Is Adam really the first human in our world?
I don't believe that. But I believe that Adam is the first human in our species. Because there is many human species in the past.
And Our species is the last standing species.
Any comment?
1. The story of Adam and Eve comes out of Judaism, and only is told as part of the Jewish, Christan and Muslim mythology. If there was any truth in it you would expect it to be in most mythology's.
2. Humans and our sub species of human evolved and evolution is a constant proses and there can be a grate variety which in the same species so it would be very, very difficult to say so even if this Adam existed it would be hard if not imposable to say weather he, his father or son was the first modern human.
3. Please keep religion out of science.
I am personally a christian but do believe in evolution. I consider that God could initiate life on a planet and allow natural law to guide the evolution and speciation of living things. Perhaps the first man and women (Adam and Eve) were an endpoint of human evolution and thus were the first candidated for receiving premortal souls.
I am not a Christian, so I do not believe in the rediculous story of Adam in the Genesis story in the Bible. But I do believe that there was a first in our species, or in the whole human species. So why not just call him Adam? It just needs a name, afterall.
I dunno if this is true but many say that the whole bible was written upon orders by Constantine during his fall of power in his kingdom.
He ordered his scholars to write a set of rules which he later on introduced as the message from God and made people bow down.
So if that is true, then the concept of Adam was either the idea of Constantine himself or one of his scholars. Now considering that to be true is utter stupidity. Its no more than a story.
It is totally definite that during evolution, one of the apes evolved into man and if you want to call this man Adam, then we cant stop you. But one thing you have to understand is, turning from ape to human is not an over night procedure. So basically the concept of a single Adam seems highly improbable.
| iNs@nE wrote: |
I dunno if this is true but many say that the whole bible was written upon orders by Constantine during his fall of power in his kingdom.
He ordered his scholars to write a set of rules which he later on introduced as the message from God and made people bow down.
So if that is true, then the concept of Adam was either the idea of Constantine himself or one of his scholars. Now considering that to be true is utter stupidity. Its no more than a story.
It is totally definite that during evolution, one of the apes evolved into man and if you want to call this man Adam, then we cant stop you. But one thing you have to understand is, turning from ape to human is not an over night procedure. So basically the concept of a single Adam seems highly improbable. |
The story's in the bible wer not written by order of Constantine. The old testament story's were around century's before Constantine. The old testament has been around longer than Christianity and there were many gospels that were not included in the bible.I said I wasnt sure if it was true. But yes. You are right. Most of the stories in the bible are before the time of christianity but if you ever observed, most of the stories indicate to the arrival of the Messiah who in the end happend to be Jesus - the origin of Christianity.
This is too much of a co-incidence...!!
If you believe literally in the Judeo-Christian creation stories, then Adam was the first human. Otherwise, probably not. The first member of out species was probably named Og or something 
Surely this thread should be shifted to religion and philosophy ?
Chris.
There can never really be a "first human"
Evolutionary biology suggests that at one point some baby was mutated just enough to fit into the species distinction, but it would still simply be a label applied to one of our many precursors.
Of course there was no biblical "Adam" who sprung out of the ground like Athena from Zeus's head. We all know what happens when you inter-breed, you get heavy genetic disorders, and there's no way that we would look anything like the first human if that were the case.
any intelligent human being would deduce that the story of Adam is only a metaphore. It cannot be take literally. I am a christian amd I have a firm belief in my faith but i dont for a second believe in this story.
I believe in evolution and the bigbang theory as it has scientific evidence to support it. The idea that the world was created in 7 days is just stupid.
What i take form this is that God did create the world but not in seven days. Maybe it took 7 hundred million years!!! the metaphore was reated to help people understand gods greatness and mans place in the world.
How do I put it, I believe about the evolution thory, But I don't believe that my grand grand grand... grandparents are monkey...I don't care if darwin tell me that his grand grand grand... grandparents are monkey ^^
So I believe that adam was the first man, and about the other species, like Phitecantropus or anything like that, I believe that theyre exist, yes, exist, or, ever exist in this world. Why? Becouse in the Al Qur'an [I'm moslem] there's a story that tha angel ask Allah, "God, If you create human as "khafilah" (leader) of the earth, I'm scared that they will break the world again like the recent "khafilah"" -I don't remember the exact phrase.
So that's tell us that there is another "man" in this earth, and they're "dissapear", maybe it's dinosaur, maybe they're thos phitecantropus or anything like that.
And Adam wasn't the first human in this world, At first, he is live in the heaven with hawa (Eve) and then they're sent off to the world because eat the "khuldi" fruit (what did christian call it. I don't remember, sorry) So there was 2 "first" humans in this world - Adam, and Hawa (Eve)
| Pikokola wrote: |
| How do I put it, I believe about the evolution thory, But I don't believe that my grand grand grand... grandparents are monkey...I don't care if darwin tell me that his grand grand grand... grandparents are monkey ^^ |
That's OK...they weren't.
| Quote: |
| So I believe that adam was the first man, and about the other species, like Phitecantropus or anything like that, I believe that theyre exist, yes, exist, or, ever exist in this world. Why? Becouse in the Al Qur'an [I'm moslem] there's a story that tha angel ask Allah, "God, If you create human as "khafilah" (leader) of the earth, I'm scared that they will break the world again like the recent "khafilah"" -I don't remember the exact phrase. |
As has already been pointed out, there was no first man. If you accept evolution then it follows that man evolved gradually.
Here is a rough family tree showing the stages:
{taken from Wikki}
Now at what point does the 'Homo' animal become the 'Homo Sapiens' human ? There is no distinct cut-off between the two. Technically I suppose you could say the division occurred when the first offspring were born which were different enough not to be able to mate with other members of their grouping - that is one definition of a species - an evolutionary change which means that the offspring are no longer able to mate with the previous members of the species. In reality, though, it would have been a gradual process....which is why the word evolution is now used often to mean a slow change....as in the slogan 'Evolution Not Revolution'. The idea that one day a Neanderthal or Homo-Habilis couple gave birth to a child who was Homo Sapiens and that was Adam...well....it just doesn't work like that.
| Quote: |
| So that's tell us that there is another "man" in this earth, and they're "dissapear", maybe it's dinosaur, maybe they're thos phitecantropus or anything like that. |
It sounds to me like you don't really understand evolution theory yet.
| Quote: |
| And Adam wasn't the first human in this world, At first, he is live in the heaven with hawa (Eve) and then they're sent off to the world because eat the "khuldi" fruit (what did christian call it. I don't remember, sorry) So there was 2 "first" humans in this world - Adam, and Hawa (Eve) |
After saying you accept evolution you have now quoted a non evolutionary theory. In this model Adam would have appeared fully developed as a Homo Sapiens with no evolutionary ancestors since he was born in heaven.
I think you need to have more of a think about this whole issue before you make your mind up. Saying you accept (not believe, by the way - it's different!) evolution implies that you understand it. Otherwise it IS just a belief. If you understand it then you don't have to believe it because it is the only sensible theory that fits the known and observed facts - the fossil record, the geological time-scale, the biological observations of relationships and similarities between species and so on.
Regards
Chris | irishmark wrote: |
| any intelligent human being would deduce that the story of Adam is only a metaphore. It cannot be take literally. I am a christian amd I have a firm belief in my faith but i dont for a second believe in this story. |
Actually it was meant to be taken literately, its a creation myth just like any other. It doesn't have the primordial mound of the Egyptian creation myth, it has humans coming from dirt and not corn like Mayan myth but they are the same thing, explanations for the existence of humans and the wold.
| Pikokola wrote: |
| How do I put it, I believe about the evolution thory, But I don't believe that my grand grand grand... grandparents are monkey...I don't care if darwin tell me that his grand grand grand... grandparents are monkey ^^ |
You grate, grate, grate grandparents were not monkeys, but if you go back far enough, millions of years, many millions of years you would find your ancestor which some similarity's too monkeys but not a monkey. Some of that species evolved into monkeys and others of that species evolved into us.You can find the presence of a common father of all humans in most world religions. So there must have been someone. In Judaism, Christianity and Islam, there is "Adam".
In Hinduism... Vedic scriptures, Puranas, Mahabharata, there is the mention of "Manu" as the first man. It is also mentioned that after each major destruction throuch a massive flood, a new Manu comes along. This "Manu" character does not fall from the sky. He is a member of an existing human species. He is the dominant male from whom the whole human race spreads throughout the world. The genes from his contemporaries berely survive in traces or perish altogather.
Last month I watched a TV show in NatGeo. In it a scientist published his research and proved that human beings from all around the world share a common gene-pattern that originated from a single being. He tried to establish that the original gene pool came from an dominant intelligent African male belonging to a particular tribe of hunters. 
| illume wrote: |
| You can find the presence of a common father of all humans in most world religions. So there must have been someone. |
A classic 'argumentum ad populum' fallacy. Just because eveyone says the world goes round the sun, it does not mean that it is so...
I'll leave you to think up other examples which show why this argument is a fallacy and not to be trusted. | Quote: |
| a scientist published his research and proved that human beings from all around the world share a common gene-pattern that originated from a single being. He tried to establish that the original gene pool came from an dominant intelligent African male belonging to a particular tribe of hunters. |
Yes, that was a paper by Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004), using a non-genetic model.
It is neither surprising nor particularly revealing.
See if you can think this through yourself and work out why a common ancestor 30000 years ago (that was their finding) does not mean that the first humans were at that time as well....
You should be able to work this one out I think.....
Regards
Chris
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Jan 13, 2007 4:02 am; edited 1 time in total | ravenbsp wrote: |
| I am personally a christian but do believe in evolution. I consider that God could initiate life on a planet and allow natural law to guide the evolution and speciation of living things. Perhaps the first man and women (Adam and Eve) were an endpoint of human evolution and thus were the first candidated for receiving premortal souls. |
Like ravenbsp I am Christian, but i also believe in the evolution theory. The evolution to the human form gives the oppertunity that the first human could wear the name of Adam.
So my question is: What is true or what is wrong? Even both answers are possible.Dear Mr. Bikerman...
| Quote: |
This Manu does not fall from the sky. He is a member of an already existing human species. He is the dominant male from whom the whole human race spreads throughout the world. The genes from his contemporaries berely survive in traces or perish altogather.
|
As I have emphasized earlier, this common ancestor or Manu whose genes we all share, was superior to other men on this planet due to higher intellect, physical attributes, resistence to desease, dominant genetic combination, faith or hunting skills. We cannot really tell. He existed at a time at least 10,000 years ago. (my opinion)
Also, there were already other human beings at his time. But those other peoples genes ultimately died out. Perhaps they just didnt survive the struggle for existence.
In the Puranas of Hinduism Manu is a King. Meaning he had some dominance over his fellow men. He ultimately collected specimens of different species and collected all the Vedas and wise men. Veda means knowledge. Wise men too means the same. Saving most species also symbolises some gene preservation process. He sailed taking them all in a big ship just when the big flood hit the world and all else were swept clean. It closely resembles Noah's story from the Book of Genesis.
Well perhaps it is a hint ... 
Most other humans died in that flood! Only he and his family survived (also some Sages). Thus his genes lived on. 
| illume wrote: |
Dear Mr. Bikerman...
| Quote: | This Manu does not fall from the sky. He is a member of an already existing human species. He is the dominant male from whom the whole human race spreads throughout the world. The genes from his contemporaries berely survive in traces or perish altogather.
|
As I have emphasized earlier, this common ancestor or Manu whose genes we all share, was superior to other men on this planet due to higher intellect, physical attributes, resistence to desease, dominant genetic combination, faith or hunting skills. We cannot really tell. He existed at a time at least 10,000 years ago. (my opinion)
Also, there were already other human beings at his time. But those other peoples genes ultimately died out. Perhaps they just didnt survive the struggle for existence.
In the Puranas of Hinduism Manu is a King. Meaning he had some dominance over his fellow men. He ultimately collected specimens of different species and collected all the Vedas and wise men. Veda means knowledge. Wise men too means the same. Saving most species also symbolises some gene preservation process. He sailed taking them all in a big ship just when the big flood hit the world and all else were swept clean. It closely resembles Noah's story from the Book of Genesis.
Well perhaps it is a hint ... Most other humans died in that flood! Only he and his family survived (also some Sages). Thus his genes lived on. |
Firstly an apology - my earlier reply was rishedand I typed 3000 instead of the 30,000 I intended. I also failed to cite the paper in question. I hope this posting corrects both those mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor
And as I have already pointed out, the story of Noah is allegorical and not literal. The practical considerations make it almost impossible. The historical conditions make st completely impossible. Genetic evidence and species dispertion through the fossil record make it impossible. Those arguments trump all scriptural references since they are scientific and verifiable NOT matters of trust or faith. Now this does not mean that I am saying there is no reason behind the myth. I have no doubt that the preponderance of the tale means that SOME historical event happened which involved a great flood and a survivor on a boat.
There are several candidates for this. My point is that the story as adapted by the church of Rome cannot be taken as literal and to do so is both scientifically silly and historically dishonest.
Regards
Chris
{edited later after this point to remove some stuff I left in by accident and which did not change the substance of the posting)
Last edited by Bikerman on Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:00 am; edited 1 time in total Dear Mr. Bikerman,
These myths that have supported civilizations through all the ravages of time are like pillers. You kill them and you kill the culture. Now, where were we? Noah and Adam and Manu ... or David and Moses and Yehweh!
Modern science has got all the the documentation it needs, all scientific records, fossils, C14 dating and all. But myths that have lasted for maybe 10,000 or 30,000 years, have only got word of mouth and belief in the form of stories handed down by elders and wise men of the community to us in the modern era. Poor myths they are, for they should have carried tiny bags containing the DVD or genome records for us to prove them right.
Have you ever considered what will happen to our modern theories and ideas after another 10,000 years? Probably we will become myths under the microscope of some future sceptic generation.
I am not angry or unreasonable. I am being Logical here. When history is poking us in the eye we shouldnt disregard things. After so many as 500 years genes become so degraded that their test results are unreliable. But there are other forms of evidence.
When all major religions disagreeing on so many things cross match on some points like a Great Flood or Survivors preserving knowledge... they have to mean something. They cant be just gossip.
Also, we are living upon layers and layers of ancient civilization structured like a huge pizza. But due to lack of proper research scholars or funding, things are kept under the lid.
Evidences are also there in language. Where do you think of the major similarity of ancient languages of the world root to? There was a common root of all human beings. I am not saying that its Africa or Siberia or Tibet, but somewhere. | illume wrote: |
Dear Mr. Bikerman,
These myths that have supported civilizations through all the ravages of time are like pillers. You kill them and you kill the culture.
|
I never suggested killing them, I merely pointed out that we should understand them for what they are - allegorical stories which illustrate a point - rather than treat them as historical fact. | Quote: |
Now, where were we? Noah and Adam and Manu ... or David and Moses and Yehweh!
Modern science has got all the the documentation it needs, all scientific records, fossils, C14 dating and all. But myths that have lasted for maybe 10,000 or 30,000 years, have only got word of mouth and belief in the form of stories handed down by elders and wise men of the community to us in the modern era. Poor myths they are, for they should have carried tiny bags containing the DVD or genome records for us to prove them right. |
You are attributing to me a position which I do not take. I never said they were poor myths or any other such thing. I said they were allegories and I don't think I took any position on whether they are good or bad.
| Quote: |
| Have you ever considered what will happen to our modern theories and ideas after another 10,000 years? Probably we will become myths under the microscope of some future sceptic generation. |
No, there is a big difference. If anyone comes across (say) Relativity theory in 10,000 years time then they may well be astonished how simplistic it is but they will NOT regard it as myth for one very good reason. They will be able to do the exact same experiments that have been done by our own scientists and the results they get will be the same as those obtained by our own scientists. Science is not the same as religion. It does not say 'believe me', it says 'this is what we think is a good model and here is how we know'. | Quote: |
I am not angry or unreasonable. I am being Logical here. When history is poking us in the eye we shouldnt disregard things. After so many as 500 years genes become so degraded that their test results are unreliable. But there are other forms of evidence.
When all major religions disagreeing on so many things cross match on some points like a Great Flood or Survivors preserving knowledge... they have to mean something. They cant be just gossip. |
Again you are misinterpreting what I said. I said quite distinctly that they were likely to be based on some historical event since, I agree, it is unlikely to be a coincidence that so many religions contain a flood story. There are many possible candidates for such an event but that is something for the geologists to debate. My point was that there was not, historically, a global flood at the time which Old Testament states.- Neither is it possible that a flood at that time, or any other, wiped-out everything except for an ark with 7 (2) of every creature on board.
- Neither is it practical to build an ark to the dimensions stated in the bible (even today).
- Neither is it practical that 7 (2) of every species could be collected and housed in such an ark.
- Neither is it physically possible that rainfall could produce sufficient water to cover the entire earth and then, some months later, for that water to disappear.
| Quote: |
| Also, we are living upon layers and layers of ancient civilization structured like a huge pizza. But due to lack of proper research scholars or funding, things are kept under the lid. |
Have you any evidence to support that? My own perception is that plenty of research is being conducted into previous civilisations and that we know a great deal about such civilisations and cultures.
| Quote: |
| Evidences are also there in language. Where do you think of the major similarity of ancient languages of the world root to? There was a common root of all human beings. I am not saying that its Africa or Siberia or Tibet, but somewhere. |
I think you have perhaps misunderstood language history. It is certainly true that there are 'families' of similar languages which are though to have evolved from a single language for each family. There are perhaps around 20 such families. I don't think that any suggestion has been made that there was a single language from which all others evolved. My understanding is that language developed independently in several geographic locations, which is why we observe the different families today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/hewes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark
Regards
ChrisI definitely believe Adam is the first human. God created him in His image, and from Adam, he made woman (Eve) to be a helper and supporter.
The book of Genesis is very important, because it explains the universe's creation, as well as the creation of man and woman.
Quite obviously the Hebrew word for life Adam comes from the name "Adam." because God breathed life into Adam.
| Tyler wrote: |
I definitely believe Adam is the first human. God created him in His image, and from Adam, he made woman (Eve) to be a helper and supporter.
The book of Genesis is very important, because it explains the universe's creation, as well as the creation of man and woman. |
Does this mean that you believe that evolution is wrong and that the Earth was created around 7000 years ago? | Quote: |
Quite obviously the Hebrew word for life Adam comes from the name "Adam." because God breathed life into Adam. |
Hmm | Quote: |
| The Hebrew word adam is translated either as “man” or “Adam” depending on context and on the presence or lack of the definite article (“the” in English, ha in Hebrew). So “ha-adam” is translated usually as “the man” (referring to either an unspecified man or to mankind as a whole, depending on context), whereas adam (without ha) is translated as “Adam” (referring to the specific man by the name). So all the way through Gen. 1–3 we have ha-adam and our English Bibles usually translate it as “man” or “the man.” Some translations give “Adam” for ha-adam in 2:19 or 2:20. In Gen. 3:17 and 3:21 we have adam (with no ha), which most English Bibles translate as “Adam.” |
Ok, nice argument. But arguments lead to more arguments and may take us away from the truth. Argument can only be a valid method of arriving at truth if both parties are honest and seeking it. Otherwise, I can defeat someone in debate; then someone cleverer than me can defeat me; and the cycle will go on like this.
Its like mathematics. It is a pure form of intellectual expression, unless someone has fed some false data somewhere.
Anyway how can you fix a specific date like 7000 years to Noah or Adam? Scientific work on ancient civilizations like Vedic or Persian fireworshippers (Zoroastrianism) or the Old Bible are pure guesswork. They take parts of the scriptures as evidence and refute what they like. They take similarities in ancient language as proof somewhere and make a mix of things to prove their point. The fixation of dates to the dawn of ancient cultures is far from being scientific.
The "scientists" take scriptures literally where they should be interpreted as metaphors and vice-versa. It is not very precise. What we take as proven truth is actually the imagination of scholars. Where there is real material evidence, I agree with them. But where its pure imagination, its nothing but fantasy. I really have an issue with that business.
When I said that civilaizations are built one over the other in layers like a pizza, I mean it. Yes, there is proof. But since that doesnt concern Adam, I dont want to mention it here. If you are interested, why dont you open a new topic on archeological evidence? Then I will provide you with all the evidence you need. well i am a christian and i believe adam was the first
| illume wrote: |
| The fixation of dates to the dawn of ancient cultures is far from being scientific. |
You seem somewhat cynical towards archaeology, illume. While Near Eastern archaeology does have its roots in "antiquitarianism" and 100 years ago many folks took up its study in an attempt to "prove" the bible, that is not the case today. Today, archaeology is a scientific discipline. Techniques like carbon dating and thermoluminescence are reasonably accurate within a certain standard deviation. And while archaeo-epigraphy and comparative linguistics do draw somewhat more on speculation and interpretation, they are usually conducted in a careful and systematic way; they can be used very effectively to confirm the "more scientific" findings.
In no way is anything in archaeology "pure guesswork".
Take care,
EyvindI think about Adam as metaphor for the first homo sapiens.
If really Adam and Eve were the first people, incest sex also was the first thing to evolve in this world.
Why so?, here it goes:
According to the Bible Adam and Ever were the first people and they had 2 sons namely Coin and Abel later Able was killed in a story. This means that there were 2 male and 1 female in the begining then how did you and me born? Doing incest sex?
any answeres/clarifications ?
Kiran - means - Sun
| illume wrote: |
| Ok, nice argument. But arguments lead to more arguments and may take us away from the truth. Argument can only be a valid method of arriving at truth if both parties are honest and seeking it. Otherwise, I can defeat someone in debate; then someone cleverer than me can defeat me; and the cycle will go on like this. |
I disagree. Argument leads to the truth not away from it. What is the alternative? Everyone just accept any point? Thesis+Antithesis=Synthesis.
| Quote: |
Its like mathematics. It is a pure form of intellectual expression, unless someone has fed some false data somewhere.
Anyway how can you fix a specific date like 7000 years to Noah or Adam? Scientific work on ancient civilizations like Vedic or Persian fireworshippers (Zoroastrianism) or the Old Bible are pure guesswork. They take parts of the scriptures as evidence and refute what they like. They take similarities in ancient language as proof somewhere and make a mix of things to prove their point. The fixation of dates to the dawn of ancient cultures is far from being scientific. |
I took the figure as the one frequently used by Young Earth Creationists who take the bible literally.
| Quote: |
The "scientists" take scriptures literally where they should be interpreted as metaphors and vice-versa. It is not very precise. What we take as proven truth is actually the imagination of scholars. Where there is real material evidence, I agree with them. But where its pure imagination, its nothing but fantasy. I really have an issue with that business.
|
That is completely untrue. Science does not have a position on this matter. Some scientists are religious, some are not. My point was actually the one you are making now - that scripture is metaphorical and that one should not take the story of the Ark literally.
Regards
Chris.I don't believe he even existed...
| The Conspirator wrote: |
3. Please keep religion out of science. |
Please keep your religion out of my science.
Science is that which is reproducible, provable, reliable, empirical, etc.
What part of evolution is "scientifically" proven in the way that follows the scientific method?
Reproduce the slime become living, reproduce fish gaining wings, reproduce any such thing and I will "believe". Their answer to this is as mindless as a religious nut claiming some random god did it. They say, "We can't because it takes millions and millions of years... blahh blahhh blahhhh".
Ask any physicist or chemist what they really think of "evolutionary science". It is a "soft" science like sociology and psychology. They don't even rate. Evolution is just as much an act of "faith" as believing God made man and woman. | Deuc wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: |
3. Please keep religion out of science. |
Please keep your religion out of my science.
Science is that which is reproducible, provable, reliable, empirical, etc.
What part of evolution is "scientifically" proven in the way that follows the scientific method?
Reproduce the slime become living, reproduce fish gaining wings, reproduce any such thing and I will "believe". Their answer to this is as mindless as a religious nut claiming some random god did it. They say, "We can't because it takes millions and millions of years... blahh blahhh blahhhh".
Ask any physicist or chemist what they really think of "evolutionary science". It is a "soft" science like sociology and psychology. They don't even rate. Evolution is just as much an act of "faith" as believing God made man and woman. |
First, the evolution and the theory of evolution are not religious in any way shape or form. Evolution comes out of the observations of the many species and sub species and the fossil recored.
Second, there is plenty of evidence for evolution, incontrovertible evidence. Evolution has been witnessed in insects and bacteria, the fossil recored shows us that recored species have been changing over time, and evolution can be demonstrated through proses of unnatural selection ( the selecting and breeding of animals with certain traits) | Deuc wrote: |
| The Conspirator wrote: |
3. Please keep religion out of science. |
Please keep your religion out of my science.
Science is that which is reproducible, provable, reliable, empirical, etc.
|
No it isn't exactly that. A better definition would be | Quote: |
| The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. |
| Deuc wrote: |
| What part of evolution is "scientifically" proven in the way that follows the scientific method? |
Science does not 'prove' theory since that is impossible (cf the problem of induction). Evolution as a theory is subject to the normal 'falsification' test used in science. Specifically the theory of evolution can be falsified in several ways. One example of a fossil that did not fit into the evolutionary picture, for example, would be a case in point.
| Deuc wrote: |
| Reproduce the slime become living, reproduce fish gaining wings, reproduce any such thing and I will "believe". Their answer to this is as mindless as a religious nut claiming some random god did it. They say, "We can't because it takes millions and millions of years... blahh blahhh blahhhh". |
There are many things in science which cannot be reproduced for one reason or another. That does not mean it is unscientific and certainly does not mean it is indistinguishable from religion. You also have confused evolution with abiogenesis Evolution is the theory which explains species formation and diversification. Abiogenesis is the theory of how life started in the first place. The two are quite distinct.
| Deuc wrote: |
| Ask any physicist or chemist what they really think of "evolutionary science". It is a "soft" science like sociology and psychology. They don't even rate. Evolution is just as much an act of "faith" as believing God made man and woman. |
Not true at all. Most physicists and chemists of my acquaintance would say that evolution is an example of 'hard' science in that it makes firm predictions, can be falsified and explains observation.
Regards
ChrisIn Genisis, it states "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." My question is this, is the "them" being talked about really Adam and Eve? I honestly don't think so. I believe that this is a group of people (more than 2). I don't think Adam and Eve were created until the eighth day, look at the timeline in the Bible to see what I mean. I also wonder if it was done in only 6 days. The Bible states that one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day to God. I don't think He measures time like we do. But to have it to where our minds can understand, there had to be a time reference.
I don't think Adam was the first man, but I do think he was the first one with God's breath put in him.
Ge 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
I believe this is what separates Adam from the first group of humans God created.
I think that people have beacome a race by evolution...the thing with black,white,yelow,and red skin people is simply because of theire place.part from the world,in witch they have evolated.....
Like black poeple in Afrika,red people in Amerika,white in Europe,or yelow in Azija.....
the thing is that somehow,we have only got one thing better then the animals...Emotions and consience maybe
there was more humans,razed at the same time,not just one,
and I don't think if there was one,that his name was Adam
Excuse me for ma misspelled words!
holla Some scientific studies to sort of support the story of Adam and Eve - they say that we did in fact originate from two original human beings, and that the origin of our race is somewhere in the middle east, then eventually spread out and adapted to the conditions that they faced in the other parts of the world. That's just about where the similarities end.
Believing in the existence of Adam and Eve contradicts with science. If you believe in Adam and Eve, you can't believe in dinosaurs. It's pretty straight forward. If you don't understand or want to question what I just said, read more into the bible.
The only comment that I want to make is that I think it's really funny that people still believe in Adam and stuff like that in the 21st century.
I believe it. If Darwin believes his grand...grandxztysd is a monkey, then it's his choice to believe it, not mine. Perhaps evolution theory is true on some parts and false on other parts. It's just a theory made by human. Human can be wrong. A scientist can made a mistake.
| ravenbsp wrote: |
| I am personally a christian but do believe in evolution. I consider that God could initiate life on a planet and allow natural law to guide the evolution and speciation of living things. Perhaps the first man and women (Adam and Eve) were an endpoint of human evolution and thus were the first candidated for receiving premortal souls. |
THANK YOU!
That is exactly how I feel and I hate how people argue how science and christianity can't be together. I've had friends say how I can't believe that and be a Christian all at once.
Again, THANK YOU!geez... was adam the first human? I'm not sure if his name was "adam", but I'm certain that he and his wife, let's call her "eve", were the first created humans.
| jameswpope wrote: |
| geez... was adam the first human? I'm not sure if his name was "adam", but I'm certain that he and his wife, let's call her "eve", were the first created humans. |
As I said, in evolution, some theorize that we all came from one couple of humans. I do not think they had any sort of structured language nor names at that point, though. | {name here} wrote: |
| jameswpope wrote: | | geez... was adam the first human? I'm not sure if his name was "adam", but I'm certain that he and his wife, let's call her "eve", were the first created humans. |
As I said, in evolution, some theorize that we all came from one couple of humans. I do not think they had any sort of structured language nor names at that point, though. |
I think it has been pointed out before but is probably worth repeating, that there is no strict line of demarcation between human and proto(non)-human. The process of evolution is a continuous one and it is not possible to draw a line in the sand and say 'here is the first human'. The normal definition of a new species is one which has undergone sufficient change from the parent species that the individuals of the new grouping are no longer able to reproduce with members of the parent grouping. Even this is slightly problematic as a definition.
There are theorists who claim to be able to trace current humans back to a single ancestor, normally by analysis of the Y chromosome (eg http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0624_050624_spencerwells_2.html ) but that is not the same as saying that such an ancestor was the first human - for what should be obvious reasons*
*if you cannot see why, then imagine a group of early humans and imagine that one of them had a son who, having taken a mate, then migrated to a different location. Then imagine that the group he came from died out due to some natural catastrophe. We could then trace our lineage back to that single ancestor but that would not imply that he was the first human.I always see people on forums asking "Do you believe in evolution?", which is a stupid question, just like asking "Do you believe in gravity?".
Evolution is a FACT, it has millions of pieces of evidence - if you only TRY to learn about evolution you'll realize it. People say it's called "theory of evolution" - so it's just a a theory and it's not proven. Wrong! In sience, the word "theory" does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch or hypothesis, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence.
Each time I talk to someone that claims he doesn't believe in evolution, it turns out he doesn't have a clue about how it really works - just like Mr.Garrison - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvZjaZrw-Cc 
Once you understand it (like the evolution scientists teach it, not your local priest), it opens your eyes. So I suggest reading a book about it, maybe something by Richard Dawkins, on of the world's most famous evolutionary theorists, for example his book "The Blind Watchmaker". Oh, and here's a cool vid I found on youtube:
Top 10 List Why Anti-Evolutionists are WRONG:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EDFJviGQth4 | LovE-RicH wrote: |
Each time I talk to someone that claims he doesn't believe in evolution, it turns out he doesn't have a clue about how it really works - just like Mr.Garrison - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvZjaZrw-Cc
Once you understand it (like the evolution scientists teach it, not your local priest), it opens your eyes. So I suggest reading a book about it, maybe something by Richard Dawkins, on of the world's most famous evolutionary theorists, for example his book "The Blind Watchmaker". |
The link you gave doesn't work, youtube has removed the video, is it somewhere else?LoveRich posted links to a youtube video that has since been removed, but there are lots of others worth watching. "Think about it"
Here's the vid again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek1lMtCLRW0
If it doesn't work, just search for "south park evolution" or "garrison evolution" in YouTube. Do you think humans cam prepackaged with language? Do you think that this first human had any method to communicate anywhere near what we can do with each other today?
As a species it would have taken us centuries if not thousands of years to develop a coherent language, maybe even longer, ask a linguist.
Given this information, what are the chances that this first human would be able to pass on this knowledge to the second and third generations?
Learn to treat the Adam and Eve creation myth with the same disbelief as you treat the creation myths of all other religions.
Christians do understand what it is like to be atheist, they know what it is like to not believe in Islam, Hinduist, Buddhism and Zeus, just learn to let go of that evil Hebrew sky god of yours and all will be good.
| Kitten Kong wrote: |
Do you think humans cam prepackaged with language? Do you think that this first human had any method to communicate anywhere near what we can do with each other today?
As a species it would have taken us centuries if not thousands of years to develop a coherent language, maybe even longer, ask a linguist.
Given this information, what are the chances that this first human would be able to pass on this knowledge to the second and third generations?
Learn to treat the Adam and Eve creation myth with the same disbelief as you treat the creation myths of all other religions.
Christians do understand what it is like to be atheist, they know what it is like to not believe in Islam, Hinduist, Buddhism and Zeus, just learn to let go of that evil Hebrew sky god of yours and all will be good. |
Big question.
Chomsky's work on linugistics shows us that humans have a part of the brain 'hard-wired' for language. This would have evolved, of course, like the rest of us, but the question is when.
There are several implications to this :
a) Primates other than humans will not acquire natural language as humans can because the wiring in their brains is wrong
b) If a human does not learn language early enough the wiring changes and they will never truly master a language at all.....
c) All languages, despite their apparent differences, must be very similar in reality for the generalised wiring system to work with them all. We all know that a Japanese baby born in New York will develop a NY accented American and vica versa...therefore all languages are very similar...Chomsky went on to prove this using meta-syntax analysis and other linguistic tools of his trade.
Interesting stuffour species is the species that will destroy all other species if we're not carefull. Adam is a simple illustration of what man could have been before the Fall, but is due to his nature. He is purely symbolic. Why was Eve born from adam though ? Now that's strange.
And was it the egg or the hen ? seriously.
Oh, and haven't you read Darwin ? Any simple mind would scream at the idea of a fully grown and evolved man just popping out of god's will. Adam was a unicellular being that slowly evolved into monkeys, that evolved into mankind as we know it today.
We will probably evolve into a six-fingered species in order to type faster on our keyboards and lose the use of our legs if we keep living like this.
Think about it.
