Was the first man a baby or an adult?

[zyncod]

Actually, mitochondrial systematics has found that more than likely, there was a "single" mother that gave birth to the line leading to every human living on Earth today - "Mitochondrial Eve." "She" could actually have been two or three people but not a hundred people.

[Cornelius]

1. Those who believe in the Biblical god, Jehovah learned from the Bible that he exists. The same Bible says he had no beginning. Why should anyone who believes in him believe otherwise?

 

aka the Alpha and the Omega, no beginning and no end. It can just be said that God is eternal.

 

2. He, being all powerful as well as eternal satisfies thermodynamic law 1, whereas the big bang theory doesn't, imo.

 

And that is another example of the clash between science and religion

[Daecon]

Does that make Adam and Eve brother and sister/father and daughter, or is Eve simply a female clone of Adam?

[Mokele]

Imo, there should be scores of firsts to lend some credence to the alleged randomly mutated and naturally selected stages of alleged evolution. There should also be scores, if not thousands of fossil verified first transitional evidences for both the alleged evolution of man as well as other living things. But alas, there scanty little for evos to grasp onto for any semblence of transitionals for support of the theory they hold so tenatiously to.

 

Try turning the ignorance setting of your posts down, they're painful to read.

 

News flash for the uninformed: We have *lots* of transitional fossils for most of the major groups. You want scores, we have 12 alone for whales, over half a dozen for humans, hundreds for early mammals, and *thousands* for hard-shelled invertebrates.

 

In fact, there is actually a fossil deposit, iirc, that captures punctuated equilibrium in action. You see one type of clam in the deposit, then suddenly a new one, except for one small, offset area. In this area, you see the first clams colonize, then slowly begin to change into a new species. Finally, the new clams re-appear in the main deposit and rapidly outcompete the old ones.

 

Or perhaps you'd like to hear a 200 page post on fossil evidence of whale evolution?

 

Try actually looking up the facts *before* you post. Makes you look less stupid than you actually are.

 

Does that make Adam and Eve brother and sister/father and daughter, or is Eve simply a female clone of Adam?

 

::plays "Dueling banjos"::

 

Ya'll come back now, ya hea?

 

Mokele

[Cornelius]

How would the first human survive if it was baby?

 

According to Genesis, there seems to be no blood-relationship between Adam and Eve, only in that Eve was created by God from a rib that was taken from Adam. They are two completely different human beings.

 

Genesis 2:22

"Then the Lord God made a woman form the rib he had taken out of the man (Adam), and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man'."

 

If you trust Genesis, then you'll conclude that the first man was indeed an adult.

[K9-47G]

According to the bible with whom did Adam and Eve's offspring reproduce? Their own family memebers?

[Cornelius]

According to the bible with whom did Adam and Eve's offspring reproduce? Their own family memebers?

 

Ah I had a feeling you would ask that.

 

Skeptics have used Cain’s wife time and again to try to discredit the book of Genesis as a true historical record. Sadly, most Christians have not been able to give an adequate answer to this question. As a result, the world thinks Christians cannot defend the authority of Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith.

 

For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about Cain’s wife posed by the outspokenly anti-Christian ACLU 3 lawyer Clarence Darrow.

 

Now time to answer your question.

 

The first son/child of Adam and Eve was Cain. Cain's brothers, Abel and Seth, were part of the 1st generation of children ever born on the earth. Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve, "And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters." According to the old tradition, Adam eventually had 33 sons and 23 daughters. The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, they were commanded to ‘Be fruitful, and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28). If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra, Biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations. We are not told when Cain married, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.

 

Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human. A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve, all are of "one blood." The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18–20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other. Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.

 

These days, if you marry a relative there is a high chance of your offspring having deformities. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes because of the children of Adam and Eve that married each other, slowly ruining the human genes. However, Adam and Eve did not have genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect, no mistakes. But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

 

Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (as you know it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

 

By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18–20). Also, there were plenty of people on the Earth by now, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.

 

Hope that answers your question. I know you're thinking this is BS, but this is the biblical answer, and it should at least be respected.

[john5746]

Hope that answers your question. I know you're thinking this is BS, but this is the biblical answer, and it should at least be respected.

 

That is your answer based on your biblical beliefs.

 

This is a great example of how a vague book can be used to justify and explain anything.

 

Maybe Cain and Eve? Abel and Adam? Maybe men could have babies back then? Maybe Adam and a donkey? Why not? Lions didn't eat meat, maybe they could concieve and suckle a litter of humans.

 

Everything was OK back in the good ol days.

[buzsaw]

the humans before us are proved by evidence in bones that they werent fully developed.

 

Most ancient human bones will never be seen. Only a relative few fossilized. Then nobody knows about the bones of the first people.

 

If adam and eve had children...how did those children get children?

 

Early ID created genes were likely superior to modern man, allowing close kin marriage.

 

How come gods eternity is possible...but not the universe' ?

 

Very good question. This's why I read Genesis one literally. It doesn't say when the universe was created. It simply states that when the heavens and the earth were made the Biblical god did it. It does say that the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day, but likely those stars were those of our own area of the universe, possibly our milkey way galexy. These would have been created with the appearance of age, just as Adam and Eve were. These two were created as adults. This is clear from the context. They were created, man and woman i.e. husband and wife.

 

as for the original question...maybe highly developed aliens created about 100 male adults and 100 female adults of theire own species and wanted to colonize this planet..and dropped them off..and brainwashed them first...then those species would adapt and become what humans are today..and the reason those aliens dont come back is cause their planet exploded. and were the only leftovers of an extinct race..

 

who knows? i might be right...

but either way...i cant imagen there to have been only max of 1 or 2 people in the beginning.

there had to be at least 100 total consisting of males and females.

 

This's wild conjecture with nothing to support it. At least the Biblical record is historical and complete with fulfilled prophecies.

[Cornelius]

That is your answer based on your biblical beliefs.

 

This is a great example of how a vague book can be used to justify and explain anything.

 

Maybe Cain and Eve? Abel and Adam? Maybe men could have babies back then? Maybe Adam and a donkey? Why not? Lions didn't eat meat' date=' maybe they could concieve and suckle a litter of humans.

 

Everything was OK back in the good ol days. [/quote']

 

lol calm down john, but I think I'll stick to my initial beliefs in the Bible no matter how far-fetched it sounds. Just to add something in, Adam looked around for a creature that looked like him among the animals but found none so God made a woman for him

[buzsaw]

How would the first human survive if it was baby?

 

According to Genesis' date=' there seems to be no blood-relationship between Adam and Eve, only in that Eve was created by God from a rib that was taken from Adam. They are two completely different human beings.

 

Genesis 2:22

"Then the Lord God made a woman form the rib he had taken out of the man (Adam), and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man'."

 

If you trust Genesis, then you'll conclude that the first man was indeed an adult.[/quote']

 

Good points, Cornelius, especially your first point on survival.

I do believe there was a blood relationship there, but the DNA of the genes likely were loaded with enough complex stuff to forefather what eventually becomes the entire human race. With evolution, the simple comes first. With ID creationism, the best and most complex comes first to decline in quality as time goes. This seems to follow the tendency implicated in the scientific TD laws, imo.

[john5746]

lol calm down john, but I think I'll stick to my initial beliefs in the Bible no matter how far-fetched it sounds. Just to add something in, Adam looked around for a creature that looked like him among the animals but found none so God made a woman for him

 

I am calm and I appreciate that you are as well. God made the woman, but hey maybe Adam found a nice looking ape also!

 

We also have to remember that it all started over with Noah. I don't know how many humans there were, but you had two of every beast. Including dino's or not? So I guess their genes were great at that point as well.

[Cornelius]

I am calm and I appreciate that you are as well. God made the woman, but hey maybe Adam found a nice looking ape also!

 

I hope not because that would make man genetically bisexual! (that is assuming you believe in the Bible).

 

We also have to remember that it all started over with Noah. I don't know how many humans there were, but you had two of every beast. Including dino's or not? So I guess their genes were great at that point as well.

 

Correct. The Ark contained Noah's family of 8, and also dinosaurs as well. You know what that means, Noah's family members started the incest chain once again! But their genes were "good" and not damaged so there were no deformities. Imagine...having to reproduce with your own family...no choice with the fate of humanity in your hands..or is it in your pants? I kid of course.

[Moopy]

Hope that answers your question. I know you're thinking this is BS, but this is the biblical answer, and it should at least be respected.

 

your saying to respect an answer a book written by mankind gave us.

there are so many other books out there...but they are taken for fiction.

i do not see difference between books.

 

 

Very good question. This's why I read Genesis one literally. It doesn't say when the universe was created. It simply states that when the heavens and the earth were made the Biblical god did it. It does say that the sun, moon and stars were created on the 4th day, but likely those stars were those of our own area of the universe, possibly our milkey way galexy. These would have been created with the appearance of age, just as Adam and Eve were. These two were created as adults. This is clear from the context. They were created, man and woman i.e. husband and wife.

 

we know now that stars,suns,moons or a big number and not just dots in the sky.

god created earth and made stars for the earth...now that just sounds dumb.

those stars are planets and solar systems themselves.

if stars were made on the 4th day.then so was earth cause earth from a large distant is only a spec of light (star)

if the sun was created the 4th day then the first 3 days it was at 0 degrees Kelvin.meaning everything that was created would die out.

also it would be kinda stupid that god did so much work to create earth and then just pay no attention to all the other planets wich were never defined by the bible as other planets..

i never heard a biblical explanation for other planets or why they are there(i mean..why stars..why does god so desperatly want stars for this planet)

if you pay attention and think a little...youll find that a random guy was like...wow...stars...let me write down in this scroll that a superbeing did it to give us something to look at..hey wow...clouds...superbeing did it....and so on.

 

i just think the whole thing doesnt make anymore sense than bananas running after monkeys.

[boxhead]

i am sure somewhere inbtn a baby and an adult

[Daecon]

What ethnicity were Adam and Eve supposed to be?

[boxhead]

all bibles are bullshit all around the world

[Mokele]

These days, if you marry a relative there is a high chance of your offspring having deformities. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes because of the children of Adam and Eve that married each other, slowly ruining the human genes. However, Adam and Eve did not have genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was "very good" (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect, no mistakes. But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

 

Except for the fact that molecular evidence completely refutes this. While there is a "mitochondrial eve", this does *NOT* mean there was only one human alive at the time, only that her descendants eventually out-competed the descendants of all the other humans of the time.

 

Note that the above is *evidence*, not based on moldy old books of dubious veracity. There is no "belief" in it; it is fact, and failure to acknowledge it is intellectual dishonesty.

 

I know you're thinking this is BS, but this is the biblical answer, and it should at least be respected.

 

Respect is earned, and here, it comes from logic, data and reasoning. The biblical view, however, popular contains no more of those than any of the "perpetual motion machine" threads in Psuedoscience, and ergo is not entitled to any respect at all.

 

The Ark contained Noah's family of 8, and also dinosaurs as well.

 

Bullshit. Dinosaurs and humans have *never* co-existed. Furthermore, care to explain how you fit two of every sauropod on that boat? The bible gives dimensions, and they're a damn sight smaller than even *one* adult of some sauropod species.

 

Look up Argentinosaurus, and tell me how you fit 300 *tons* of dinosaur, at 100+ feet long each, onto that boat. And those *weren't* the only titanosaurids.

 

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

 

I would like to note that this thread is in the biological sciences forum, *not* psuedoscience. If you continue to post about bullshit (aka creationism), it will be moved, or just your posts.

 

This is a genuine question about reality, not your fairy-tale world of arks and the Flintstones.

 

Mokele

[Cornelius]

Bullshit. Dinosaurs and humans have *never* co-existed. Furthermore' date=' care to explain how you fit two of every sauropod on that boat? The bible gives dimensions, and they're a damn sight smaller than even *one* adult of some sauropod species.

 

Look up Argentinosaurus, and tell me how you fit 300 *tons* of dinosaur, at 100+ feet long each, onto that boat. And those *weren't* the only titanosaurids.[/quote']

 

Of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. The Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.

[Hellbender]

Of the 668 supposed dinosaur genera, only 106 weighed more than ten tons when fully grown. The Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown. The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.

Now you're really reaching.

[Cornelius]

Hey it's a logical possibility.

[Moopy]

for crying out loud?!?!

 

how much more proof,facts,evidence or common sense do you people need to be convinced that the dinosaurs died out over 64 million years ago...ruled the earth 256 million years WITHOUT humans and that the earth is not a few thousand years old!

[Hellbender]

Hey it's a logical possibility.

*Sighs and shakes head*

[Cornelius]

Okay fine, since I do not possess the ability to back my statements up with 100% proof, I lose.

[Hellbender]

Okay fine, since I do not possess the ability to back my statements up with 100% proof, I lose.

I have said this before; its not too much to ask that you provide evidence. Don't be bitter. Science has no room for speculation and dogma.