute a rejection. Besides, I have shown how evolution does not contradict the bolded part above.

In recent years, Joseph Fielding McConkie, a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, has written eloquently about why the theory of organic evolution is incompatible with the gospel. Professor McConkie points out that evolution plainly and clearly contradicts the LDS doctrine of the Fall:

His opinion. I think he's dead wrong. He doesn't take into account the fact that there was a creative process before the created state whose properties are not defined by scripture or LDS doctrine. He simple assumes that the creative state has the same properties as the finished creation. 2 Nephi 2:22 says otherwise imho.

So your theory directly contradicts the apostles and prophets.

How so?

Adam could not have had a lower form non spirit child of God.

Never said he did. This goes back to the erroneous assumption that evolution forces Adam to change species in his lifetime. That is not evolution as understood by science.

If this was the case there coudl be no fall. No fall then no atonement.

My theory has never denied the Fall. I accept all LDS doctrine on the matter.

Like it or not what you espouse contradicts aposles and prophets.

When you find something, let me know.

[_guy sajer]

The very fact that bc space believes in the Adam & Eve myth pretty well destroys any credibility he might have.

How do you know it's a myth?

The extreme incredibly improbability of it. I imagine for a similar reason than you reject the many of the improbable religious myths you reject.

It has ALL the hallmarks of hundreds of others religious myths. You believe it only because you were born into the religious tradition that accepts it.

That, and I have a brain, and I choose to use it.

I mean, how much more obvious does it have to be to conclude this story is nothing more than a myth? It almost literally SCREAMS myth in bold, red, neon letters.

Perhaps you could point out these neon letters? Perhaps they are floating behind those pink elephants you're seeing too?

Let's see, I'm don't believe in obvious religious myths, and I'm (as you seem to imply) delusional?

Wow, that's a stretch.

Adam & Eve are as historical as Ferengis and Ewoks.

CFR

I'm supposed to cite references that Adam & Eve, as well as Ferengis and Ewoks are ahistorical?

Damn, tripped up by my lazy research.

[_Tarski]

The very fact that bc space believes in the Adam & Eve myth pretty well destroys any credibility he might have.

How do you know it's a myth?

It has a talking snake with legs, magic fruit, and, most ridiculous of all, a first man and women. It is a cartoonical origins myth with all the realism of Kipling's "How the Leopard got its spots" but none of the literary value.

[_Moniker]

The very fact that bc space believes in the Adam & Eve myth pretty well destroys any credibility he might have.

How do you know it's a myth?

I know it's a myth 'cause it's a story that is in a religious text that attempts to explain the origins of life (creation) that does not depend on evidence. It's no different from Pan Gu in Chinese mythology, Coatlique of the Aztecs, and Eros in Greek creation mythology.

[_bcspace]

Damn, tripped up by my lazy research.

Indeed. The simple conclusion is that in science, no evidence for is not evidence against. So why, for example, do I not accept Hinduism? It's because I have taken the scientific test offered in Christian scripture (ask and ye shall receive) and found the results to be true.

[_bcspace]

I know it's a myth 'cause it's a story that is in a religious text that attempts to explain the origins of life (creation) that does not depend on evidence. It's no different from Pan Gu in Chinese mythology, Coatlique of the Aztecs, and Eros in Greek creation mythology.

In this sense (that it can never be true or contain truth), saying something is a myth because it lacks evidence is unscientific.

[_Moniker]

Damn, tripped up by my lazy research.

Indeed. The simple conclusion is that in science, no evidence for is not evidence against. So why, for example, do I not accept Hinduism? It's because I have taken the scientific test offered in Christian scripture (ask and ye shall receive) and found the results to be true.

What's the scientific test offered in Christian scripture?

???

[_Moniker]

I know it's a myth 'cause it's a story that is in a religious text that attempts to explain the origins of life (creation) that does not depend on evidence. It's no different from Pan Gu in Chinese mythology, Coatlique of the Aztecs, and Eros in Greek creation mythology.

In this sense (that it can never be true or contain truth), saying something is a myth because it lacks evidence is unscientific.

Do you then believe in Pan Gu, Coatlique, and Eros as explanations of creation? Do you discount them, bcspace?

~edited to add~

I have a very unscientific mind -- yet, I see the parallels in all of these mythologies and choose not to randomly pick one over the other. You do!