When Did Adam First Walk The Earth?

[danieldemol]

Hmmmm- fundie or atheist? Anyone taking bets?

Before anyone loses too much money, if you are referring to me neither are correct.

I'm Baha'i, but with a heavy attraction towards spirituality and a liberal approach towards religion in general.

[ERayR]

To the end of advancing scientific knowledge.

 

 

How will any thing to do with Adam advance scientific knowledge?  Science does not recognize Adam as Adam is a religious concept.

[ERayR]

Sorry I overlooked this question, please answer for both, individually or together as you prefer

 

IMNSHO Inside the garden - no.  Outside the garden - yes.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

To the end of advancing scientific knowledge.

 

Very well. I am just not sure what discussing Adam has to do with Science. I am not even sure they think he was a real person. So carry on. Tell me how Adam advances science.

[Flyonthewall]

Do you believe there was no death either in humans and/or in animals before this?

That is what the scriptures say, and I believe it.

I also understand what science puts forth and there needs to be some sort of reconciliation between the two.

[Flyonthewall]

Science recognizes Lucy...

[danieldemol]

It really is a commie plot.

Do you prefer fossils from a capitalist country such as the U.S?

This Astrodon fossil from Texas 112 million years ago indicates extinction by death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrodon

[danieldemol]

How will any thing to do with Adam advance scientific knowledge? Science does not recognize Adam as Adam is a religious concept.

Most people before modern history don't have much evidence to show for their existence, however that a person named Adam may have existed is not really unscientific.

On the other hand, the idea that there was no death before 4,000 years ago is something on which science clearly does have something to say.

[danieldemol]

IMNSHO Inside the garden - no. Outside the garden - yes.

So to clarify, you believe that death did occur outside the garden, but not inside the garden?

[jkwilliams]

Most people before modern history don't have much evidence to show for their existence, however that a person named Adam may have existed is not really unscientific.

On the other hand, the idea that there was no death before 4,000 years ago is something on which science clearly does have something to say.

 

The problem here is that some Mormons believe in a literal Adam and Eve who brought death into the world some 6000 years ago. Other Mormons believe the process of creation took millions of years. Still other Mormons believe in evolution and try to find ways to reconcile the creation story with the scientific evidence. So arguing against a young earth isn't going to get you very far with most Mormons, who don't hold to as literal an interpretation of the creation story as you might imagine.

[danieldemol]

Science recognizes Lucy...

Lucy who?

[BCSpace]

On the other hand, the idea that there was no death before 4,000 years ago is something on which science clearly does have something to say.

 

I think you could have evolution and death, then a 100 years in a garden state, and then evolution and death after the Fall and science would be none the wiser, especially if the garden state was local.

[EllenMaksoud]

6013 years ago Adam and Eve walked thus earth!

I think it was 45,006 years.

[Flyonthewall]

Lucy who?

Louis Leakey's Lucy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)

[WmLaw]

I think you could have evolution and death, then a 100 years in a garden state, and then evolution and death after the Fall and science would be none the wiser, especially if the garden state was local.

Hard to disprove with science.  But do you think this is likely?

 

why is no death within the garden important?  or just no death for Adam and Eve?

[BCSpace]

Hard to disprove with science.  But do you think this is likely?

 

Seems like a reasonable explanation yes.

 

why is no death within the garden important?  

 

 

Because that is what is reported and it has to do with why the Savior came.

 

or just no death for Adam and Eve?

 

One would think that whatever it is they ate must have died.

[rongo]

Daniel:

 

I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that there was no death prior to the Fall, and that they lived ca. 6000-7000 years ago.

 

I also am a public school science teacher (currently 8th grade physics, but have taught high school biology as well). I'm sure that will make some people's heads explode.

[danieldemol]

The problem here is that some Mormons believe in a literal Adam and Eve who brought death into the world some 6000 years ago.

These are the ones who I think the LDS who do believe death occurred before 6,000 years ago should probably invite them to lunch and have a quiet friendly chat about why they disagree, but it doesn't hurt me to talk to them as a non LDS person, even though I can see why it would be more influential for their fellow LDS folk to discuss it with them.

Other Mormons believe the process of creation took millions of years. Still other Mormons believe in evolution and try to find ways to reconcile the creation story with the scientific evidence.

These ones are putting in some effort, and I applaud them for that. I'm really not trying to tar everyone with the same brush.

So arguing against a young earth isn't going to get you very far with most Mormons, who don't hold to as literal an interpretation of the creation story as you might imagine.

Actually I'm not disagreeing with people who accept that death occurred prior to Adam, and I am happy to acknowledge that most LDS do accept that death occurred prior to Adam.

[danieldemol]

Because that is what is reported and it has to do with why the Savior came.

To me, this is really the central point of the matter, in the Gospel it states in Romans 6:23;

"the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ"

It is assumed that by this, physical death is intended, (as opposed to spiritual death), however, this turns many statements of Jesus meaningless, for example in John 11:26 we read;

"whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

Obviously if physical death were referred to it is evident that either Jesus never had a true believer, or He got it wrong.

Alternatively if we interpret death to mean spiritual death, then it at once becomes clear that physical death has always existed, which is something that science seems inclined to verify.

If physical death occurred prior to Adam, then physical death can be due to natural causes and not solely due to sin.

On the other hand, we can be certain that spiritual death is due to sin, in which case there is no need to deny the scientific and logical evidence that death has always existed by virtue of having a more plausible interpretation of the verse at the heart of the matter.

One would think that whatever it is they ate must have died.

Further adding weight to the hypothesis as I see it.

[danieldemol]

Daniel:

I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that there was no death prior to the Fall, and that they lived ca. 6000-7000 years ago.

I also am a public school science teacher (currently 8th grade physics, but have taught high school biology as well). I'm sure that will make some people's heads explode.

It doesn't make my head explode, many people compartmentalise concepts which they feel unable to reconcile.

[Kenngo1969]

It doesn't make my head explode, many people compartmentalise concepts which they feel unable to reconcile.

I don't necessarily think it's a matter of compartmentalization so much as it is a matter of simply using different paradigms for different areas (unless that's what you mean by compartmentalization: science may tell me the what (if it's lucky ), but it can't necessarily tell me the why: I don't accept that life on the Earth as we know it began more-or-less by mere chance.

[bcuzbcuz]

 

Daniel:

 

I believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that there was no death prior to the Fall, and that they lived ca. 6000-7000 years ago.

 

I also am a public school science teacher (currently 8th grade physics, but have taught high school biology as well). I'm sure that will make some people's heads explode.

 

You may be a fine teacher, but as long as you keep your opinions to yourself, you can believe in flying saucers, the great spaghetti monster, or no death prior to 6000-7000 years ago. As long as you don't try to espouse those beliefs to your students.

But your statement shows an alarming lack of knowledge about early civilizations. Look up Göbeckli Tepe, in Turkey, or Naqada I, II or III, populations in southern Egypt. We know and can trace, with absolute certainty, the Egyptian written and artifact history in Egypt to 3100 BCE. The artifacts recovered in pottery and weaponry, show a clear development for another 1000-2000 years, at least, prior to that. And if you want to examine the black rimmed, red pottery from that era, that is not only beautiful but clearly made by humans, who had the artifacts buried in their graves with them, you might want to alter your dates somewhat.

http://www.aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/egyptian-pottery-v1.pdf

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/cracow-2002/Baba-Saito.htm

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/pottery/

http://www.ancient-egypt.co.uk/brooklyn/index_5.htm

Or you can find such pottery in any decent Egyptian museum display in the Brooklyn Museum of Art, as stated above, the Oriental Institute in Chicago, Louvre Museum in Paris, Neues Museum in Berlin, British Museum in London, Egyptian Museum in Cairo, to name a few.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you prefer fossils from a capitalist country such as the U.S?

This Astrodon fossil from Texas 112 million years ago indicates extinction by death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrodon

So even though I am just screwing around you are trying to prove something. You think mormons got it wrong don't you? Just come out and say it.

[JLHPROF]

Personally, I think this back and forth can't be answered until either the millenium or the next life.

I think that our understanding as to exactly how the earth was formed in Mormon doctrine is limited.  There are teachings that this earth is made up from pieces of other lesser (not celestial bound) planets which could explain those things that predate 4000BC (6000 years ago) and Adam.  That is why Joseph said organized, not created from nothingness.

 

However, I also think that our supposed "scientific knowledge" will eventually be shown to contain numerous holes and errors, not the least of which might be our ability to accurately place dates on things.  Maybe the fossil is actually a million years old, maybe it isn't.

 

So the science proclaimers on this thread are probably right about there being things on earth that predate Adam and the garden, but where they came from is the real question yet to be answered.  And I think twice before I question the things God has told us directly.

[Calm]

 

One would think that whatever it is they ate must have died.

Is a piece of fruit or perhaps grain an entity that "death" would apply to if the plant that it came from continued to live?