The case for Adam & Eve.

Originally posted by galveston75
Just a personal observation and my opinion only, but I have to ask, why are you guys ( atheist ) here in the Spiritual forum? I know it's open to any and all and that's great I guess but it seems to me by posting stuff like this your here to do nothing more then to try tear down our Faith and our belief in God and the Bible which he has given mankind.
dering what your trying to accomplish? If it's to break my faith..it ain't gonna happen.

But it is a spiritual matter. Scriptual anyway.
I would have thought that the question/ observation that Proper Knobe made was a valid one.
Furthumore I think its good to have the athiests here as they give a some much needed/appreciated down-to-earth, sobering perspectives on some of these religous matters that seem to contradict basic , well founded and researched scientific theories. It is good to challenge anything that is truly "the word of God" /divinly inspired as it should be able to stand up to scrutiny as it is (as you and I claim) true as we see it. ( our respective views, are different though , i realize, but I welcome criticism where you, at times , seem to shy away from it)

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But now we're talking about the existance of Adam and Eve some 6000 years ago. Nothing else. This is what this thread is all about.

I haven't seen any archeological proofs that these two individuals without bellybuttons shared a fruit (we don't even know that it was an apple or banana)because they were fooled by a talking snake. There wasn't even a wit ...[text shortened]... s present. The whole story is nothing more than a hear-say at best.

Let's stay on topic.

Its very hard to imagine just two people starting the whole of the human race. It would be close to impossible ,right?
I think adam and eve could me metaphors for 2 tribes . Two tribes coming together to start the "human race" as we know it. (Perhaps there were other hominoid types around at the same type but the adam and eve "tribes" seem to have been special or more intelligent (probably damn lucky too!!) than the other strains of homosapiens that may have been floating around at the same time.

This would make much more sense on a practical level.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Its very hard to imagine just two people starting the whole of the human race. It would be close to impossible ,right?
I think adam and eve could me metaphors for 2 tribes . Two tribes coming together to start the "human race" as we know it. (Perhaps there were other hominoid types around at the same type but the adam and eve "tribes" seem to have be ...[text shortened]... n floating around at the same time.

This would make much more sense on a practical level.

A good speculation. One of many.
Let's stick with the idea that it's a good story, that one about Adam and Eve.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Its very hard to imagine just two people starting the whole of the human race. It would be close to impossible ,right?
I think adam and eve could me metaphors for 2 tribes . Two tribes coming together to start the "human race" as we know it. (Perhaps there were other hominoid types around at the same type but the adam and eve "tribes" seem to have be ...[text shortened]... n floating around at the same time.

This would make much more sense on a practical level.

Not impossible with God and possible with two perfectly healthy humans. Seems more possible then two vague hominoid or humanoid or whatever your trying to describe types of floating life forms. Strange idea and getting stranger by the post.....

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Its very hard to imagine just two people starting the whole of the human race. It would be close to impossible ,right?
I think adam and eve could me metaphors for 2 tribes . Two tribes coming together to start the "human race" as we know it. (Perhaps there were other hominoid types around at the same type but the adam and eve "tribes" seem to have be ...[text shortened]... n floating around at the same time.

This would make much more sense on a practical level.

its even more hard to believe that we became humans in the last eighty thousand years, what indeed we are being asked to believe is that in the next eighty thousand years we shall become something else.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its even more hard to believe that we became humans in the last eighty thousand years, what indeed we are being asked to believe is that in the next eighty thousand years we shall become something else.

Your mistaken. We've been anatomically the same for around 200,000yrs. But it is believed by some there was a change in our behaviour around 50,000yrs ago known as the Great Leap forward or the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.

what indeed we are being asked to believe is that in the next eighty thousand years we shall become something else

Who's asking us to believe that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh my dear Noobster how it warms my heart that after all my patience and loving concern you should eventually take an interest in the sacred text,

here is the answer that you seeketh, little apparent discrepancies are always readily rectified, indeed, i have yet to come across and apparent inconsistency which has not been, we are after all talkin ...[text shortened]... the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.

🙂

It seems the majority of modern scholars disagree with that view.

"this information is dubious on almost every score, despite the elaborate attempts by scholars to defend Lucan accuracy"

Raymond E. Brown The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke, Anchor Bible; Updated edition (1999), page 413.

Maybe we'll save that for another day.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Well ok, the argument has been given that we have seen similar things on our own time, that being the case why have we seen no physical evolution? If we take the premise that we have been around for six thousand years, how long shall we wait, 10 thousand, 20 thousand, 80 thousand before we evolve into something else?

The different human races make it quite clear that physical evolution has continued.

yes people may argue that we are getting taller, living for longer, but we are still essentially human.
Getting taller and living longer is more a matter of nutrition than evolution. But what defines us as 'essentially human'? Your definition is what makes us human, not our characteristics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The different human races make it quite clear that physical evolution has continued.

[b]yes people may argue that we are getting taller, living for longer, but we are still essentially human.
Getting taller and living longer is more a matter of nutrition than evolution. But what defines us as 'essentially human'? Your definition is what makes us human, not our characteristics.[/b]

no it doesn't, its merely variety within a species, you know fine well that Darwinian evolution rests on the basis that species transmuttated, fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals etc, indeed how long shall we wait, six thousand years, eighty thousand, two hundred thousand, fifty gaziliion!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your mistaken. We've been anatomically the same for around 200,000yrs. But it is believed by some there was a change in our behaviour around 50,000yrs ago known as the Great Leap forward or the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.

[b]what indeed we are being asked to believe is that in the next eighty thousand years we shall become something else

Who's asking us to believe that?[/b]

you are, the closest thing that you have to a human is a mere 50,000 years old!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the point about technology has been made previously, that writing was not needed until commerce took place or laws were established to protect certain interests growing from the establishment of large cities. I find this a little unsatisfactory for clearly there are instances of writing having been committed for other purposes, for example the roset ...[text shortened]... ple may argue that we are getting taller, living for longer, but we are still essentially human.

This is spot on what I was trying to say. If we were here for however long 10's to millions why just in the last 5K years did we suddenly learn to write? Written language should go back further than 5000 years. (I admit I don't know for sure but I tend to think shorter time is all) My wife argued that in her studies she learned that children before a certain age can learn any language and multiple languages. She was saying their brains are like and open matrix for language up to a certain age. I do apologize for mixing written and verbal language but they are intertwined to a vast degree.

The reason I don't buy longer periods of time for language written or verbal is the evidence does not support it.


Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are, the closest thing that you have to a human is a mere 50,000 years old!

Sorry, you've lost me.

Originally posted by menace71
This is spot on what I was trying to say. If we were here for however long 10's to millions why just in the last 5K years did we suddenly learn to write? Written language should go back further than 5000 years. (I admit I don't know for sure but I tend to think shorter time is all) My wife argued that in her studies she learned that children before a certai ...[text shortened]... eriods of time for language written or verbal is the evidence does not support it.


Manny

Maybe this will help manny.

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

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no it doesn't, its merely variety within a species, you know fine well that Darwinian evolution rests on the basis that species transmuttated, fish became amphibians, amphibians reptiles, reptiles birds, birds mammals etc, indeed how long shall we wait, six thousand years, eighty thousand, two hundred thousand, fifty gaziliion!

And 'species' is a man made definition too hence my statement. We are human because we say we are. We remain 'essentially human' because we choose to say that we do, not because we are not changing. Its funny that you don't seem to know what the definition of 'species' is, yet try to make claims about evolution. 'Fish', 'amphibians','reptiles', 'birds', 'mammals' etc are not 'species'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And 'species' is a man made definition too hence my statement. We are human because we say we are. We remain 'essentially human' because we choose to say that we do, not because we are not changing. Its funny that you don't seem to know what the definition of 'species' is, yet try to make claims about evolution. 'Fish', 'amphibians','reptiles', 'birds', 'mammals' etc are [b]not 'species'.[/b]

Humm, not accrding to these explinations. Check it out...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/species

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

http://www.answers.com/topic/species

http://animals.about.com/od/s/g/species.htm