How do Lds Truth Claims Stand up to Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit?

[Storm Rider]

Sagan is a good chap, but I have never thought of him as an expert in or about God. He spent his life attempting to contact extraterrestrial life. It is a shame he did not find such and was not successful in proving their existence. 

Several years ago I read a short book by John Paul II entitled Fides et Ratio. Faith and Reason are companions - I think of them being similar to Yin and Yang. Using a test to prove one side does not equate to being able to use it for the other. They are different and have different roles for mortals. 

If I am going to approach God, I will approach him and use his own tests to come to know him. It has worked for me in my life. 

[NoahVail]

I'd like to pick a terminology bone.

I think that atheism is a good word to frame people who have little interest in religion.  However, atheism is also used to describe people who think about religion all the time, which doesn't make sense to me.

Anti-theism seems a better fit for folks who keep themselves neck-deep in religion but take no joy in it, as if it were a compulsion.

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding "I would also like to hear why believers should apply one standard of examination for non religious claims and hold religious claims to a completely different standard."

I don't.  See Ian Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

https://www.religion-online.org/book/myths-models-and-paradigms-a-comparative-study-in-science-and-religion/

The Baloney Detection Kit

1.  Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.” AKA Peer Review

Helaman 9:1, Behold, when it came to pass that when Nephi had spoken these words, certain men who were among them ran to the judgement seat; yea even there were five who went, and the said among themselves, as they went, "Behold we will know of assurity..."   Just so you remember that, as N. R. Hanson observed in The Logic of Scientific Discovery that "All data are theory-laden."  Notice that the five who went saw and were so astonished that they collapsed, and others who found them soon accused the five of being murderers.

 2.  Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.

Joseph Smith to Daniel Rupp, "By proving contraries truth is made manifest."  Truth being "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come."

3. Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.

John 7:48 "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?"

4. Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.

For instance, Matthew 28 describes the resurrection, and mentions the claim that "His disciples came by night and stole him away while we slept."  Which of the two hypotheses best explains the subsequent behavior of the Apostles and the fact the guards were not punished?

This would be a good place to mention Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and to explore the pragmatic criteria used for selecting among multiple working hypothesis.

5.  Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.

Consider Othello.  Has he followed the evidence to his conclusion that Desdemona has betrayed him and that smothering her is the best course of action for him to take?  

6. Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.

Nibley, "A manager is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing because to a manager the cost is the value.  The cost is what makes it manageable."  From Leaders and Managers.  Every form of measurement is also a filter that ignores other qualities.  I think back on how an investigator argued that he measured King Benjamain's discourse, and other ways of measuring that he completely overlooked.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/

5. If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.

I recall Dehlin and Coe arguing against the Book of Mormon on grounds that there was no evidence of brass helmets and iron arrrow heads.  I pointed out that the Book of Mormon never mentions brass helmets or iron arrow heads.  Dehin's response was to delete my observations.   I recall Brent Mefcalfe claiming that the Book of Mormon is false because there is no evidence of an Ancient Near Eastern culture in Mesoamerica.  I pointed out in a Sunstone essay that the best place to expect to find Ancient Near Eastern cultures would be the Ancient Near East, and that Brant Gardner had found it much more fruitful to learn about Mesoamerican Culture and then look for that in the Book of Mormon.  That is the root insight of the Second Witness commentaries.  

6. Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.

Trump labels everything he doesn't like as "fake news" or "A hoax."  Simple.  Kuhn points out that simplicity and aesthetics are important criteria for paradigm choice, but not the only ones.

7. Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

I collected 28 different Biblical Tests for true and false prophets.  I found that anyone could have done it, and no one had.  So I also collected Biblical passages on what a person should do to see truth.  It all turned out to be very practical and useful.  I think it is better than Sagan's kit.  And I studied the reasons Biblical peoples gave for rejecting true prophets.  70 reasons that all boiled down to saying variations of "It's not what I think" and/or "It's not what I want."  And the recommendations for seeing truth amount to practical ways of putting what a person thinks and desires at risk, as sacrifices of a broken heart and a contrite spirit made in order to find what is real.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

Always ask how science works in practice, rather than just in theory.  Ian Barbour is very good at this.

Quote

The empiricist accounts of science which were prevalent in the 1950’s emphasized agreement with experiment as the main criterion for judging between rival theories. They defended the objectivity of science through three claims. (1) Science starts from publicly observable data which can be described in a pure observation-language independent of any theoretical assumptions. (2) Theories can then be verified or falsified by comparison with this fixed experimental data. (3) The choice between rival theories is thus rational, objective, and in accordance with specifiable criteria.

These ideas came under increasing attack in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, and three counter-claims were advanced. (1) All data are theory-laden; there is no neutral observation-language. (2) Theories are not verified or falsified; when data conflict with an accepted theory, they are usually set to one side as anomalies, or else auxiliary assumptions are modified. (3) There are no criteria for choice between rival theories of great generality, for the criteria are themselves theory-dependent.

The attack on empiricism was carried a step further in Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Kuhn held that the thought and action of a scientific community are dominated by its paradigms, defined as ‘standard examples of scientific work which embody a set of conceptual, methodological and metaphysical assumptions’. He maintained that observational data and criteria for assessing theories are paradigm-dependent. Paradigms are therefore ‘incommensurable’. A shift of paradigms during a scientific revolution is not a matter of logical argument but of ‘conversion. Kuhn, according to his critics, portrayed scientific choice as irrational, subjective, and relative to particular scientific communities.

However, in the Postscript to the second edition (1970) of his book and in other recent essays, Kuhn has clarified and in some respects altered his earlier position; he now gives greater attention to the control of theory by experiment and the role of criteria independent of particular paradigms. On the other hand, some of the empiricists have qualified their assertions to take Kuhn’s viewpoint into account. There is thus some evidence of convergence from the former ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ extremes towards a middle position on each of the three points of disagreement. We will examine them in turn; it will be suggested later that each has significant implications for our understanding of religion.

https://www.religion-online.org/book-chapter/chapter-6-paradigms-in-science/

The whole book is very much worth a close reading.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 22, 2020 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[Fair Dinkum]

19 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'm not sure I understand what kind of compromises you are referring to but I believe we can understand everything properly with faith from God to guide us.  We just need to be willing to reflect and examine the thoughts we have and appeal to God for wisdom to understand whatever we want to understand.  Of course not everyone will agree with God, our Father in heaven, but we can all at least understand why he does the things he does and wants us to do too.

I'm not going to get into all of the compromises and shifts in my overall understand here...but will offer one example.  I no longer view Adam and Eve as the first humans living on earth having been created 6,000 years ago as taught in church. Human's evolved from lower life forms over billions of years.  The entire doctrine of "The Fall" taking place in Missouri requiring a Savior is problematic to me.  I now view it as a question of faith and not as a historical reality.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm not going to get into all of the compromises and shifts in my overall understand here...but will offer one example.  I no longer view Adam and Eve as the first humans living on earth having been created 6,000 years ago as taught in church. Human's evolved from lower life forms over billions of years.  The entire doctrine of "The Fall" taking place in Missouri requiring a Savior is problematic to me.  I now view it as a question of faith and not as a historical reality.

False dichotomy. 

[Fair Dinkum]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Without bothering to read this post or the replies, I can respond to it by saying that since “LDS truth claims” are a matter of religious and spiritual conviction that can neither be verified nor falsified by the scientific method, this post quoting Sagan bears no greater relevance to the subject than do attacks by any other atheist, popular or otherwise. 
 

Here’s the thing: We make no claims that our religious convictions can be proved through science. We do assert, however, that they cannot be disproven; ergo the insurmountable obstacle is that faced by the unbeliever who purports to be able to demolish our beliefs by arguments based on science. 

I actually agree with you. 

[Fair Dinkum]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

False dichotomy. 

how so?

 

[Ahab]

53 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm not going to get into all of the compromises and shifts in my overall understand here...but will offer one example.  I no longer view Adam and Eve as the first humans living on earth having been created 6,000 years ago as taught in church. Human's evolved from lower life forms over billions of years.  The entire doctrine of "The Fall" taking place in Missouri requiring a Savior is problematic to me.  I now view it as a question of faith and not as a historical reality.

Okay then just understand that from my perspective you failed the baloney test and made a compromise that you didn't need to make.  And I'll discuss what I see from my perspective when I see you express an interest.

[Fair Dinkum]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Okay then just understand that from my perspective you failed the baloney test and made a compromise that you didn't need to make.  And I'll discuss what I see from my perspective when I see you express an interest.

I don't want to high jack my own thread...but if you're suggesting that there is physical evidence to support an actual Adam & Eve living in Missouri 6,000 years ago...please present it.  I am not aware of any such evidence and for me it is entirely a matter of faith not built on evidence.   The church also teaches that there was no death before the fall, this is another doctrine which I reject as not being based in reality nor supported by evidence, despite prophetic utterances to the contrary...

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I don't want to high jack my own thread...but if you're suggesting that there is physical evidence to support an actual Adam & Eve living in Missouri 6,000 years ago...please present it.  I am not aware of any such evidence and for me it is entirely a matter of faith not built on evidence.   I can accept that the church also teaches that there was no death before the fall, this is another doctrine which I reject as not being based in reality nor supported by evidence, despite prophetic utterances to the contrary...

We are the evidence, since we all came to this planet through them as our first parents on this planet.  I think what you disagree with is the interpretation of this evidence, us, while you choose to believe what other people have told you about how they think we got here.   A manner of birth which none of us have ever seen any of us being born, with all of us able to see that the way we are born is through parents of our own kind, just as other species reproduce their own kind and not some other kind. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm not going to get into all of the compromises and shifts in my overall understand here...but will offer one example.  I no longer view Adam and Eve as the first humans living on earth having been created 6,000 years ago as taught in church. Human's evolved from lower life forms over billions of years.

I can appreciate the need for compromises / shifts / adjustments in how we view Genesis.  For example, I remember reading this quite some time ago:

Quote

“‘And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them. {The story of the rib, of course, is figurative.}

(Spencer W. Kimball, “The Blessings and Responsibilities of Womanhood,” Ensign, Mar. 1976, 71).

I had never thought of the story of the rib in particular, but the "of course" bit caught me a little off guard.  "Of course?"  How is it that some elements of the Genesis narrative are "of course ... figurative" while others are to be taken in some literal sense?  How do we differentiate?  Is it important or necessary to differentiate as to every detail?  Some details?  None?

Similarly, I've long been befuddled by the concept of abiogenesis (the scientific term).  The Miller-Urey experiment seems to be interesting, but it seems to have some problems.

I think the Restored Gospel allows - requires, even - us to believe that there are ways to reconcile revealed doctrines with what we can observe, empirically test, and so on.  That reconciliation, however, may well not happen for most of us in this life.  We just don't have enough data.  The Lord has left the "how" of the origins and evolution of life a mystery, while elsewhere declaring the "who" (He did it).

31 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The entire doctrine of "The Fall" taking place in Missouri requiring a Savior is problematic to me.  I now view it as a question of faith and not as a historical reality.

It is for each of us to sort out what we deem "figurative," what we deem "literal," and what we deem to be something else on spectrum between the two.

For me, there are some non-negotiable "literal" elements of the Restored Gospel.  The actual existence of Heavenly Father, and His attributes and perfections.  The actual existence and divine sonship of Jesus Christ.  The reality of the Holy Spirit.  The reality of His miracles (in the aggregate).  The reality of His bodily resurrection and ascension.  The reality of the Priesthood.  The reality of the First Vision and other theophanies (as in they actually happened, and were not lies or delusions) (again, in the aggregat).  The reality of the Gold Plates and the translation of them "by the gift and power of God."

There are some further "literal" elements that I extrapolate as being necessary.  Historical Adam and Eve fall in here.  A generalized and predominant - though not necessarily complete or pristinely accurate - presence of historicity in the scriptural accounts (for example, Job may be a fictional character).  The historicity of the Book of Mormon peoples.  

There are also some fairly obvious "figurative" elements.  In Genesis, the "days" of the Creation were not literal 24-hour days, but creative periods.  Eve was not literally created from Adam's rib.  Some or all of the parables of Jesus may have been purely stories, with no historical antecedents.

There are also elements that fall somewhere in between, or are conflations of the two, or are presently difficult/impossible to determine as being one or the other or both.  The account of the Creation in Genesis (such as the bit about Adam's rib).  Satan as a "serpent" in the Garden of Eden.  The Flood was probably a local, rather than genuinely "global," event.

I feel pretty comfortable with the "big pieces," and am generally willing to wait for further light and knowledge about the nuance and smaller details.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I don't want to high jack my own thread...but if you're suggesting that there is physical evidence to support an actual Adam & Eve living in Missouri 6,000 years ago...please present it.  I am not aware of any such evidence and for me it is entirely a matter of faith not built on evidence.  

I pretty much agree with this.  Prophetic declarations about the location of the Garden of Eden are entirely predicated on faith.

That said, I have no particular qualms with the Garden being in Missouri.  If it existed on the earth, it had to be somewhere.

18 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church also teaches that there was no death before the fall, this is another doctrine which I reject as not being based in reality nor supported by evidence, despite prophetic utterances to the contrary...

I think this may come down to a matter of semantics.  That is, the "no death before the fall" may have pertained to just the Garden.  FAIR has a good round-up on this.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  (Luke 2:1.)  This verse obviously requires some interpretation and context.  So it is, I think, with "death before the fall."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I pretty much agree with this.  Prophetic declarations about the location of the Garden of Eden are entirely predicated on faith.

That said, I have no particular qualms with the Garden being in Missouri.  If it existed on the earth, it had to be somewhere.

I think this may come down to a matter of semantics.  That is, the "no death before the fall" may have pertained to just the Garden.  FAIR has a good round-up on this.

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."  (Luke 2:1.)  This verse obviously requires some interpretation and context.  So it is, I think, with "death before the fall."

Thanks,

-Smac

Everything we learn from God is learned by receiving faith from God to assure us that what he tells us is true, so to say that knowledge is entirely predicated on faith (from God) is all the more reason to accept it.

And using reasoning can add to our understanding of the knowledge God gives us by helping us to see the reasons why the knowledge makes sense.  Like when using reasoning to understand that the reason our kind of being did not die before Adam and Eve "fell" on this newly created planet, when it was still newly created from the old matter of the old planet the new planet was created from, was because none of our kind had come to this planet yet as mortals.  They were the first 2 of us immortals to become mortal on this planet.  Just as God told us they were.

[Kevin Christensen]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I don't want to high jack my own thread...but if you're suggesting that there is physical evidence to support an actual Adam & Eve living in Missouri 6,000 years ago...please present it.  I am not aware of any such evidence and for me it is entirely a matter of faith not built on evidence.   I can accept that the church also teaches that there was no death before the fall, this is another doctrine which I reject as not being based in reality nor supported by evidence, despite prophetic utterances to the contrary...

"No death before the fall" in an absolute sense, throughout all time and space everywhere in the cosmos? or "No death before the fall" in the dramatic garden story (which explictly involves figurative language for several things) and expulsion to a different kind of existence in a different kind of place where it takes quite a while before Adam is even appointed his reckoning?  I think about how Adam and Eve wearing garments of skins is not just a bit of survival trivia, but in Temple language and symbolism denotes falling from an angelic realm to a mortal animal state. Putting on animal skins = becoming human and mortal.  Consider Moses 1:35 and "For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power."  It seems to me that the passing of many many words before this one implies death of a sort as an ongoing reality in the cosmos long before this world got involved.  Since Jesus in 3 Nephi 11:31-40 narrowly restricts what can be called his doctrine to just a few things, including, importantly, ongoing repentance, which includes repenting of ignorance, since no man can be saved in ignorance, and states that building on anything else is like building on sand rather than a rock.  In considering prophetic utterances, it is important to consider just how many inputs prophets and teachers have, and how many outputs.  (Alma is particularly good at enumerating them). It's not just God in and God out.  Nor for us is it always, Data In, absolutely clear and unimpeachable reading out.  

And regarding Adam and Eve, "And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many" and "And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof."  Those statements from Moses, and their setting, remind me of a statement in Black Elk Speaks, page 36.

"There I was standing on the highest mountain of them all, and round beneath me was the whole hoop of the world. And while I stood there I saw more than I can tell, and I understood more than I saw; for I was seeing in a sacred manner  the shapes of all things in the spirit as they must live together like one being. And I saw the sacred hoop of my people was one of many hoops that made one circle, wide as daylight and as starlight, and in the center grew one mighty flowing tree  to shelter all the children of one mother and one father. And I saw that it was holy."  The footnote says "Black Elk said the mountain he stood upon in his vision was Harney Peak in the Black Hill. "But anywhere is the center of the world," he added.  

And that reminds me of Nibley's "The Hierocentric State", talking of how "At hundreds of holy shrines each believed to mark the exact center of the universe..." people practiced temple rituals depicting the creation.  (CWHN, The Ancient State, page 99).  If the center can be anywhere, and Adam is many, what's the problem with Missouri being one of many?  Nibley's last major essay, "Abraham's Creation Drama" made the case that the Book of Abraham's creation account was a drama, not a formal history, but a drama to be performed.  Barker's Temple Theology: An Introduction also treats the Genesis creation stories as liturgy, rather than history, depicting the creation of the world in steps that match the steps of erecting the desert tabernacle, which itself, as a temple, was a model of the creation.  Symbols of something else.  

I have found that "going to a professional football game" in Pittsburgh means something different than the same words meant when I lived in Liverpool, England.  It helps to learn the language, that the same words might bring a different harvest when nurtured in a different, more telling, more fruitful context.  The way we interpret the same words can have an important and inescapable influence on what we where we look for evidence and of what kind.  That is the point of N. R. Hanson's famous observation that "All data are theory-laden"  How we read influences the kind of evidence we might imagine we need and where we look.  Othello reads the evidence before him in the ways that Iago wants him to, and that makes all the difference to Desdemona.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 22, 2020 by Kevin Christensen

[Ahab]

The more I read and hear and think and ponder and pray the more fascinated I am by things that are called words.  The same words can be understood and misunderstood in so many different ways.

And I don't think there ever was a very first person to notice that, or rather, I think there never was.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

We are the evidence, since we all came to this planet through them as our first parents on this planet.  I think what you disagree with is the interpretation of this evidence, us, while you choose to believe what other people have told you about how they think we got here.   A manner of birth which none of us have ever seen any of us being born, with all of us able to see that the way we are born is through parents of our own kind, just as other species reproduce their own kind and not some other kind. 

I don’t even know how to reply to this. Accepting your conclusions would require the rejection of so much tangible evidence that conflict with what you are saying that I find it impossible to even take your comments seriously 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I don’t even know how to reply to this. Accepting your conclusions would require the rejection of so much tangible evidence that conflict with what you are saying that I find it impossible to even take your comments seriously 

It is a simple matter of determining where we came from.  Tracing our lineage back to our parents, and their parents, all the way back as far as you want to or are able to go.  At some point you're supposing some of your parents would be some other kind of being than the kind of being you are.  You have no evidence for that supposition, but for some reason you choose to believe it anyway.  I, on the other hand, am a more reasonable fellow.  I suppose that all of my parents were the same kind of being I am and I see that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.  But go ahead and try to find some evidence to prove your point if you believe you can.  Some other kind of being that you think were your parents at some point in history.  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Everything we learn from God is learned by receiving faith from God to assure us that what he tells us is true, so to say that knowledge is entirely predicated on faith (from God) is all the more reason to accept it.

I agree.  But at some point we need to demarcate questions answered via faith and the Spirit from questions answered via evaluation of "evidence."

For example, Joseph Smith's statements about the location of the Garden of Eden are entirely predicated on "faith and the Spirit."  He wasn't a percipient witness to it.  What he has to say about the location of Eden is derived purely from revelation.  No "evidence" is involved.  Just trust and hope and faith that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.  Joseph Smith is passing along divine hearsay.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

And using reasoning can add to our understanding of the knowledge God gives us by helping us to see the reasons why the knowledge makes sense.  Like when using reasoning to understand that the reason our kind of being did not die before Adam and Eve "fell" on this newly created planet, when it was still newly created from the old matter of the old planet the new planet was created from, was because none of our kind had come to this planet yet as mortals.  They were the first 2 of us immortals to become mortal on this planet.  Just as God told us they were.

I can't speak as to how Adam and Even came to be on this beautiful blue marble of ours, except to say that I believe they were historical persons, and that God was involved in them being here.  

Were there pre-Adamites?  Who were the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6?

Way too much speculation for me to speak intelligently on such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But at some point we need to demarcate questions answered via faith and the Spirit from questions answered via evaluation of "evidence."

For example, Joseph Smith's statements about the location of the Garden of Eden are entirely predicated on "faith and the Spirit."  He wasn't a percipient witness to it.  What he has to say about the location of Eden is derived purely from revelation.  No "evidence" is involved.  Just trust and hope and faith that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.  Joseph Smith is passing along divine hearsay.

I can't speak as to how Adam and Even came to be on this beautiful blue marble of ours, except to say that I believe they were historical persons, and that God was involved in them being here.  

Were there pre-Adamites?  Who were the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" in Genesis 6?

Way too much speculation for me to speak intelligently on such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

The answers to those questions have already been revealed by revelation from God and you're having trouble accepting those answers because.... why exactly?

I suppose that is between you and God so you don't have to tell me why exactly.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The answers to those questions have already been revealed by revelation from God and you're having trouble accepting those answers because.... why exactly?

I suppose that is between you and God so you don't have to tell me why exactly.

I'd be happy to read whatever authoritative sources you have about pre-adamites, Genesis 6.

[Fair Dinkum]

 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

It is a simple matter of determining where we came from.  Tracing our lineage back to our parents, and their parents, all the way back as far as you want to or are able to go.  At some point you're supposing some of your parents would be some other kind of being than the kind of being you are.  You have no evidence for that supposition, but for some reason you choose to believe it anyway.  I, on the other hand, am a more reasonable fellow.  I suppose that all of my parents were the same kind of being I am and I see that you have no evidence to prove otherwise.  But go ahead and try to find some evidence to prove your point if you believe you can.  Some other kind of being that you think were your parents at some point in history.  

The volume of evidence to support evolution is overwhelming.  Whether or not you accept it...evolution is real, it happened, it is true. Respecting some of my great grandparents...some were Neanderthal ... how do I know this?  Because I carry within me the evidence.  Nearly 2% of my DNA is from my Neanderthal grandparents, These non homo sapiens ancestors died out over 40,000 years ago, some 34,000 years before the claimed Adam & Eve were supposed to have lived as the first human beings on earth.  So to answer your question , yes I do have evidence to prove otherwise. 

To steer this thread back to its intended questions, The means that Carl Sagan outlined to test claims has been repeatedly used to disprove evolution and yet it remains unscathed and remains as the only theory for the human race that literally explains our very existence with evidence.  Take away evolution and all life on earth makes no sense.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

False dichotomy. 

 

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

how so?

 

You said you view it (Adam and Eve in present-day Missouri) as “a question of faith, not a historical reality” as though it had to be one or the other. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It could be both. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I actually agree with you. 

Do you agree with my follow-up comment about the burden of proof being on the unbeliever who undertakes to demolish our beliefs?

[Fair Dinkum]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you agree with my follow-up comment about the burden of proof being on the unbeliever who undertakes to demolish our beliefs?

The burden of proof falls to the one making the claim, not to the one questioning the claim.

[Fair Dinkum]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

You said you view it (Adam and Eve in present-day Missouri) as “a question of faith, not a historical reality” as though it had to be one or the other. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It could be both. 

I agree that Adam and Even could be both a question of faith and historical if they did in fact exist.  I can have faith that something exists and you are correct that matter of faith could in fact exist in reality without evidence of its existence. But on the other hand, having faith in some claim is not evidence that it did in fact exist.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Fair Dinkum