Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?

quote:

---

It is asserted above that man was made in God's own image, but this begs the question, which of the many species of humankind was made in Genesis? Was it homo sapien, homo erectus, cro magnon, neadrathal, or perhaps "lucy"?

---

My reading of Genesis says, Evolution of species and their chronological appearence, was introduced in Genesis, and each specie, according to Genesis, was independent and complete - because cross-specie is negated in this document ['A seed shall follow its own kind'/Gen].

quote:

---

Modern humans have only been here since the last ice age, whereas the earth itself covers 4,550,000,000 years of geologic time. According to these sources below, the immense amount of time that passed prior to the explosion of life took place was about 4,000,000,000; life began at the beginning of the Phanerozoic Eon, about 570 million years ago.

---

According to Genesis, the first speech endowed life form appeared less than 6000 years ago [5766 years today]. Genesis seems to separate and identify modern humans by speech, rather than skeletal formations - and this appears more credible. The factor which separates modern humans from all other life forms is 'speech' - not the bone frames, the brain or communication. While there are theories of humans possessing speech before writings appeared [which is less than 6000]- there is no positive proof of this. The evidences says oral speech would have not been prevailent - there are definitive consequences of speech - including writings, pyramids, names, nations, wars, kings, communities, etc. The sudden appearence of writings, and subsequently all modern human imprints, also indicates that speech did not develop from grunts and coos: we have no transitory evidences of speech for the extended periods allocated to it.However one looks at it - there does seem to be a quickening of the pace with regard modern humans around the 6000 year point in the Genesis calendar.

quote:

---

This makes as much sense as asking whether James Bond was really Homo sapiens.

---

Why so? The texts clearly indicates a complete new species by its negation of cross-specie transmissions. The Adam/Eve story may also be either metaphorical, or dualistic: the text says this event did not occur in this physical realm, but in a non-earthly paradisical garden from which they were 'cast out' to earth [after the fall], and re-entry barred by beings rotating firey swords. The historicity may apply in the following chapter, which is backed by the oldest and most accurate calendar in existence - with each day measurable from Adam. The second chapter also lists the first 'dialogue' [speech] - and this has never been disproven - which is amazing considering the period allocated to modern man by scientific theorisings. It appears the ancient texts is deceptively simple, and one must give it the relevence of being presented in a mode suitable for all generations of mankind.

quote:

---

As jar has pointed out, we are not descended from just a single couple.

---

According to Genesis, we emerged from a dual-gendered human ['MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'/Gen 1/1]. The single, dual-gendered human was later seperated to become separate male and female counterparts. There appears no alternative to this, and it would apply to ALL life form origins: the odds for a male appearing, then an exacting, synchronising counterpart female appearing independently is extremely improbable and far fetched.The enigma of the chicken and egg is here solved very adequately: the first fowl was dual-gendered, undergoing a separation, then producing an egg ['the seed'] able to repro and transmit all required adaptative attributes - including dna transmissions. There is nothing unscientific or illogical about Genesis, which introduced Creationism and Science: that 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS KIND, WITH THE ABILITY TO REPRO AND ADAPT' is arguably the first sceintific equation/constant on record. It is also vindicated. Science and Creationism are not conflicting: Creationism has to be vindicated by science, math and history.While there is a worldly mindset against religions in general - Genesis is the only theological document which deals with the universe origins, and should be seen in a separate premise. While I fully agree that anything in genesis has to be empirically vindicated - I have not encountered any aspect of Genesis' mode of creation as un-scientific.

quote:

---

Hi IamJoseph. Welcome to the EvC Forum. Hope you enjoy your time here, and keep coming back.
IamJoseph writes:
Why so?

​

Because, like Mr Bond, Adam and Eve existed only in a work of fiction, rather than reality.

---

Thanks.We have no proof of that: can you prove a human with a 'name', date and address prior to Adam? of coz not - no record of such and no indicators. In contrast, we have a very bold, specific 'date', stating the first speech endowed human's emergence - with no controversy of alternate proof. From a scientific POV - the names listed in the 'generations of Adam' are scientifically vindicated: archeology's prime mode of proof is 'names' - which are exclusive to certain periods. One cannot 'select' what they want and disregard what are positive indicators.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The Adam/Eve story may also be either metaphorical, or dualistic

​

Or mythical.

---

One must give credence to a text which admits another realm: this is - at least - not disprovable; the mythical factor is thus negated by a self-declared 'no contest' in the text.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
The second chapter also lists the first 'dialogue' [speech] - and this has never been disproven - which is amazing considering the period allocated to modern man by scientific theorisings.

​

Let me get this straight. You believe that no evidence exists to indicate that the Bible didn't record the first dialogue between two men?

​

I would have said that if evolutionary theory is correct, which much evidence seems to indicate (see the rest of this forum), then there wasn't really any clear line demarcating the first dialogue. As communication evolved over many generations, from simple vocalisations to sophisticated languages, there would be no 'first dialogue' in the first place. Regardless, evidences suggest that the prehistoric Homo sapiens, a species which has existed for about 200,000+ years, had a sophisticated of a laryngeal apparatus very similar to what we currently have. Thus, I would find it difficult to believe they were used for the first time only 6000 years ago.

​

Once again, I hope you enjoy yourself here.

---

I'm afraid that many assertions made are not proven, not even as theories - admitted so by science. We have no proof or evidence of speech being derived by coos and grants. You use the period 200K + years - where are the transitory dots of the thread: have we found evidences of prototype speech 100K ago, more advanced speech 75K and 50K years ago? Nope. Contrastingly, languages are becoming simpler and less complex than the past ancient times. Secondly, ALL languages appear to have emerged around the same time - absolutely negating any possibility this occured independently and at far differing periods. Writings, which is the most obvious subsequence of speech - also appears to follow the genesis bold and specific dating - an incredible feat of vindicated datings - and also a formidable proof against the 200K year speech assumption! In fact, you should not/cannot reject that speech is less than 6000 years old: what's your scientifically verifiable reasoning?

quote:

---

Doddy:
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Seeing as you like to bring up language, consider this analogy: How did modern English evolve? With whom could the first speaker of modern English speak, unless another exacting, synchronising speaker appeared independently? Consider it for a moment.

---

I did think about it - and I'm not presenting my arguement from a theological premise - only a scientific and logical one. English is easily traceable of its origins, being an osmosis of several languages, including latin, german, greek and hebrew [almost all ancient words are hebrew derived - including 'HELLO']. English is not one of the primal languages. The latin and greek did not possess the hebrew 'V' alphabet/sound - thus we read ABraham with a B instead of the original AVraham. So it goes. The greek begat its 'alph-beta' from the hebrew alef-bet, when greece became the first nation to translate the Hebrew bible in 300 BCE ['The Septuagint']

quote:

---

Now, apply this to gender. Though, like communication, sex requires two matching beings, a male would not evolve immediately and suddenly. Given that hermaphroditism probably preceded separate sexes, it is not hard to imagine the species bifurcating into one type that is slightly specialised towards donating genetic material, and another that is slightly specialised towards receiving it. As this may, in some situations, be an advantage, slowly genders will evolve. You are right that if a male suddenly appeared, it wouldn't be able to mate, just as if an English speaker appeared in ancient Britannia, he or she wouldn't be able to talk.

---

That appears more sci-fi. Your term, 'mathing beings' leaves me unimpressed - we are not talking about finding a car part for a car - even of the right model car. In any case there is no proof or evidence for what you are professing: Genesis is logical in that the plausability of separation of a dual-gendered origin is the only sustainable premise for a positive/negative or male/female deriving.

quote:

---

But evolution, of language and of organisms, doesn't (usually) work that suddenly.

---

It only becomes vindicated as a sudden, evolution by-passing phenomenon, emerging in an already advanced state. This is provable with the Hebrew - it did appear to emerge suddently and in an already advanced state: that is why we have no alphebtical books around - even by older and mightier nations [phoenecia, sumerian] - even for a 1000 years after the Hebrew emerged and placed a vast amount of advanced, hebrew books - in an advanced state of literature which measures up to the best of literature today. Grammar was introduced via the OT.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
Genesis is the only theological document which deals with the universe origins

​

I seriously doubt that. What then is Hesiod's 'Theogeny' or the Vluspá?

---

I was'nt referring to head-bashing dieties or mythical heavenly dieties like Venus and Zeus. Genesis introduced creationism in a premise which is the only counterpart debated in science forums today. Evolution was introduced in Genesis [vegetation, fish, mammals, birds, animals - and humans correctly presented as the last life form]. I see numerous omissions of viable and vital positive factors in your conclusions.

quote:

---

Do you have Adam's middle and last names, dates, and address? Zip code? Birth certificate?

---

Middle-name, for the first human?! Son of 'whom'? Dates and addresses are given - but no street names!

quote:

---

Adam is mythical.

---

What do you think of the names listed in Adam's generation - also mythical? What also, do you think of the names listed in Abraham's generation? Are the names, dates and cultures of the canaanites authentic and contemporainous - or also mythical? I am trying to figure out your reasonings - if there are any. My reasonings are based on surrounding evidences - where a certain item is not provable or dis-provable. IOW - let the 'provables' be the measuring ruler?

quote:

---

doddy

​

Of course I can't show you that level of proof. Evidence of the past doesn't grow on trees. Just as a forensic scientist often cannot say exactly what occurred at a crime scene, archaeologists and anthropologists can't say exactly who was around. But, they can say with a very high level of certainty that there were far more than two humans around 6000 years ago - the evidence tells that much, at least.

---

Genesis does not negate prototypes, but it does specify the advent of speech endowed humans as 6000 years: this is provable by the lack of counter proof: we do NOT have any proof of more than two speech endowed humans!

quote:

---

Thus, there is good reason to doubt that Genesis, or at least Adam and Eve, are not really the original human beings.

---

The applicable factor is limited to speech: this is vindicated.

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
One must give credence to a text which admits another realm: this is - at least - not disprovable; the mythical factor is thus negated by a self-declared 'no contest' in the text.

​

Of course it isn't disprovable. It isn't provable either. It is on the same footing with a microscopic teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars.

---

No sir - because the teapot orbiting the sun does not have any surrounding evidences of a written, dated diarised account of speech endowed beings - and a host of other surrounding indicators. These are evidences which tilt the no proof either way factor.

quote:

---

To discuss the dates of the first humans and the 'transitory dots' will require another thread. I'm sure some exist that touch on this.

​

However, do you have evidence for your assertion that languages are becoming less complex? And not just the past 50 years or so, but for say...400 years? I would think that modern English is far richer, and able to describe many more things, than the English of that era, and before.

---

Of coz! Try reading a 300 year olde english document - you will need a translator and it will take eons to read a single sentence - because it is ensconsed in far richer and more complex factors. Ancient hebrew has self-contained numerals, and caters to more sounds with less alphabets (22); it even cntains an exclusive 'perfect tense' - denoting past/present/future. Language is being simplified, beginning with american english spellings, and followed now by almost digitalised texts abbreviated/simplified modes.

quote:

---

Secondly, ALL languages appear to have emerged around the same time - absolutely negating any possibility this occured independently and at far differing periods. Writings, which is the most obvious subsequence of speech - also appears to follow the genesis bold and specific dating - an incredible feat of vindicated datings - and also a formidable proof against the 200K year speech assumption!

​

Care to back this up? An example perhaps?

---

This is manifest and self-evident in all readings of history - and backed by hard-copy artifacts. All languages are presented as within the 6000 block - from picture writings on granite pyramids, to parchments, manuscripts and scrolls. In fact, there is no *HISTORY* per se prior to the 6000: name us a king, war, nation or country pre-6000?

quote:

---

IamJoseph writes:
In fact, you should not/cannot reject that speech is less than 6000 years old: what's your scientifically verifiable reasoning?

​

Yes I can reject it to the extent of near certainty. The fields of physics have yielded reliable dating of hominid fossils, many of which are (nearly) certainly older than 6000 years. The more recent of these, that is those at around 120,000 years, such as Skhul V, have a flexed basicranium (though not quite as flexed as later skulls, such as about 50,000 years ago). However, earlier hominids, and indeed most apes, have a straight one. This flexed basicranium has been shown to indicate a longer neck, due to accommodating of the human larynx and supralaryngeal vocal tract. Thus, I am very sure that the earlier men were speaking to one another.

---

Genesis correctly posits speech as the factor separating modern humans from all other life forms. Speech is varied from 'communications', brains and skeletal formations, common to all life. The theoretical assumptions of 120K year modern humans are notoriously couched on imaginative assumptions - with an embarrassing disconnect with modern human populations and mental prowess grads - the key factors seen within the last 6000 with modern man. We should have - literally - millions of non-disputive evidences, everywhere on the planet - including transitory grads: these are non-existent.

quote:

---

doddy

​

The reason Genesis is the debated over those other two is because those other religions (ancient Greek and Norse) have very few followers.

---

Rather, I think it is because Genesis was introduced to the world by two sources who claimed it as their own - but never followed or understood it for 2000 years before they emerged - and both those religions are mutually exclusive and contradicting of each other in their presentations - and of the OT understandings held before they emerged. The other factor is that both the NT and Quran are not historically vindicated, assuming all history from their own preferred end-point beliefs. This has resulted in anyone rejecting religions as myth instead of historically vindicated - as all in one bag. better, if each scripture be seen on its own merits.

quote:

---

doddy
You are shifting the burden of proof. A lack of opposing evidence doesn't make your claim correct - an excess of supporting evidence does.

---

Equally, it is ubsurd to expect today's science termed proof from an ancient text - without appropriate relative considerations. There are 1000s of statues in the OT, including the world's first scientific cencus, in the millions, with gender and age sub-totals - well before numericals were used this way (Ex); there are thus stats of history and what becomes scientifically proven or not proven as yet. It is for mankind to determine the proof. There is no such thing as science or maths - without historical veracity, nor can these be separated. Eg: Kind david was assumed as myth by scholars till recently - this has now been overturned with the Tel Dan find, which scientifically established David as a 3000 year true historical figure: this shows histrical veracity. Science, maths and history are an aligned factor, and we have to determine these items - I would add correct comprehension to this list.

quote:

---

Are you doing the same, declaring that nothing existed before 6000 years ago, because your net (historical writings) didn't catch it?

---

This is a miscomprehension of the texts. The 6000 figure is limited to speech endowed humans only, which the OT calendar is aligned with. It does not refer to life forms and the age of the earth.

quote:

---

Suffice it to say that the majority of organisms leave no trace of their existence after their death, and many of those traces that are left lie undiscovered somewhere on this vast planet. It is actually surprising that we have as much proof as we do. But anyway, this is going off topic.

---

The issue here is poor maths. The factor of time does not relate if trans-mutations are on-going. Consider a crystal ball changing colors continuously: this says the phenomenon is observable at all times - in all places. That traces do not exist after its destruction also says two other things: it is very convenient for certain scientific premises; and it is incorrectly termed as an elevation of the specie - it is a perishing of the specie. Only the 'seed' adaptation nominated in Genesis can be termed as an adaptation (elevation and preservement of a specie). It is also correct that 99.9% of all adaptation is verifiably conducted via the seed - including DNA transmissions.There is really no such thing as evolution - this is a recent term which serves as an intelligent placebo of the un-explained. Darwin's evlution differs from Genesis' evolution by the 'seed' factor ('within-specie' VS 'cross-specie'). From the greek word, 'evolve' - but evolve from what? Better, it be seen as "CREATION; EVOLUTION" - as opposed "CREATION VS EVOLUTION". Evolution is an after the fact phenomenon, operating only after the existence of pre-existing matter - else what will evolution evolutionise? Further, the process of evolution (graduations)cannot start in mid-term, as placed by darwin - all structures of the awesome universal engineerings are 'INTERGRATED' - alluding to an obvious, hovering program which can 'INTERGRATE' all systems.My point in all this was, Adam cannot be anything other than today's modern man - at least when he emerged as a speech endowed life form, which remains a unique entity today - in our midst: the reason for this is, Genesis negates cross-specie, while Darwin introduced this premise. Only one of these premises is vindicated in our midst. And the time factor is irrelevent because evolution, via both darwin and genesis versions - are on-going phenomenons. The perished specie is not required in this equation - we should see millions of in-transit cross-species. The latter has never occured outside of Darwin's novella.

quote:

---

doddy
Simply because some of the Bible has been verified does not make it entirely verified. Indeed, many of the cities and countries mentioned in James Bond novels have been verified, but that hardly makes James a real person.

---

Coherence is lacking in your analogy: while a novel can insert a fictional person into a true historical setting - there is no connection with the reporting of an ancient report which is vindicated as authentic - specially so if it is the only document which says that. The OT accounts for chunks of ancient history not available elsewhere for 1000s of years after its appearence.

quote:

---

"Are you doing the same, declaring that no speaking humans existed before 6000 years ago, because your net (historical writings) didn't catch it?"

---

Writings is an effect of speech, not the reason we cannot prove speech before the 6000 date. We know this from this side of the 6000 setting: writings emerged a few centuries after speech - not so the 120,000 years allocated to alledged speec humans.Edited by IamJoseph, : spell

quote:

---

vacate
That is true in some respects. Would you say that the level of language has become more complex in the medical field? Or perhaps the physics field? Did Shakespeare have words like - motherboard, monitor, amplifier, television, or dolbyprologicsurroundsound?

---

The simplification or streamlining is not related to medical technical terms, but to grammar, spelling and phonations. the word 'scuds' (missile) became commonplace only recently, with the Iraq war. But the older the language, the more complex, which contradicts the notion language started with grunts and coos. The hebrew OT is a complex work, representing the epitomy of grammar, taking the shortest route wordage, and this can require a math-like deciphering process, overturning past translations after deliberation. There is no past writing thread exemplying such literature, making it a msytery how it emerged.

quote:

---

If you insert a fictional character into a true setting, and your work remains and others don't, then you will be an account with parts that can be vindicated by future historians. But by no means do this imply that all the parts not verified are true.

---

The operative factor here is, the mark of veracity is gauged by the vindicated - and all provable factors are vindicated in the OT. This is not dismissable when the factors relate to an ancient time, nor is this seen elsewhere. This is no document with more provables than the OT.

quote:

---

Not all. In Papua New Guinea, speech existed for millenia without writing, and only with colonisation was writing introduced.

---

NG does not have an original writings, this is true - but this does not impact that writings closely followed speech. Also, the millenia is inside the 6000 - not of a period when speech for 120k years is vindicated. This also applies to the alledged australian aboriginals being 60k years old, as per cave markings: their population and mental prowess grads do not sustain that period.

quote:

---

dwise
Take case, for example. Case is used to indicate what function a noun or pronoun serves in the sentence. The eight Indo-European cases were nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, instrumental, locative, and ablative. Case would be expressed by modifying the nouns, usually with different endings but sometimes also with changes in the root; eg, the Greek nominative for "human male" is aner (alpha, nu, eta, rho), but in other cases the root changes to andr-, from which we get "android" and "androgenous". This modification of words to express case is called "inflection" and languages that possess this trait are called "inflected languages".

---

I believe you are mistaking 'knowledge' prowess with the understanding what is referred to by 'simpler' in language and writings. These are different paradigms and not contradictory. 'simpler' refers to the expression process, not the new knowledge how things work; indeed the term simpler is derived from an advanced premise to discard the superflous and in the pursuit of speedier communications - to cater to the throwaway instant mindset.'WORDS' and speech mode, as well as writings, was the ultimate science in ancient times: one had to be the equivalent of an esteemed PHD PROF to be a scribe, and enormous time and expense went into a manuscript or scroll - not only because of the masses being illeterate, but mainly because speech was more elaborate and connected to deeply held beliefs, in the absence of empirical sciences. Deseases were seen as curses and spells, and their antidote was via the spoken words and utterences. The protocol for appearing before a king or preist was formidable.What has intrigued me here, is that the hebrew alphabetical books (The Mosaic)appeared suddenly and in an already advanced form, without a trail of graduated advancements - from a small nation which appeared late in the scene. We have nothing of similar status from mighty nations such as Egypt, Phoenecia, Sumeria or the far east. All we have are stray bits of alphebets, theorised as prototypes due to similarities - but not a single historical book (a continueing narrative with multiple pages containing identifiable historical factors). This situation continues for almost a 1000 years after the OT emerged. We have nothing today which matches the OT in its grammar, literture and expressionism. It is an anomoly.

quote:

---

anglard

​

This also applies to the alledged australian aboriginals being 60k years old, as per cave markings: their population and mental prowess grads do not sustain that period.

​

Their 'mental prowess?' Does your lack of understanding of history, science and the NT require you to be a racist?

---

Not at all. The same would apply to any ancient peoples who do not exhibit the known ratios of time factored population and mental prowess: if any peoples are 60K years old - they would have most probably made it to the moon and back - 54,000 years ago, and their population would be some 100 trillion - even after factoring in all relevent issues such as deaths and deseases.

quote:

---

nosey

​

oh good, you've factored all that in! Excellent.

​

May I see the calculations then?

​

( lol I thought not)

---

But I'm not trying to be too smart or dogmatic - we have to remember at all times that darwin's evolution - or the origins of humans - are unknown and not resolved even by *THEORIES*. It is not an anomoly to have a variant view based on science and logic.Re the calculations relating to human population and mental prowess ratios, guess what - I got this from a desolate, barren, dry and fully documented and evidenced region of this planet: its called the Middle-east!