Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?

LOLBut many of us also keep pointing out that YOU keep misrepresenting what the Bible actually says and perverting the stories.AbE:There are several stories in the Bible (mutually exclusive stories by the way) that use creation as a plot device.In the older story found in Genesis 2&3 there is a character called Adam and one called Eve, BUT in the much newer story found in Genesis 1 there is no character called "Adam" rather there is the term for Mankind, male and female and encompassing an unknown hoard of folk. No Eve rather just male and female humans.Therefore the Bible does not support the concept that there was any "First man" or "First woman".Edited by jar, : see AbE:

We shed this Victorian era bias a long time ago. We point to all species as being equally evolved since we are all equidistant from our common ancestor. The speed at which a sperm moves has no bearing on the fitness of the offspring produced from that sperm. We certainly put more merit in the existence of our species, but we also realize that this is a subjective bias that has no bearing on the process of evolution itself. It is no different than caring more for your close relatives than a distant stranger across the globe. That's like saying that the final goal of geology is a mountain that can't be eroded. Evolution is just a process. It has no goal or purpose. As long as mortal species are able to reproduce and adapt they will continue to be mortal. It is humans that say that. Maybe? Have any evidence?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Excuse me? Besides the Coffee House, the forum I post most into is the Faith and Belief forum. Most of my posts are outside of the science forums. And I am a Christian. WTF? proofI would have to go with "yes". That would be less miraculous than the hand of God being involved. And you seem to only include natural processes.But I don't know why you picked that particular scenario...Anyways, now answer my questions.

I believe that last posts I read from you were in the Intelligent Design area. I think abiogenesis in this proposed manner would be no less miraculous than God forming man from the dust of the ground and breathing the breath of life into his nostrils and man becomming a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)I don't have enough faith to believe that an accident is responsible for life. It is a good example of something asked of me to believe by some antitheistic evolutionists. And they are asking me to exercise a great deal of faith to believe something so improbable. Sure, after I leave this writing field and take a quick re-look at your question. Then I'll quote you and give you my reply.

Yes. Funny you should mention that. When I witnessed my first child being born I did have the sensation - "This is a miracle." When I first became a reader of the Bible I had my doubts. But I did not start my reading in the Old Testament. I was very suspicious of it and had a very large naturalistic filter.In my case I first became impressed with the character of Jesus in the New Testament. And that to the point that I eventually settled on deciding that His integrity, wisdom and knowledge in this pertaining to God's work and human life was trustworthy.So I gradually developed an attitude that what was believed by Christ must be true. And I noticed that Christ took the Tanach (Old Testament) seriously indeed. So I decided that if Jesus took it seriously then I should also take it seriously.Now, the evidence that Jesus took Genesis seriously as history occurs in a number of places. But in the place concerning the first man I would point to
Mark 10:6; Matthew 19:4."But from the beginning of creation, He made them male and female. For this cause a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. So what God has yoked together, let man not separate." (Mark 10:6-9) The discussion is on the subject of divorce. But the references Jesus uses are from Genesis , both chapter one and two, each concerning the creation of human beings.From Genesis 1 - "But from the beginning of creation, He made them male and female" certainly corresponds to Genesis 1:27 - "And God created man in His own image; male and female He created them." From Genesis 2 - " For this cause a man leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. " corresponds to Genesis 2:23,24 - "And the man said, This time this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called Woman because out of Man this one was taken. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." Reading how the Lord Jesus referred to these portions of Genesis and the story of the beginning of creation, I decided that if it was good enough for Jesus to teach from, then I should take the history seriously.Another place where Jesus appeared to take Genesis seriously is in John 8:44 - "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks it out of his own possessions; for he is a liar and the father of it." This passage also impresses me that Jesus took Genesis seriously as history.1.) The devil instigated Cain to murder Abel in the stories of the beginning.2.) The serpent was a liar but is considered the devil in some way.3.) The devil, represented by the serpent, was a liar initially lying to the first couple Adam and Eve.4.) The devil, represented by the serpent, is the father of lies, being the source of lies and falsehood.5.) This devil being "your father" , as Jesus scolds the Pharisees, strongly implies the nature of Satan has been transmitted to man. The worst expression of this being that as Cain killed Abel, these religionists also want to murder the Son of God.All these evidences lead me to believe Jesus Christ took early Genesis as history. The integrity of Jesus Christ is to me beyond questioning. So I believe the account of God's creation of the first man as is seen in Genesis 2:7.Adam was not born out of a previous female womb of any kind. But he was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Adam became a living soul.Human existence on this planet, I believe, is grounded in a supernatural act of God the Creator.

This criticism is invalid because Genesis 5:1-3 definitely links Genesis 1:26,27 and Genesis 2:7 together, showing that the specific "Adam" is the man "made in the likeness of God", and that the "male and female" that God first created He called "Adam".This can be considered as saying that Adam and his wife Eve, were considered like Mr. and Mrs. Adam. Genesis 5:1-3 - "This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created Adam, He made him in the likeness of God [see 1:26] Male and female He created them, [see 1:27] and He blessed them and called their name Adam, on the day when they were created. jar has badly misrepresented the truth of the Bible.
The two accounts are not mutually exclusive at all but complimentary.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

But the two accounts are mutually exclusive and you are simply showing once again that you have not read the Bible. Both the order stuff is created as well as the methods used are as different in the two stories as the two different Gods described.

Abiogenesis by some as yet undetermined mechanism is less miraculous because we are only looking at known processes which can be tested in the lab. Unless God can be tested on the lab bench and His methods tested and repeated by us, your scenario is necessarily more miraculous and less scientific.

Your creationist straw man again.None of the leading abiogenic hypotheses propose such a crazy scenario.But you heard this from some creationists somewhere and read it on some creationist sites so now it is stuck in your head, isn't it. That is the poison of creationist thought.

It has gone out of favor for other theories, such as panspermiation.
I hear of seeds of life coming from comets and other scenarios.It is only natural that there be a number of popular beliefs. I am 64 years old. And I read it from books on biology and science. Maybe you don't remember when that was taught in science classes.Now if that theory has been replaced by others, I accept that. I don't have enough faith to believe that no outside intelligence was involved in the design of living things.The louder the naturalist yawns the more unlikely it seems that abiogenesis accidently kicked off the first organism. And this suspicion of mine is not based on what scientists do not know. It is based on what man knows.Anyway, here in the Bible Study room, my concern is that the weight of evidence in Scripture seems that it wants us to understand that there was a First Man and a First Woman.If I as a Christian fail to see this, I think it terribly undermines two critical matters taught in the Bible:1.) The need for the institution of marriage.2.) The need for redemption for reconciliation to God.Blurring the truth of a first man and woman weakens terribly both of those important tenets of the Christian faith. Genesis 2:18-24 are the foundation of the human marriage institution. And if Adam and his wife are fictional because mankind FADED into existence with no first couple, than there is no reason to take seriously the institution of marriage as it is explained it has arisen. Genesis 3:21 foreshadows the need for redemption in that the man and his wife were covered with coats of a slain animal. This is a picture of the covering of the sinner with the blood of the slain Son of God. If Adam and his wife Eve were not the recipients of this act of God because they never really lived, then there is little reason to see the extended significance of this act of God.Both biblical truths are very important to the human race.

It may be less scientific for sure ... but truth.. That is what is very important.Are we diminished if our Creator has revealed some things to us that we might not yet be able to know UNLESS God had told us ?Does that cause the scientist to forgo many happy years of research more about a matter ? It didn't stop many of the theist scientists of the past.Exactly how is mankind diminished of God has by revelation disclosed some things to us that we may not be able to know otherwise ? I am still eager to see what science can further explain while trusting that He is the Designer, Creator, and ultimate starter of life.I am even willing to be taxed so that science can try to figure out more about biological life. Except I might not be happy with flicking two cents in the direction of the likes of a Richard Dawkins.

Then you miss-remember or had a bad (or religiously motivated) science teacher.Even the earlier hypotheses of abiogenesis in the last 60 years never involved the ridiculous notion that a fully formed living cell was poofed together on the end of a lightning bolt, or anything else. The process, whatever it turns out to have been, has always been seen to have been a slow chemical process with, maybe, a lucky chance encounter of molecules forming the first self-replicating short simple chains, not a fully formed cell.What we do not know is precisely what chemicals, what molecules, formed these first chains and how the self-replication was accomplished. The "seeds of life" thing is the misleading pop-culture way of saying the chemicals and molecules necessary for nature's multi-million year experiment to make life on earth were brought in on comets, asteroids and dust. Well, duh! Everything on this planet was brought in here from out there. Big whoop.Panspermia, where an already evolved organism, not just the molecules, are brought (or floated) to earth from somewhere doesn't address the question at all. It only puts an abiogenic event much further back in time and onto some other planet.None of the above, jaywill, negates the hypothesis that some abiogenic event of natural course, without any poof or magic necessary, was the precursor to what we call life on this planet.The only people who ever said "Science says complete living cells just poofed up out of the slime," are creationists on a mission to obfuscate and those who did not pay attention or understand. I agree. It is worthless. Especially since the existance of the diety in question is doubtfull at best.Edited by AZPaul3, : lighter touchEdited by AZPaul3, : clarity? I hope.

Nonsense. These were standard books breaking down current science thought for the general public. They were evolution friendly not evolution hostile. Now, in hindsight, it looks "ridiculous."How do you know that in another 60 years some current theories will look just as ridiculous to a coming generation ? I don't have enough faith to believe in such a "lucky chance." That is that self-replicating was a act of "luck" and it has, in just the same "lucky" manner cascaded down to produce the massive encredible vaired biosphere that I see around me.That would be a long miracle. If that is what happened it surely argues to me for intelligence working. It may have devolved into "pop-culture". It was originally proposed as a idea to be considered seriously.And how do you know the more current sophisticated theory of life's origins will appear as "pop-culture" as well in a short time ? I don't have enough faith to imagine that an knowledgeable intelligence was not involved in the development of life on the planet. You'll be saying the same thing when seriously considered intelligenceLESS theories extinguish under the realization of how improbable they are.How do I know you won't be back here next year this time trying to blame the failed current theories on creationist conspiracy ? Now we get down to your real complaints. Your sins are doubtful, A righteous Savior God is doubtful, and His revelation to the man He loves is "worthless."Are you sure these are not the real underlying reasons for your religious devotion to a purely naturalistic evolutionary dogma ? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I believe that the Creator of man appeared to the first man created in a friendly form looking LIKE him. The first man therefore had a recollection concerning his Creator as looking like his own appearance.This passage indicates that God probably came to Adam appearing like Adam - "And they heard the sound of Jehovah God walking about in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God among the trees of the garden.

​

And Jehovah God called to the man and said to him, Where are you ?

​

And he said, I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked; so I hid myself." (Genesis 3:8-10) God came seeking a friendly and mutual communion with Adam and his wife which had now been spoiled because of their disobedience in the what they ate of the forbidden tree.This suggests that though God is omniscience and omnipresent He did not appear at first to Adam that way. There is no need for God to ask "Where are you?" much less come walking "in the cool of the evening" unless God temporarily manifested Himself to the first human being in an anthropomorphic form.If I am right, then it is not great stretch to envision a "Man like" being, though glorious stooping down to miraculously create Adam in the first place from the dust of the ground. This is indicated in the previous chapter - "Jehovah God formed man with the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul. And Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there He put the man whom He had formed." (Genesis 2:7,8) In the incarnation of God as the man Jesus Christ in John's Gospel we see a mysterious moment against where Jesus stooped down and was writing something unknown in the dust on the earth. "They said to Him, Teacher, this woman has been caught committing adultery, in the very act. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. What then do you say? But they said this to tempt Him, so that they might have reason to accuse Him.

​

But Jesus stooped down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

​

But when they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.

​

And again He stopped down and wrote on the ground." (John 8:4-8) This was now God come by incarnation - born of a virgin woman miraculously. But in Genesis God did appear in form as a man, not only to Adam but certainly latter also to Abraham in Genesis 18.We do not know what Jesus was writing on the ground. Mysteriously, we can only guess. Perhaps He was writing the names of the men who had committed adultery with the woman. He is God become a man and He knows.I imagine that His act of stooping was to Him reminiscent that it was Himself that appearing as a man He had created humanity to begin with in Genesis chapter 2, forming man from the dust of the ground.Now, I do not know that that stooping in John chapter 8 has anything to do with God in the form of a man kneeling to form man from the dust in Genesis 2. But I do know that Jesus told the crowd in John 8 before Abraham came into being He was the "I AM" - the eternal God of the book of Exodus: "Then Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham ? Jesus said to them, truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.

​

So they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus was hidden and went out of the temple." (John 8:57-58) I think that God appeared to man in man's creation manifested in a form like that which He was creating. He conversed with Adam in that form and Adam and his wife Eve passed down his experience to hundreds of his fellow human beings after him.There was a first man and woman which had an extraordinary encounter with their Creator. I believe man's existence on this planet is grounded in the supernatural.I don't believe mankind gradually faded into existence from pre-human animals so that no FIRST man could be conceived.

it was never in any text book that lightening created a micro-organism when it hit the 'primordial' soup. That would be magic. That's just you not understanding what was being said and now repeating it. That idea looked as daft then as it does now - a micro-organism is a massively sophisticated thing which will have taken millions and possibly billions of years to evolve from simple chains of chemicals.