MormonFreeThinker Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 Yes No "We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is"http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C18 and the D&C doesn't say where it is. The Prophet Joseph Smith didn't teach where it is, but maybe the human Joseph Smith did.
ERayR Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 If one goes by the idea of a young earth and a global flood (which I personally don't) the most reasonable explanation is the genes for light and dark skin were present in Adam and Eve and thus their children and children's children had varied skin tones and as they spread out, those who lived in hotter, brighter climes were more successful with darker skin and those who went higher north or deeper south in less bright climates would tend to have lighter skin due to less melanin development needed.Same thing happened with Noah, probably mid brown skin tone for most members, but there might have been a white or dark black or both in the group, the important thing would be the genes for light and dark were both present so that through combination all skin tones were possible and as they moved around and became isolated from each other etc. certain skin tones became dominant for certain areas. Same principle for facial features. All gene variations were supposedly present in Adam and Eve together and thus all groups descend from them even though superficial appearance is different.I don't believe this is what happened in that I see Adam and Eve as our first covenantal parents, but not our earliest human ancestors and I believe in a local flood...at least till better evidence comes along. However if it is a young earth and first Adam and Eve and the Noah's family were the first families so to speak, I suspect this is the most reasonable speculation at this point.It also means that God favours no skin colour and that most of the original families would be midrange in tone.If one is a young earther, Neanderthals are most likely slightly deformed humans given they can interbreed, the deformities resulting I think the speculation is from them not adapting well to new environments thus developing vitamin and other deficiencies which interfere with growth.Race is a social concept, not a scientific one. Nationalities would have developed in theory by families gathering together for protection and production of food and with enough intermarrying with each other and isolation from outsiders, the dominant genes would create a similar superficial appearance.The Bible itself makes it clear the important distinction is between the believers or covenant people and those who did not have El/Yahweh (Eloheim and Jehovah to us....mostly) as their God(s). I am not a young earth creationist nor an ancient earth macro-evolutionist. I am an older earth catastrophist. As for different races micro-evolution takes care of that nicely without reverting back to common descent.
katherine the great Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 OK, so he didn't make it up. But somebody did. That is true fiction, without a single word from the scriptures. Well, even the racial theorists did not pull it out of thin air. If you look at the table of nations in the Bible, Noah's descendants were settled in areas that could be inferred to be ancestral to Africans, Near Easterners and Europeans. It doesn't begin to account for Far East Asians, Australians, Native Americans or other more remote people though.
thesometimesaint Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 I am not a young earth creationist nor an ancient earth macro-evolutionist. I am an older earth catastrophist. As for different races micro-evolution takes care of that nicely without reverting back to common descent. I don't know what that means. Please explain.
MormonFreeThinker Posted August 24, 2014 Posted August 24, 2014 (edited) I am not a young earth creationist nor an ancient earth macro-evolutionist. I am an older earth catastrophist. As for different races micro-evolution takes care of that nicely without reverting back to common descent. You are an Old Earth Creationist, but you still believe in a Global Flood? How do you explain this? or this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtYNAg4Akg Edited August 24, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
ERayR Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) You are an Old Earth Creationist, but you still believe in a Global Flood? How do you explain this? or this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgtYNAg4Akg You have a terrible time reading for comprehension then changing others statements. If you will go back and read for comprehension you will find that catastrophist is NOT Creationist. They are two different words and they are not synonyms. However, in addition to being catastrophist I am a creationist. Erosion is one word that nicely explains those rock formations. How do you explain that they are sandstone formations? Sand stone is generally formed under water. Edited August 25, 2014 by ERayR
ERayR Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 I don't know what that means. Please explain.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism
Tiki Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 You have a terrible time reading for comprehension then changing others statements. If you will go back and read for comprehension you will find that catastrophist is NOT Creationist. They are two different words and they are not synonyms. However, in addition to being catastrophist I am a creationist. Erosion is one word that nicely explains those rock formations. How do you explain that they are sandstone formations? Sand stone is generally formed under water.Exactly. Genesis 1:1-2. Most rocks are crystalline in structure and crystals are formed from water or mineral solution - including man-made crystals.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptunism
Rivers Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 All of our genes can be traced back to Africa. As very ancient humans migrated out of Africa, they gradually adapted to the environments of their new homes. Those who could not adapt died out while those who had the genetics to survive passed on the genes for those adaptive traits to their children. These adaptations manifest themselves in somewhat superficial (as rpn stated) traits such as lighter skin (which helps prevent vitamin D deficiency in sunlight deprived climates), shorter stature (which is advantageous is colder climates), extremely dark skin (advantageous in tropical climates) and a myriad of other traits that might also give them advantageHow is being short in stature advantageous in colder climates?
Calm Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Shorter means less calories needed and less heat loss.
strappinglad Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) It must be really cold in central Africa so that the pygmies have the advantage. Kipling and zebras comes to mind. Edited August 25, 2014 by strappinglad
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) My friend, Marvin Perkins makes the point that we are all brown, just different shades. He spoke about that at the Fair Conference. That's not available yet, but here's another of his talkshttp://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uOFxilaUh3o Edited August 25, 2014 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 OhMyGosh.Another thread hijacked by Noah. "A few posters have consistently been derailing threads with ssm/ssa comments. We are tired of banning you from threads if you keep it up we will just ban you from the site. Stick to the opening topic or just stay out of the thread period if you feel the need to derail it.Nemesis"I prefer Ssm to this stuff.http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63733-stop-derailing/ 3
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 It must be really cold in central Africa so that the pygmies have the advantage. Kipling and zebras comes to mind.I did not say that short stature is only advantageous in cold climates. There are several scenarios where shortness could give a population an evolutionary advantage over their taller counterparts. It is all about adaptation to any given environment. For example, we sometimes see island dwarfism in animal populations. This happens as a result of limited resources and the smaller members of a population survive because they don't need as much food. They then they pass those genes for smallness on to their descendants. The flip side of this is island gigantism in an environment free of predators the species may gradually grow much larger. 1
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 How is being short in stature advantageous in colder climates?Think about it.
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 You are an Old Earth Creationist, but you still believe in a Global Flood? How do you explain this?Seriously? I believe evolution makes as much sense as the bible (not much) but that is a terrible argument!1- the water came up and left it alone and went down.2- the flood actually moved it off center like that3- if you believe in the flood you don't believe in dating systems that date the formation before the flood.4- the flood caused the erosion in the first place.5- aliens put it there.Want more?Once we start taking theories apart, all have flaws.
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Seriously? I believe evolution makes as much sense as the bible (not much) but that is a terrible argument!1- the water came up and left it alone and went down.2- the flood actually moved it off center like that3- if you believe in the flood you don't believe in dating systems that date the formation before the flood.4- the flood caused the erosion in the first place.5- aliens put it there.Want more?Once we start taking theories apart, all have flaws. Those are theories?
Calm Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 It must be really cold in central Africa so that the pygmies have the advantage. Kipling and zebras comes to mind.Lack of food can give smaller people an advantage as well. Need less calories to survive.
sunstoned Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) No "We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is"http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C18 and the D&C doesn't say where it is. The Prophet Joseph Smith didn't teach where it is, but maybe the human Joseph Smith did. According the the officical church website, we do know the location: We do not know exactly where the original site of the Garden of Eden is. While not an important or foundational doctrine, Joseph Smith established a settlement in Daviess County, Missouri, and taught that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in that area. Like knowing the precise number of animals on Noah’s ark, knowing the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important to one’s salvation than believing in the Atonement of Jesus Christ. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C18 Edited August 25, 2014 by sunstoned
MormonFreeThinker Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) OhMyGosh. I feel it is important, and I also feel it is related to the topic, but if you don't like it, don't read them. Edited August 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) However, in addition to being catastrophist I am a creationist. I know Catastrophism is not creationism, but you are an old Earth Creationist. Erosion is one word that nicely explains those rock formations. How do you explain that they are sandstone formations? Sand stone is generally formed under water. I though you agreed with the dating methods, because you are an old earth creationist. Why do you believe in a Old Earth? So you believe Noah's flood created the Arches formations? Arches formations are millions of years old. How about the Coconino Sandstone? It was clearly not formed underwater. Edited August 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
MormonFreeThinker Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Once we start taking theories apart, all have flaws. but not all of them have strong evidences and confirmed predictions.
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism Thanx. I see a better fit with Punctuated Equilibriumhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events None of which were anywhere near the proposed time frame of Noah and his boat.
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Those are theories?Uh, some are better than others... All I am saying is that nothing is certain- all we have is data and interpretation of the data. Some beliefs/ideas/theories/thought models/myths/projections/estimations/guesses/wacko notions work better than others, and we call the best "science" after a vote is taken and the "experts" agree to bless the interpretation. Once canonized by the Scientific High Priests, it becomes "fact", though will remain disputed until something better comes along. They also have an open canon. 1
Daniel2 Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Why does or should the Bible have to have an explanation for it? As humanity spread across the globe, different races evolved in different areas of the world, with different genes succeeding in various different conditions.
Recommended Posts