Nothing died in mortality prior to 4,000 bc.

[_subgenius]

So then you agree that the story about the goose is a "valid form of evidence" for the existence of geese that lay golden eggs - got it, thanks for clearing that up.

and now we see that you are as disingenuous as Drift, and though you consider yourself clever, you are nothing more than amusing.
Let us make it simple, and notice that i am typing slowly for your benefit.

Let us assume we find two texts.
Both written by the same man
The first has a cover that says "Diary"
The second has a cover that says "Fables"

Both are valid evidence and both have value.
But both are distinguishable in how one discerns them.
A distinction you are obviously unable to make.

Perhaps you are familiar with the scripture that speaks about those who drink milk because they are not yet ready for meat.
Your post has you firmly seated with the former and not the latter.

[_Drifting]

Sadly, it does. Once again you reveal that you misunderstand church teachings and the scriptures (see also Gen 2:23-24). see also Old Testament Student Manual Genesis-2 Samuel page 3-12 (available on LDS.org) http://LDS.org/ensign/1987/11/lessons-f ... ry=eve+rib

sadly, your feeble attempt to cherry pick and substitute context has failed you again.
see my answer about "symbols" being true....
sadly, your translation is not the same as mine.
Unfortunately for you, i take figurative language quite literally...you should learn to distinguish figurative language from "literal" language...i think it might help you understand the scriptures at a level which would enable you to participate in meaningful discussions.

subgenius,

Do you believe that Eve was a real person and that she was literally created by God taking one of Adams literal ribs and using that to literally create her?

Bump because you won't have intentionally missed answering this...

[_subgenius]

Neither is the Bible.

either this is by your opinion or your inability to discern...likely both.

second, being consistent is a requirement for what?

Um, making a logical argument. Although, I am starting to see that making a logical argument is not really your goal.[/quote]
nor yours. there is no logic for your equation of Scientology and the Bible. Consistency is in my adherence to a belief in the Bible but not with the Hubbard text. Your assumption that if one believes in one text then one must believe in all texts is inconsistent with intelligence and common sense.
Consistency, as a rule of logic, means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
you are out of your league....and you dance funny

[_schreech]

you are nothing more than amusing.

I wish I could say the same of you but your simplistic, logic-deficient and inconsistent arguments are boring me to tears....

Let us make it simple, and notice that i am typing slowly for your benefit.

Let us assume we find two texts.
Both written by the same man
The first has a cover that says "Diary"
The second has a cover that says "Fables"

Both are valid evidence and both have value.
But both are distinguishable in how one discerns them.
A distinction you are obviously unable to make.

Perhaps you are familiar with the scripture that speaks about those who drink milk because they are not yet ready for meat.
Your post has you firmly seated with the former and not the latter.

So you didn't really mean "information in written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence" unless, of course, they meet your myopic and every changing definition of "evidence". Got it.

How about if the covers of both books say "scripture"? Do you believe the stories in the Koran? Dianetics? Or does your current definition of "evidence" reject the stories in those works of scripture?

Milk before Meat...Lol! I love that old chestnut...

[_schreech]

Neither this is by your opinion or your inability to discern...likely both.

And by "discern" you mean: "fool myself into believing that the heberw mythology found in the Bible is literal". Sorry, I am not capable of that kind of self deceit.

nor yours. there is no logic for your equation of Scientology and the Bible. Consistency is in my adherence to a belief in the Bible but not with the Hubbard text. Your assumption that if one believes in one text then one must believe in all texts is inconsistent with intelligence and common sense.
Consistency, as a rule of logic, means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
you are out of your league....and you dance funny

Yes, there is no reason why I would compare the scriptures of Scientology with the scriptures of Mormonism - lol....Conclusion: logic is not one of your strengths.

You are the one who said:

"information in written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence. Especially since no conflicting evidence is known to exist that would negate the author's assertion that God created rainbows."

So, if I changed "god created rainbows" to "xenu murdered his people with h-bombs" would you agree that its plausible, right? After-all:

"information in written documents from the past are valid forms of evidence. Especially since no conflicting evidence is known to exist that would negate the author's assertion that God created rainbows."

You are definitely out of my league, you should just stick with the pee-wee's.

[_logjamislds]

The idea of humans on earth before Adam doesn’t automatically deny the existence of God and creation. Hugh Nibley writes, “Do not begrudge existence to creatures that looked like men long, long ago, nor deny them a place in God’s affection or even a right to exaltation – for our scriptures allow them such. Nor am I overly concerned as to just when they might have lived, for their world is not our world . . . God assigned them their proper times and functions, as he has given me mine . . . it is Adam as my own parent who concerns me.” (“Old Testament and Related Studies”, page 82.) The anthropocentrism of science prior to Galileo claimed earth was the center of the universe. Turned out it wasn't. I think anthropocentrism still haunts the thinking of some; Unfortunately, they mix it in with religion. And yes, the church is still true, even if some leaders are looking through a "glass darkly". I know mine is darker than theirs.

[_SteelHead]

Following the taxonomy of doctrinal sources taught to me as studying for a career in CES, nor by bcspace's definition: Not an authoritative official source. Not doctrine. Try again. (Well it doesn't contain a link to LDS.org so I am confusing sub's and bc's definitions.... sorry, so much to keep straight)

--Edit--
No I was right, looking at the cited source it does not meet the sub's nor bc's definition of an official source, as it is not an official publication.

[_bcspace]

The idea of humans on earth before Adam doesn’t automatically deny the existence of God and creation

Amen.

[_SteelHead]

bc,
did you just amen a non doctrinal source as per your own definition?

Nice.

[_bcspace]

did you just amen a non doctrinal source as per your own definition?

Sure. Just because something is non doctrinal doesn't mean it doesn't contain any truth. Are you claiming evolution precludes God or man being created His image?