Evolution states that homo sapiens predate the advent of civilization by hundreds of thousands of years.
Indeed.
There is no material difference between you and a man living 100,000 years ago.
Yep. Never stated otherwise. There may be a spiritual difference but even though such is also matter, it is not discernible to you or I as is the doctrine.
So the bottom line remains that my hypothesis on this matter is both scientifically and doctrinally sound.
Of course all this detracts from the natural selection error that Darth J just made.
However, since civilization is the determinative factor as to whether a human body is inhabited by a human spirit
Never said any such thing. Civilization is merely a marker. It's now possible or more likely for civilization to occur. Your statement shows and astounding lack of ignorance on the subject of evolution.
Sure, because I'm the one making up fables about why homo sapiens were not really human beings if they predated our favorite pair of ancient Missourians.
bcspace wrote:So the bottom line remains that my hypothesis on this matter is both scientifically and doctrinally sound.
Really? What scientific evidence do you have for the existence of the soul?
It's definitely not doctrinally sound. Per D&C, the earth is 7000 years old, and there were no pre-Adamites. That is an apostate fifth column invention.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Sure, because I'm the one making up fables about why homo sapiens were not really human beings if they predated our favorite pair of ancient Missourians
There doesn't seem to be anyone doing that. But there are attempts to change what I have said in order to create a straw man. For example, stating that I proposed that pre Adamites are soulless when one knows by now that I have never stated that.
The same modus operandi is used against the Church which is why being anti Mormon is not a respectable profession. Anti Mormonism cannot exist without lying.
Really? What scientific evidence do you have for the existence of the soul?
Yes, really. What scientific evidence precludes the spirit?
bcspace wrote:So the bottom line remains that my hypothesis on this matter is both scientifically and doctrinally sound.
Really? What scientific evidence do you have for the existence of the soul?
It's definitely not doctrinally sound. Per D&C, the earth is 7000 years old, and there were no pre-Adamites. That is an apostate fifth column invention.
BC, which stories and statements in the scriptural canon of the Church are not meant to be taken literally?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
bcspace wrote:There doesn't seem to be anyone doing that. But there are attempts to change what I have said in order to create a straw man. For example, stating that I proposed that pre Adamites are soulless when one knows by now that I have never stated that. The same modus operandi is used against the Church which is why being anti Mormon is not a respectable profession. Anti Mormonism cannot exist without lying.
It was an honest mistake. But your actual opinion is just as ridiculous as the one I mistakenly attributed to you.
bcspace wrote:
Really? What scientific evidence do you have for the existence of the soul?
Yes, really. What scientific evidence precludes the spirit?
That's not how science works. You must show positive evidence for the existence of spirits. Arguments from ignorance aren't scientific.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
bcspace wrote:Anti Mormonism cannot exist without lying.
Judging by recent events one can apply that statement to Apostleship and PRship within Mormonism...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Yes, really. What scientific evidence precludes the spirit?
That's not how science works. You must show positive evidence for the existence of spirits.
That's exactly how science works. When science has irrefutable proof that the spirit doesn't exist, then my hypothesis will go against science. Until then, science accepts the possibility without assuming it's true or false.
bcspace wrote: That's exactly how science works. When science has irrefutable proof that the spirit doesn't exist, then my hypothesis will go against science. Until then, science accepts the possibility without assuming it's true or false.
Sorry, you are the one claiming to have a spirit. That puts the burden of proof on you, so go on...prove the existence of your spirit.
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
bcspace wrote:That's exactly how science works. When science has irrefutable proof that the spirit doesn't exist, then my hypothesis will go against science. Until then, science accepts the possibility without assuming it's true or false.
Science has no position at all on such subjects as souls, faeries, ghosts and flying unicorns, as the evidence for each of them is nil. Ergo, your claim that pre-civilized homo sapiens were differently-ensouled is unscientific.
As usual, your position is both unscientific and non-doctrinal.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.