Bart Burk Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I just read an article about the book "Across Atlantic Ice" which theorizes some people entered North America 20,000 years ago via a land bridge from Europe to America's East Coast. They are people who lived in what now would be France and Spain. This may help explain why some Native Americans might have Haplogroup X2 mtDNA which originates in the Mediterranean. I know some Mormon apologists have focused on X2 as proof the Book of Mormon incidents occurred in the Eastern United States. Perhaps the Atlantic ice bridge is a better explanation than the explanation of some Mormon apologists like Meldrum.
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It is certainly possible. But humans have been in the America's for the last 50,000 years. Long before any 20,000 year old claim, and long before even the Jaredites came.The Church takes no position that all modern day Amerids came from the Middle East. Only that a very few did. That those left a written record of their existence found in the Book of Mormon.
ERayR Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I just read an article about the book "Across Atlantic Ice" which theorizes some people entered North America 20,000 years ago via a land bridge from Europe to America's East Coast. They are people who lived in what now would be France and Spain. This may help explain why some Native Americans might have Haplogroup X2 mtDNA which originates in the Mediterranean. I know some Mormon apologists have focused on X2 as proof the Book of Mormon incidents occurred in the Eastern United States. Perhaps the Atlantic ice bridge is a better explanation than the explanation of some Mormon apologists like Meldrum.And perhaps unrecorded ocean voyages is the answer. There are many perhaps es. Choose your favorite.
Brant Gardner Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 The reason for looking at this possibility, as I recall, is the similarity of certain tools to the Solutrean tool kit from the European area around 20,000 B.C. It is an attempt to explain the similarity as contact. It does not preclude the earlier populations coming from Asia, a hypothesis recently receiving even more evidence from DNA studies of a skeleton in Asia bearing DNA kinship to Amerindians.The Solutrean hypothesis is fascinating but controversial and not yet accepted.As for the X2 issue, the current best evidence as I understand it is that it comes from a population coming through Asia 15000 to 10000 years ago. It has been found to be distinct from the European marker even though similar. The attempt to see the New World appearance of that marker as an indication of the Book of Mormon requires ignoring differences in both the marker and the time depth at which it appears.As I remember Meldrum's argument, he doesn't accept any human history older than 6000 years ago so he considers all such dating in error and therefore subject to his recalculation to make everything fit into 6000 years. 1
Alan Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I just read an article about the book "Across Atlantic Ice" which theorizes some people entered North America 20,000 years ago via a land bridge from Europe to America's East Coast. They are people who lived in what now would be France and Spain. This may help explain why some Native Americans might have Haplogroup X2 mtDNA which originates in the Mediterranean. I know some Mormon apologists have focused on X2 as proof the Book of Mormon incidents occurred in the Eastern United States. Perhaps the Atlantic ice bridge is a better explanation than the explanation of some Mormon apologists like Meldrum.Are you serious? A group of people in Spain decide to walk 3,000 miles across an ice sheet with no particular destination in mind? Spain wasn't covered by the ice at that time, though it would have been colder than it is nowadays. Surely they would go south if they were looking for warmer climate or food! What nonsense!The words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind. 4
Bart Burk Posted January 24, 2013 Author Posted January 24, 2013 Are you serious? A group of people in Spain decide to walk 3,000 miles across an ice sheet with no particular destination in mind? Spain wasn't covered by the ice at that time, though it would have been colder than it is nowadays. Surely they would go south if they were looking for warmer climate or food! What nonsense!The words straws and clutching come forcefully to mind.I'll have to read the book. Here's a review:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/27/book-review-across-atlantic-ice/
Bart Burk Posted January 24, 2013 Author Posted January 24, 2013 The reason for looking at this possibility, as I recall, is the similarity of certain tools to the Solutrean tool kit from the European area around 20,000 B.C. It is an attempt to explain the similarity as contact. It does not preclude the earlier populations coming from Asia, a hypothesis recently receiving even more evidence from DNA studies of a skeleton in Asia bearing DNA kinship to Amerindians.The Solutrean hypothesis is fascinating but controversial and not yet accepted.As for the X2 issue, the current best evidence as I understand it is that it comes from a population coming through Asia 15000 to 10000 years ago. It has been found to be distinct from the European marker even though similar. The attempt to see the New World appearance of that marker as an indication of the Book of Mormon requires ignoring differences in both the marker and the time depth at which it appears.As I remember Meldrum's argument, he doesn't accept any human history older than 6000 years ago so he considers all such dating in error and therefore subject to his recalculation to make everything fit into 6000 years.That's the only way Meldrum's system works. I'm not even ready to say that Catholicism realistically survives if Adam and Eve had ancestors since the Catholic Church proclaims explicitly that a literal Adam and Eve were our first parents. Maybe I need to go visit the Creation Museum.
cdowis Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 It is certainly possible. But humans have been in the America's for the last 50,000 years. Long before any 20,000 year old claim, and long before even the Jaredites came.The Church takes no position that all modern day Amerids came from the Middle East. Only that a very few did. That those left a written record of their existence found in the Book of Mormon.I have found it unproductive to try to relate "scripture time" with "science time" in a discussion of religious texts. Basically your post throws out not only the Jaredites, but also Adam and his descendants from the discussion.
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 I think it is the assumptions made on both, and then trying to reconcile them that gets the Saints into trouble.If the assumption is that the world is only 7000 years old A&E become problematic. The Jaredites become less so, if the assumption is not that a literal World Wide Flood occurred roughly 4,000 years ago.The Church takes no position on the age of the earth and that A&E are our most ancient of parents. I leave it to others to explain their own beliefs on the subjects.
Bart Burk Posted January 24, 2013 Author Posted January 24, 2013 I think it is the assumptions made on both, and then trying to reconcile them that gets the Saints into trouble.If the assumption is that the world is only 7000 years old A&E become problematic. The Jaredites become less so, if the assumption is not that a literal World Wide Flood occurred roughly 4,000 years ago.The Church takes no position on the age of the earth and that A&E are our most ancient of parents. I leave it to others to explain their own beliefs on the subjects.The LDS Church doesn't proclaim Adam and Eve to be our most ancient of parents? That's not what I was taught -- I was taught the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve. That is what the Catholic Church teaches as well. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 The LDS Church doesn't proclaim Adam and Eve to be our most ancient of parents? That's not what I was taught -- I was taught the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve. That is what the Catholic Church teaches as well.Sorry if I wasn't more clear. The Church teaches and believes that A&E are our most ancient of parents.
Questing Beast Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Why are you saying it like that? Why not simply say, Adam and Eve are the progenitors of the human race?.... 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 The idea behind the words is the same.
ERayR Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 The LDS Church doesn't proclaim Adam and Eve to be our most ancient of parents? That's not what I was taught -- I was taught the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve. That is what the Catholic Church teaches as well.Maybe it is just me but that is how I read Genesis too.
BCSpace Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) The LDS Church doesn't proclaim Adam and Eve to be our most ancient of parents? That's not what I was taught -- I was taught the entire human race descended from Adam and Eve. That is what the Catholic Church teaches as well.Yet the question must be asked, in what sense are they are parents? I could handle a literal definition and still reconcile with the fact that modern homo sapiens have been around for more than a quarter of a million years (though I do place A&E closer to 8000 BC than 4000 BC). For example, could preAdamite homo sapiens have had spirits that were not literal spirit children of God and therefore incapable of utilizing more of the homo sapiens brain? In other words, why did it take so long for homo sapiens to develop civilization? Perhaps there was an "uplift" involved? Etc.Also don't forget that the doctrine on D&C 77:5-6 states that the dispensations we are familiar with don't account for the earth's preparation as a dwelling place for man; essentially redefining our usual expectation of what the word temporal could mean. Edited January 25, 2013 by BCSpace
Alan Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 I believe that Adam and Even left the garden around 6,000 years ago. We know from the temple that man was not found upon the earth before our first parents were placed in the garden. We also know that death entered the human race with the fall. Without the fall there could be no atonement.I cannot reconcile what science claims with what scripture teaches. Therefore I have to choose. I am a trained scientist myself (I work as an ecologist) and I understand scientific method quite well. I also understand the limitations of scientific enquiry and the liberal use of various untested assumptions in formulating scientific theories.I therefore make a conscious decision to put my faith in scripture, confident that all will one day be revealed. 1
thesometimesaint Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Alan:Lots depends on the difference between what man calls man and what God calls man.
teddyaware Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) I believe that Adam and Even left the garden around 6,000 years ago. We know from the temple that man was not found upon the earth before our first parents were placed in the garden. We also know that death entered the human race with the fall. Without the fall there could be no atonement.I cannot reconcile what science claims with what scripture teaches. Therefore I have to choose. I am a trained scientist myself (I work as an ecologist) and I understand scientific method quite well. I also understand the limitations of scientific enquiry and the liberal use of various untested assumptions in formulating scientific theories.I therefore make a conscious decision to put my faith in scripture, confident that all will one day be revealed.As we say here in America, Alan -- BULLSEYE! Edited January 25, 2013 by teddyaware
cdowis Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) I believe that Adam and Even left the garden around 6,000 years ago. We know from the temple that man was not found upon the earth before our first parents were placed in the garden.We know that animals were on the earth before Adam, and is it possible that this included humanoid creatures?We also know that death entered the human race with the fall.I agree that many think that as doctrine, but it is not well documented in the scriptures. Another view is that death was part of the creation process, and was then suspended on the sixth day in the Garden of Eden. Specifically, when Adam and Eve "left" the Garden, what exactly was that boundary?Without the fall there could be no atonement.I cannot reconcile what science claims with what scripture teaches. Therefore I have to choose.I have chosen to investigate further and to question some of my assumptions, just as I have learned by questioning the "one Hill Cumorah" concept which has brought me new insights. Take a look at those scriptures regarding death before Adam. I know only one, and it lends itself to some interpretation. Edited January 25, 2013 by cdowis
ERayR Posted January 25, 2013 Posted January 25, 2013 Alan:Lots depends on the difference between what man calls man and what God calls man.And you know this, How?
thesometimesaint Posted January 26, 2013 Posted January 26, 2013 And you know this, How?Isaiah 55:8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
Bart Burk Posted January 27, 2013 Author Posted January 27, 2013 I would have to say if you go saw far as to reject evolutionary theory and claim that man only came into existence 6,000 years ago that all of the arguments against the Book of Mormon fall apart. Modern archaeology is sold out to evolutionary theory. If that is rejected then the entire field of archaeology comes into question. At that point archaeological refutations of the Book of Mormon (as well as archaeological attempts to support it) become irrelevant. For example, modern archaeologists say the horse never existed in America during the time of the Nephites. How could that possibly be claimed if the archaeology itself is questionable?
thesometimesaint Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 It is entirely possible for horses to have lived in isolated pockets in Nephite times and locations.
bcuzbcuz Posted January 27, 2013 Posted January 27, 2013 It is entirely possible for horses to have lived in isolated pockets in Nephite times and locations.I guess that would depend on which areas you would define as isolated pockets where the Nephites lived.
Cobalt-70 Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I would have to say if you go saw far as to reject evolutionary theory and claim that man only came into existence 6,000 years ago that all of the arguments against the Book of Mormon fall apart. Modern archaeology is sold out to evolutionary theory. If that is rejected then the entire field of archaeology comes into question. At that point archaeological refutations of the Book of Mormon (as well as archaeological attempts to support it) become irrelevant. For example, modern archaeologists say the horse never existed in America during the time of the Nephites. How could that possibly be claimed if the archaeology itself is questionable?And if you just reject the law of gravity, that explains why angels can fly.
Recommended Posts