Up for at strange little thread at MAD?

[_moksha]

Whatever floats your boat. Most Mormons would even find it weird.

Most LDS I know receive it positively.

I receive it positively, except my reconciliation of evolution and God includes all his sentient creations as being his spirit children. We can all share differing interpretations to the great mysteries.

[_Chap]

I asked BCSpace about this identical point some months ago, having supplied him with data on the accepted dates at which modern human beings populated the different parts of the earth's surface, and after having got him to give a range of dates during which his version of the Fall could have taken place. The impossibility of us all being in any sense descendants of Adam was then very evident. I asked him to confront this huge objection to his theory.

Answer came there none. Pending further clarification, I can only conclude provisionally that he is not discussing this and similar points in good faith, but is simply playing little games. Thus I suggest it may be better not to bother arguing with him.

I did give you (or someone else asking the same question) an answer. You (or that someone else) simply failed to address it.

My last substantive post addressed to bcspace's point is
on this page, if anyone wants to view the context.

To remind anyone who wants to know, this is what I posted:

<POST BEGAN>

"Why do you think it is unlikely that there are any descendants of pre-Adamites alive today?"

Because I believe that we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve is almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine. Perhaps you might have some intermarriage in there (a nod to some strange ideas about Genesis 6). But I prefer a cleaner explaination than that in the absence of details.

"And roughly when do you think Adam and Eve lived?"

I can handle something quite earlier than the standard 4004 BC date postulated. Perhaps something just before civilazation began to really take an upward swing, though that could be very subjective. How about as early as 6 - 10,000 BC? 20,000 BC? What do you like?

I have no problem with preAdamites speaking languages, living in settlements, or making some of the more complex tools.

I think you will find that your ideas involve you in a faith-based contradiction of a great deal of well-based science on the arrival of human beings in different parts of the world.

Given that the earliest cultures classifiable as 'civilisations' are found well after 10,000 BC (see for instance the entry on Sumer here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer), it seems that your Fall (with Adam and Eve) does not need to be put back earlier than 20,000 BC even if you demand 10,000 clear civilisation-free years after it. (I don't know how you intend to deal with the Biblical genealogies that link Adam to Abraham and others in not very many generations - that will be your problem for another time, no doubt). That dating will put you in the last Ice Age, but what the heck.

However, modern human (homo sapiens) migration all over the world started long, long before that, with a spread out of Africa around 100,000 years ago. There were human settlements in Australia by around 70,000 BC. Estimates vary - but all the dates are well before you seem to want to place Adam and Eve. See for instance the well-documented visual presentation at http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/.

There is simply no way, consistent with the evidence, for all these pre-existing human populations to have died out well after having arrived in their long-term locations and been replaced by descendants of Adam and Eve, wherever or whenever in the world this pair are imagined to have lived. Dates are always subject to change, of course - but not by as much as you need.

So you need a rethink of some kind. If you could believe in an Eden in Africa 100,000 years ago you might get away with it. But doesn't your Eden have to be in Missouri?

I am trying to see the sense in bcspace's subsequent reply to my post (look back to it, for what it is worth). This is difficult, since he replied by his usual method of putting in little interjections, such as 'No' or 'My position is perfectly consistent' instead of giving a coherent answer in continuous prose.

Now here is bcspace's position as per his post:

(a) He thinks that 'we all who are alive today are descendants of Adam and Eve' and that this position is 'almost (perhaps absolutely) mandated by doctrine'.
(b) When asked when Adam and Eve lived, he says it was sometime 'just before civilazation began to really take an upward swing', maybe 10,000 - 20,000 BC.

Now this position implies as a minimum that somehow or other Adam and Eve have to be in the direct line of ascent of all human beings on earth, and (if we go for bcspace's 'cleaner explanation') at a maximum that we have no other ancestors than Adam and Eve.

But as I pointed out, his position is just impossible in terms of the history of human populations. Suppose we let him put Adam and Eve back as far as 20,000 BC so that they lived over 10,000 years before the remotest signs of anything other than hunter-gatherers. By that time there were significant human populations all over the Old World, and in North America (homo sapiens began to spread out of Africa around 100,000 BC)

To make bcspace's maximum 'cleaner' view work, we need an extinction of the WHOLE of the world human population around 20, 000 BC, apart from wherever Adam and Eve lived, followed by a repopulation by 'Adamites' who quckly migrate from Eden (wherever that is). That is a flat contradiction to the well-established archeological record. (It probably won't work in terms of genetic diversity either, but let's leave that to one side)

To make bcspace's minimum view work, the descendants of Adam have to leave their centre and spread over the whole world, far, far more quickly than is remotely likely given previous human migrations, and get their genes into every single human population from Africa to Australia and America. Given that Australia, for instance, was populated by people who had walked over a land bridge that was later covered by sea, this is deeply implausible.

So bcspace's view simply takes no account of facts (OK bcspace, I'll do your answer for you "Yes it does." Very effective response ...)

Looking back at his answer to my post, I can find no signs that bcspace has a way of countering my objections, despite his one-liners.

He does not apparently deny that human populations were spread all over the world well before his 'Adam and Eve' date:

I've always understood that. The creative process was finished when God determined the time was right and that may have included the existence, for several hundred thousand years even, of homo sapiens.

But his only answer to the point that this makes his theory that 'we are all post-Adamites' impossible, is to make interjections such as:

How so? What have I said that was contradictory?

I only need a broad enough theory to take it all into account and I believe I have done so. I have not pinned down the emergence of a civilization. What civilization postFall homo sapiens began with can be quite subjective without being contradictory.

I leave it to others to judge whether bcspace's views on 'spirit children' are worth discussing. But his views on who we are descended from are based on simply ignoring the facts. This time it isn't just a question of redefining 'creation' into a special bcspace meaning, but of refusing to acknowledge that things just couldn't have happened the way he says they did.

If bcspace disagrees, I challenge him to make a post that does not consist of one-line interjections, but uses continuous prose to set out a view of when homo sapiens populated the world (with references to evidence, please), when he thinks Adam and Eve lived , and then explains how we can all be descendants of that original pair, either in whole or in part.

I doubt he will be able to do that.
<POST ENDED: my emphasis added in final paragraph>

Searching right through to the end of the thread, the only answer to my challenge from bcspace seems to have been:

Since you have not produced any such evidence on your own to thwart my theory why is this necessary? When you come up with some specifics to preclude my theory, then we'll talk. For example, how does my theory not work with the notion that homo sapiens have been around for at least several hundred thousand years? I shown how that works several times now and all you can do is gnash your teeth.

That was an answer? This man is not worth having a discussion with.

[_Alter Idem]

I don't deny the Fall or any other LDS scripture or doctrine. Evolution fits just fine.

So what do you make of Moses 3:7:

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

Personally, I read it as symbolic, not literal.

[_truth dancer]

BC... are you there?

:-)

[_Pokatator]

BC's doctrine = the philosophies of men mingled with a little bit of scripture

You are a mass of confusion, buddy.

I have to disagree with you here...

I don't think there is a man or woman who would find BC's "theory" to make any sort of sense at all. I think he is the sole believer in his philosophy. ;-)

So, maybe it is more, "the philosophies of BC mingled with a speck of scripture?"

(smile)

~td~

TD sorry I am so late in responding to you. I think you are correct, I sit corrected, I don't know anyone spouting ideas like his. I am just guilty of trying to make my response sound like Joseph Smith or the temple crap when they responded to different theories or pastors or creeds.

BC is just plain.....out there....all alone...I doubt he can give an intelligent answer to Chap's latest post which was really great.

[_solomarineris]

Here is a strange little thread at MAD, started by our former star poster Runtu. The comments make it fun to read.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=37700
Did you know that even the slightest information can sow the seed of doubt? Neither did I till... well, just read it.

Look at the price Runtu is willing to pay, in order to stay in this thread;

QUOTE(urroner @ Sep 5 2008, 12:08 PM) *
And what does this have to do with the Book of Mormon?

Nothing, really. Just an interesting piece of the puzzle as to how the Americas were populated. If it's Old Testament, then maybe the mods can close the thread.

This, I find sad. Runtu knows very well this thread is very relevant to debunking Book of Mormon tale.
Instead of saying this, he meekly, submissively wags his tail to Gordittos;

"OK guys, if you find this very threatening, you may close it"

.

I am sorry Runtu to say this; It is not worth the price you are paying to stay over there.
You are above intelligent guy, they know it.

Now I have to get back to shore up my defenses in in Houston, God Ike will befell on us.