Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

Faitheist, if you are interested in the more scientific aspects of this question you might go to YouTube and look up a series of videos by Dr. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist. The name of the series is Who Was Adam?.Though Ross is an astrophysicist he has an organization called Reasons to Believe and works in conjunction with other creation scientists. I am not qualified to give wholesale agreement or disagreement. But he gets the discussion going in a balanced and scientific way.Its 11 videos. Here's the first one -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8T1_PArJYEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

So you think that Adam and his wife Eve were not the first human beings created ?What would you say about the Apostle Paul's phrase "the first man Adam ..." (1 Cor. 15:45) ?

How can you prove either of those ?Is it necessary simply because you don't believe there could be a first man ?Too funny.

That argument may concern a Young Earth Creationists who insists that we know the millennium in which Adam lived. Since I don't subscribe to the view that that can be calculated your objection is not accounted as decisive. No proof there that there was no first man. That's your belief. It could be "mythos" dressed in scientific speculation as well. I have seen the artwork of imaginative artists.

What is your evidence that you know that no first man ever existed ?

Does that prove that there was never a #1 Human Being ?
Or does that just demonstrate some limitations of the scientific method in determining this matter ?I don't regard this limitation as proof there was no #1 human man. If I were a biologist, given the state of evolution theory today, I would look by experimentation in the direction of something more sudden.I think an all-encompassing gradualism is in trouble. Maybe the theory that man "faded" into being from another species is not what happened at all.Besides, in the laboratories where scientists true to prove gradualism by producing, say, fruitflies with wing mutations, are they not able to identify when the first one was produced ?Anyway, I see that there was disagreement over where this discussion should have been placed. It is a given for me that the Bible contains revelation of things some of which we could not have figured out by our scientific methods.It goes with the territory that God revealed some things to us and that He knows all the facts.And I think that you do not KNOW for scientific certainty that no #1 human ever lived. You are welcomed to believe so. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The Bible says that before MAN existed God said "Let us make MAN in our image, according to our likeness ..."Seems that God named MAN. Then MAN names the creatures.But the more salient point is the man is always unique and distinct from the other created lives on earth. Your evolution theory ever blurs this distinction. And for some this is a very welcomed concept for they wish to think of man as only an animal.I think the reasons for that are more related to the desire to be absolved from moral obligation. It is only one of a number of methods (including some religious) that men seek to quiet their conscience concerning their sins.Ie. "If I am just another animal, well, all things are OK."Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How come there is no other being on the planet exactly like or even close to a human being ?I mean dolphins and chimps are neat. But it is unrealistic to believe that any other living thing on the earth can be classed with a human being.

What kind of post modernist despair is this that a man cannot recognize that humans are light years ahead of cheetahs, cockroaches, crab grass, and water buffaloes ?You heard of the search for extra terrestrial intelligence SETI. How come they aren't spending the millions to search for say watercress or monitor lizards? Why is it the Search for Intelligence ? Something special about intelligence ? Why isn't it SETU - Search For Extraterrestial Unintelligents ?According to you something along the line of a cheetah would be just as exciting. Why not the Search For Extra Terrestial T-Rexs then funded by millions of dollars ?If we found two planets - one with just huge amounts of crab grass and another with cities, flying machines, televisions, and government, which do you think scientists would be more interested to go visit ?No difference, right ? So we find a planet filled with Sequoias and another filled with an Internet like technology, which do you think the people of earth would be more interested in ? How silly your false humility is. Mankind is unique on the earth.
Sorry if you from some sense of false humility, you cannot honestly admit that.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I agree that a non-theist or irreligious person has a human conscience to inform them of moral right and wrong.But I think the prospect of meeting a Divine Judge who has an infallible record of your deeds would be more of a concern than knowing that all wrong doers will only dissolve peacefully back into the dust. Evolution doesn't care about truth or goodness as an objective standard. It only cares for what will further the survival of some species.If there is a goodness out there, objectively, as a transcendent standard, how was it in existence before evolution caused life to arrive there at it ?If the good was a reality before evolution groped its way to cause a species to realize it, what IS that goodness ?

Given that we discovered two planets, one with only large lizard like creatures and another with advance civilization, what would scientists likely do ?I think for sure both would be exciting. I don't imply that the dinosaur world would not be exciting. But I'm certain that scientists would be far more interested in traveling to the one where there were intelligent beings like humans.When NASA sent out the Voyager space craft they included the recordings of human beings and a diagram of human beings. How come they didn't send duck feathers or the sounds of dogs barking ? Nay. It is not false pride. It is appreciating other life forms but REALISTICALLY assessing the more uniqueness of human beings.Realism understands that we are on one hand A creature like many others, whom we should appreciate. Yet at the same time realize that we are in some way on a higher plane of consciousness, a higher plane of life really.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Thank you for the correction. Point taken. But I think those pictures of other animals are meant not for their sakes, should the space craft somehow fall among lower animals, but for more intelligent beings. Ie. those who could appreciate music, and the appearance of other creatures. Notice that the diagrams of humans were at the top.Now let me ask you since another poster seems to jeer with giggles when I make the suggestion.If we discovered two planets both with exciting news - one with nothing but insects let's say, and the other with an advanced technological civilization sending to earth complex codes of information, to which world do you think we would give more research ?I think both are fascinating. I think far more interest would be had towards the planet with a human like civilization than the planet overrun by insect like creatures.Now if anyone comes back with a cavalier attitude - "Oh, you are just being overly anthropomorphic" we differ. No use belaboring the point.Humans are unique in the world and in the universe. Anyone who wants to retort "No more unique than a hedge hog or a salamander" I disagree.I relate a humorous little story - An elementary school child asked his father "Daddy what is the toughest animal on the earth?" The father said - "The African lion is the toughest animal. The lion is fearsome. He is called the king of the jungle. And the lion is held in awe by all hunters."The child sad "But dad, all the history books I read said that men hunted the lion, and that men captured the lion, and that even men tranquilized the lion and even gave it medicine. And even men brought in the lions to be in the circus and the zoo. So all the history books seem to say that man is the toughest creature on earth." And the father said "And that is what all history books are going to say until the lion learns to write history."Most of us regard humans being on the top the scale. And every evolutionary sequence I ever saw from imaginative artists always have in the front of the line, or the top of the tree, to at the end of the supposed ascending scheme - you guessed it, a human being. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

While I hear your fanfares about how ignorant I am and your name calling of my writing, somehow I never get anything from you supposedly administering superior education.Tell me. Why don't we elect a German Shepherd dog for president ?A dog has smelling skills far advanced of what a human can detect. How come we don't elect a dog for US president ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Completely misses the point. I thought you were suppose to be so much less ignorant than I.Which would generate more interest - a planet of termites or a planet of cities with radar, radio, TV, computers, internet, etc?"Ho hum. No difference" right ? Do you hate humanity ?

Which proves that they are at least not more intelligent. jar, for many years now after reading your posts, I can only regard you as 95% just a big mouth with good friends close by.