More bad news for our scripture believing friends

[_Chap]

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?

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

[_jon]

bcspace,

When I asked if my post above accurately reflected the current teachings of the Church, you responded 'generally not'.

Actually the Church does currently teach that Adam was placed in the Garden of Eden circa 4,000 B.C.

The Church doesn't currently teach that the flood was literal and covered the whole earth.

I got my information off LDS.org

[_Hoops]

I'm wondering why all of you are tossing around 6,000 years as if that's the lone theory out there. I had always understood it to be 11,000-15,000 years. No, I don't have a reference, that's just been my understanding.

[_jon]

I'm wondering why all of you are tossing around 6,000 years as if that's the lone theory out there. I had always understood it to be 11,000-15,000 years. No, I don't have a reference, that's just been my understanding.

No Hoops, I'm taking my dates from the Chronology printed in the LDS authorised KJV Bible.

[_Hoops]

Of course, that's assuming a lot of things. Such as: it was a comparatively short time that A&E were in the garden. Now, I also understand the timeline of the lineage back to two parents doesn't work based on the evidence at hand, I'm not arguing for that. I AM arguing that 6,000 years is bandied about because it has the most WOW factor. (I suppose, in the grand scheme, there's not much difference between 6,000 and 15,000. So okay.)

[_Ceeboo]

Hey ya Hoops (Hope all is well with you)

I'm wondering why all of you are tossing around 6,000 years as if that's the lone theory out there.

Indeed, there is at least one other theory being tossed around. Something to do with billions and billions of years (Or something like that) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Hoops]

No Hoops, I'm taking my dates from the Chronology printed in the LDS authorised KJV Bible.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. I have no loyalty to LDS authorized anything, so do carry on. And disregard my criticism.

[_Hoops]

Indeed, there is at least one other theory being tossed around. Something to do with billions and billions of years (Or something like that) :)

Peace,
Ceeboo

Well, well, well... looks who's returned from The Vatican. Yeah, I heard about that theory. As I recall, the evidence is suspect at best, and it's adherents are big fat doofuses. As I recall.

by the way, my friend, I have some RCC questions for you if you're game.

[_jon]

No Hoops, I'm taking my dates from the Chronology printed in the LDS authorised KJV Bible.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. I have no loyalty to LDS authorized anything, so do carry on. And disregard my criticism.

Hoops, can you check the Bible dictionary of the version that you use to see what, if anything, it says under 'Chronology'?

It would be interesting to compare.