Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 8:52 AM
25 online now:
edge, Hyroglyphx, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Stile (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,799 Year: 9,835/19,786 Month: 2,257/2,119 Week: 293/724 Day: 18/114 Hour: 4/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345678Next
Author Topic:   Were Adam and Eve homo sapiens?
Jon Paine
Member (Idle past 4247 days)
Posts: 65
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 05-24-2007


Message 1 of 107 (407837)
06-28-2007 6:54 PM


Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...

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"?

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.

quote:
The Pleistocene is commonly known as "The Ice Age". The Holocene Epoch includes all recorded human history. These two Epochs span just the last 1.6 million years.

quote:

The oldest human fossil found (named Lucy and found in Ethiopia) has been back dated to between 3 and 3.6 million years ago. Lucy was not a Homo Sapien, but we do know that she was a hominid, she walked upright. Chances are our species are direct descendants of Lucy's species.

The earliest Homo Sapien found to date is 200,000 years old but that's not to say a Homo Sapien could be found that dates back 400,000 years or longer!


The question put forth for discussion is, "Were Adam and Eve Homo Sapiens?

Reference websites provided below.
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/USGSNPS/gtime/gtime2.html
http://www.askipedia.com/askipedia-article-015001-88.htm


For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring. -Carl Sagan
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 06-28-2007 7:47 PM Jon Paine has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Doddy, posted 06-28-2007 8:38 PM Jon Paine has responded
 Message 7 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 8:33 AM Jon Paine has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Jon, posted 07-02-2007 4:36 AM Jon Paine has not yet responded

    
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 2 of 107 (407838)
06-28-2007 6:56 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.


Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals

    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, and Practice Makes Perfect


  •   
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30996
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 4.2


    Message 3 of 107 (407843)
    06-28-2007 7:47 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Jon Paine
    06-28-2007 6:54 PM


    Adam and Eve never existed.
    So what is your point?


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon Paine, posted 06-28-2007 6:54 PM Jon Paine has not yet responded

      
    Doddy
    Member (Idle past 4082 days)
    Posts: 563
    From: Brisbane, Australia
    Joined: 01-04-2007


    Message 4 of 107 (407847)
    06-28-2007 8:38 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Jon Paine
    06-28-2007 6:54 PM


    Jon Paine writes:

    which of the many species of humankind was made in Genesis? Was it homo sapien, homo erectus, cro magnon, neadrathal, or perhaps "lucy"?


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

    Humans were not created directly by God from dust - that is a work of fiction. I assume, however, the author of that passage (and Ian Fleming) intended to make their characters Homo sapiens.

    Jon Paine writes:

    Were Adam and Eve Homo Sapiens?

    As jar has pointed out, we are not descended from just a single couple. I do assume that Adam and Eve were intended to be Homo sapiens by the author, but we can't comment on what they were in reality any more than we can comment on the primary school that James Bond went to, as both Adam and James are fictional.

    Personally, and this could just be because I had a debate on this issue yesterday, I would have rather talked about which species was involved in the fall, if indeed there was one. Maybe if this topic doesn't get anywhere, we could change topics and ask the admins to move this thread.


    Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

    Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Fossil, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

    Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon Paine, posted 06-28-2007 6:54 PM Jon Paine has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by Jon Paine, posted 06-29-2007 4:43 PM Doddy has not yet responded
     Message 8 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 8:45 AM Doddy has responded
     Message 9 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 9:04 AM Doddy has responded

        
    Jon Paine
    Member (Idle past 4247 days)
    Posts: 65
    From: Los Angeles, California
    Joined: 05-24-2007


    Message 5 of 107 (407987)
    06-29-2007 4:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Doddy
    06-28-2007 8:38 PM


    Which species was involved in the fall?
    Personally, and this could just be because I had a debate on this issue yesterday, I would have rather talked about which species was involved in the fall, if indeed there was one. Maybe if this topic doesn't get anywhere, we could change topics and ask the admins to move this thread.

    I like that idea. Perhaps Admin could just re-title it and move it to an appropriate forum whether or not it takes off here.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Doddy, posted 06-28-2007 8:38 PM Doddy has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by jar, posted 06-29-2007 5:42 PM Jon Paine has not yet responded

        
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30996
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 4.2


    Message 6 of 107 (407993)
    06-29-2007 5:42 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by Jon Paine
    06-29-2007 4:43 PM


    There was no Biblical Fall.
    There is an extra-Biblical account, where Satan Falls, but other than that, can't think of a Fall.


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by Jon Paine, posted 06-29-2007 4:43 PM Jon Paine has not yet responded

      
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1841 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 7 of 107 (408048)
    06-30-2007 8:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by Jon Paine
    06-28-2007 6:54 PM


    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by Jon Paine, posted 06-28-2007 6:54 PM Jon Paine has not yet responded

        
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1841 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 8 of 107 (408050)
    06-30-2007 8:45 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Doddy
    06-28-2007 8:38 PM


    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Doddy, posted 06-28-2007 8:38 PM Doddy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 10 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 9:14 AM IamJoseph has responded

        
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1841 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 9 of 107 (408053)
    06-30-2007 9:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 4 by Doddy
    06-28-2007 8:38 PM


    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by Doddy, posted 06-28-2007 8:38 PM Doddy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 9:31 AM IamJoseph has responded

        
    Doddy
    Member (Idle past 4082 days)
    Posts: 563
    From: Brisbane, Australia
    Joined: 01-04-2007


    Message 10 of 107 (408054)
    06-30-2007 9:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by IamJoseph
    06-30-2007 8:45 AM


    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.

    IamJoseph writes:

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


    Or mythical.

    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.


    Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

    Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

    Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 8:45 AM IamJoseph has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:02 AM Doddy has responded

        
    Doddy
    Member (Idle past 4082 days)
    Posts: 563
    From: Brisbane, Australia
    Joined: 01-04-2007


    Message 11 of 107 (408056)
    06-30-2007 9:31 AM
    Reply to: Message 9 by IamJoseph
    06-30-2007 9:04 AM


    IamJoseph writes:

    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.

    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.

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

    Anyway, we are digressing. Perhaps a new topic is in order.

    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 Völuspá?


    Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

    Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

    Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 9 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 9:04 AM IamJoseph has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:30 AM Doddy has responded

        
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1841 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 12 of 107 (408059)
    06-30-2007 10:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by Doddy
    06-30-2007 9:14 AM


    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?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 9:14 AM Doddy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:20 AM IamJoseph has responded
     Message 16 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 10:44 AM IamJoseph has responded

        
    Coragyps
    Member
    Posts: 5393
    From: Snyder, Texas, USA
    Joined: 11-12-2002
    Member Rating: 3.5


    Message 13 of 107 (408064)
    06-30-2007 10:20 AM
    Reply to: Message 12 by IamJoseph
    06-30-2007 10:02 AM


    can you prove a human with a 'name', date and address prior to Adam

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

    Adam is mythical.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by IamJoseph, posted 06-30-2007 10:39 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

        
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1841 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 14 of 107 (408067)
    06-30-2007 10:30 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by Doddy
    06-30-2007 9:31 AM


    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 Völuspá?


    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.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 9:31 AM Doddy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 17 by Doddy, posted 06-30-2007 10:50 AM IamJoseph has responded

        
    IamJoseph
    Member (Idle past 1841 days)
    Posts: 2822
    Joined: 06-30-2007


    Message 15 of 107 (408069)
    06-30-2007 10:39 AM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Coragyps
    06-30-2007 10:20 AM


    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?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 06-30-2007 10:20 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

        
    1
    2345678Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019