Science 4,586,384,421, God 0

[_Buffalo]

I tend to think that the fall most likely ocurred before the start of the first civilization, Sumer in 8000 B.C. Traditional LDS thinking along the lines of 4000 B.C. is just that, traditional; and that because there is no specific revelation.

So there was no death before 8000 BC? Is that a significantly better claim than 4000 BC?

[_bcspace]

The simple fact is that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for a creator God,

Scientifically, that's not proof. The city of Troy was thought to be mythical; until it was discovered.

and especially not for the laws-of-physics-violating anthropomorphic God that Joseph Smith described.

There doesn't seem to be any violations of physical laws going on. There may be other laws as well of which we are unaware.

Humankind does not need such a God to explain its existence or that of this universe.

The more we discover, the more questions crop up.

The creation of, and belief in, such a God by humans causes far more problems in the world than it solves.

That is caused by belief in the wrong god or no god at all.

[_bcspace]

I tend to think that the fall most likely ocurred before the start of the first civilization, Sumer in 8000 B.C. Traditional LDS thinking along the lines of 4000 B.C. is just that, traditional; and that because there is no specific revelation.

So there was no death before 8000 BC? Is that a significantly better claim than 4000 BC?

I never implied any such thing. There was certainly no death before the Fall (the garden state), but as 2 Nephi 2:22 shows, there was a state of creation before the garden state and a property of no death is not ascribed to that prior state. Therefore, it is not contradictory to say there was evolution and death prior to the garden state. When all was ready, then the garden sate. After the Fall, all the usual processes, like evolution, proceed apace.

[_Buffalo]

I never implied any such thing. There was certainly no death before the Fall (the garden state), but as 2 Nephi 2:22 shows, there was a state of creation before the garden state and a property of no death is not ascribed to that prior state. Therefore, it is not contradictory to say there was evolution and death prior to the garden state. When all was ready, then the garden sate. After the Fall, all the usual processes, like evolution, proceed apace.

That contradicts the scriptures, the teaching manuals AND science. Well-done.

2 Nephi does not say what you're insinuating, by the way.

2 Nephi 2:22
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not
have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.
And all things which were created must have remained in the same
state in which they were after they were created; and they must
have remained forever, and had no end.

[_bcspace]

I never implied any such thing. There was certainly no death before the Fall (the garden state), but as 2 Nephi 2:22 shows, there was a state of creation before the garden state and a property of no death is not ascribed to that prior state. Therefore, it is not contradictory to say there was evolution and death prior to the garden state. When all was ready, then the garden sate. After the Fall, all the usual processes, like evolution, proceed apace.

That contradicts the scriptures, the teaching manuals AND science.

Interesting that you can't seem to tell specifically how it might contradict....

2 Nephi does not say what you're insinuating, by the way.

That there was a creative state prior to placement into a state of no death? Sure it does. I will use your own quotation; emphasis mine:

2 Nephi 2:22
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not
have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.
And all things which were created must have remained in the same
state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must
have remained forever, and had no end.

The state of no death came AFTER the creative period. Thus the Book of Mormon actually lends significant support for evolution while at the same time, there is nothing elsewhere in LDS doctrine to preclude it.

[_Buffalo]

That contradicts the scriptures, the teaching manuals AND science.

Interesting that you can't seem to tell specifically how it might contradict....

2 Nephi does not say what you're insinuating, by the way.

That there was a creative state prior to placement into a state of no death? Sure it does. I will use your own quotation; emphasis mine:

2 Nephi 2:22
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not
have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.
And all things which were created must have remained in the same
state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must
have remained forever, and had no end.

The state of no death came AFTER the creative period. Thus the Book of Mormon actually lends significant support for evolution while at the same time, there is nothing elsewhere in LDS doctrine to preclude it.

BC, there is nothing special about 8000 BC. Humans are much older than that, and we've been living and since before we had tails. There is no evidence whatsoever of any "garden of Eden" at any time.

You win worst reading comprehension of the year award for your misreading of 2 Nephi. It's talking about Adam and Even and all creation remaining as created - innocent, immortal, and impotent...

2 Nephi 2:23
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would
have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they
knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

And that's the official doctrine on the matter, too. I'm not sure what church doctrine you're representing, but it isn't the LDS Church.

[_bcspace]

BC, there is nothing special about 8000 BC.

Actually there is. It's when the first civilization, Sumer, made it's appearance. Why had homo sapiens not developed civilizations long before after having existed for hundreds of thousands of years? The lack of civilizations for all that time makes it's first appearance a good indication that something special happened; perhaps a new kind of spirit (such as a literal spirit child of God) or new knowledge (revelation), etc.

Humans are much older than that, and we've been living and since before we had tails.

Indeed. You make my point. No civilizations for all that time despite our big brains.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any "garden of Eden" at any time.

More unscientific reasoning. What makes you think such would even be obvious in the geological record? How long do you think the Garden of Eden should have lasted if it existed?

You win worst reading comprehension of the year award for your misreading of 2 Nephi. It's talking about Adam and Even and all creation remaining as created - innocent, immortal, and impotent...

It does say that. But the worst reading comprehension of the year award belongs to you for missing what I emphasized. Either that or you're trying to blanket with denial something you've not considered before that conflicts with your screwy and erroneous view of the LDS Church.

2 Nephi 2:22
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not
have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.
And all things which were created must have remained in the same
state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must
have remained forever, and had no end.

And that's the official doctrine on the matter, too.

Yep. They were placed into a state of no death AFTER they were created. If creation was an evolutionary process, then this means death is allowable before the garden state of no death.

I'm not sure what church doctrine you're representing, but it isn't the LDS Church.

I've never said my hypothesis was LDS doctrine. I simply claim it does not conflict with LDS doctrine and here is a scenario which allows one to accept LDS doctrine and science at the same time. It is not suprising that one can do so since the Church itself teaches us to look to science to learn how things in the world operate. So yes, I still do claim that science and the LDS Church are not in conflict.

[_Buffalo]

Actually there is. It's when the first civilization, Sumer, made it's appearance. Why had homo sapiens not developed civilizations long before after having existed for hundreds of thousands of years? The lack of civilizations for all that time makes it's first appearance a good indication that something special happened; perhaps a new kind of spirit (such as a literal spirit child of God) or new knowledge (revelation), etc.

Civilization didn't come about by magic, bcspace. The innovation of agriculture had to be developed.

See: Neolithic Revolution

Indeed. You make my point. No civilizations for all that time despite our big brains.

Yes, because no agriculture.

More unscientific reasoning. What makes you think such would even be obvious in the geological record? How long do you think the Garden of Eden should have lasted if it existed?

Maybe because, as every scripture on the topic plainly states, the garden of Eden is the origin of human life.

It does say that. But the worst reading comprehension of the year award belongs to you for missing what I emphasized. Either that or you're trying to blanket with denial something you've not considered before that conflicts with your screwy and erroneous view of the LDS Church.

2 Nephi 2:22
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not
have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden.
And all things which were created must have remained in the same
state in which they were after they were created; and they must
have remained forever, and had no end.

You're reading a lot into "after," but after refers to everything after the first creation. You know, they were created, and then everything from there is "after."

What was the state in which they were created, BC? And what happened after?

My "screwy and erroneous view of the LDS church" is one shared by every GA, past and present.

Yep. They were placed into a state of no death AFTER they were created. If creation was an evolutionary process, then this means death is allowable before the garden state of no death.

No, they were immortal from the start. You really have terrible reading comprehension - no wonder apologists are embarrassed of you.

I've never said my hypothesis was LDS doctrine. I simply claim it does not conflict with LDS doctrine and here is a scenario which allows one to accept LDS doctrine and science at the same time. It is not suprising that one can do so since the Church itself teaches us to look to science to learn how things in the world operate. So yes, I still do claim that science and the LDS Church are not in conflict.

Good. But it's not compatible with science, either. Science has no truck with magic or unfalsifiable claims.

[_Morley]

BC, there is nothing special about 8000 BC.

Actually there is. It's when the first civilization, Sumer, made it's appearance. ....

I think your timeline is a little off. Sumer.

[_bcspace]

I think your timeline is a little off. Sumer.

You're right. Considering some dates, I'm probably confusing 8000 years ago with 8000 BC.

Edit:

Or maybe not. Catal Hoyuk is dated around 7200 to 7500 B.C.