Which is right, Adam and Eve, or Evolution

Evolution, obviously.

Feel free to discuss

It isn't so obvious as one might think. The thing is that evolution answers only how life changed into what it is. It doesn't explain where it comes from. The Judeo-Christian genesis myth doesn't explain how life changed to this point, but does offer an explanation of sorts as to where life came from. It isn't a very likely explanation and there's no scientific evidence behind it, but it's still there.

Abiogenesis is the scientific explanation of the origins of life on earth.  However it is not nearly as strong of a theory as evolution.

There are also other scientific explanations of life on Earth, like panspermia. Although, panspermia still begs the question of where that life came from.

I said, Adam and Eve, or Evolution..

I never asked who how or why Adam and Eve / Monkeys were put on earth, but rather which is more likely to be the reason im posting this reply

I said, Adam and Eve, or Evolution..

I never asked who how or why Adam and Eve / Monkeys were put on earth, but rather which is more likely to be the reason im posting this reply

Then you clearly don't understand that these are different issues. Evolution explains the diversity of life we see today. Adam and Eve explains abiogenesis.

Quote from: guilt08 on June 23, 2010, 07:37:04 AM

I said, Adam and Eve, or Evolution..

I never asked who how or why Adam and Eve / Monkeys were put on earth, but rather which is more likely to be the reason im posting this reply

Then you clearly don't understand that these are different issues. Evolution explains the diversity of life we see today. Adam and Eve explains abiogenesis.

No, they are not different issues. They are different theories as to why we are here.

Whats your theory ?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 07:47:41 AM

Quote from: guilt08 on June 23, 2010, 07:37:04 AM

I said, Adam and Eve, or Evolution..

I never asked who how or why Adam and Eve / Monkeys were put on earth, but rather which is more likely to be the reason im posting this reply

Then you clearly don't understand that these are different issues. Evolution explains the diversity of life we see today. Adam and Eve explains abiogenesis.

No, they are not different issues. They are different theories as to why we are here.

Whats your theory ?

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Abiogenesis describes this. If you cannot understand this than we cannot go forward with this discussion.

Quote from: guilt08 on June 23, 2010, 07:51:16 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 07:47:41 AM

Quote from: guilt08 on June 23, 2010, 07:37:04 AM

I said, Adam and Eve, or Evolution..

I never asked who how or why Adam and Eve / Monkeys were put on earth, but rather which is more likely to be the reason im posting this reply

Then you clearly don't understand that these are different issues. Evolution explains the diversity of life we see today. Adam and Eve explains abiogenesis.

No, they are not different issues. They are different theories as to why we are here.

Whats your theory ?

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Abiogenesis describes this. If you cannot understand this than we cannot go forward with this discussion.

Abiogenesis or not, where did humans come from? Was it 2 humans doing dirty incest shit, or a group of humans, or a group of monkeys who became humans..

Dont be difficult, you know what im getting at

no I am unclear of what your getting at. Please enlighten me with more of your very intelligent posts

Abiogenesis or not, where did humans come from? Was it 2 humans doing dirty incest shit, or a group of humans, or a group of monkeys who became humans..

Dont be difficult, you know what im getting at

No I do not.

I said, Adam and Eve, or Evolution..

I never asked who how or why Adam and Eve / Monkeys were put on earth, but rather which is more likely to be the reason im posting this reply

If the who, how, or why Adam and Eve / Monkeys were put on earth is irrelevant how can you expect any satisfying answer?

If how they were put on Earth is irrelevant than I'd say that Adam and Eve is a better explanation. Coming from monkeys is more complex explanation than saying humans were just put here.

Remember, how they were put here is irrelevant as you have said.

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 23, 2010, 09:14:49 AM

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

When he said, "Events in the bible" he obviously meant that Adam and Eve were created and then evolution took its course. If you read his post in context with the thread you'd see he was not refering to everything else in the bible.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 23, 2010, 09:14:49 AM

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

When he said, "Events in the bible" he obviously meant that Adam and Eve were created and then evolution took its course. If you read his post in context with the thread you'd see he was not refering to everything else in the bible.

Well if you wanna take ONLY the Adam and Eve bit, you might as well put it as "space aliens made humans" because that's about all you can say without invoking anything else.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 23, 2010, 09:14:49 AM

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

When he said, "Events in the bible" he obviously meant that Adam and Eve were created and then evolution took its course. If you read his post in context with the thread you'd see he was not refering to everything else in the bible.

Well if you wanna take ONLY the Adam and Eve bit, you might as well put it as "space aliens made humans" because that's about all you can say without invoking anything else.

While that DOES act as a similar explaination to Adam and Eve, it would still beg the question of where the aliens came from. I believe the OP was asking us to answer whether God creating us or evolution creating us is correct, though he later becomes vague in what he actually wants.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 06:34:34 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 23, 2010, 09:14:49 AM

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

When he said, "Events in the bible" he obviously meant that Adam and Eve were created and then evolution took its course. If you read his post in context with the thread you'd see he was not refering to everything else in the bible.

Well if you wanna take ONLY the Adam and Eve bit, you might as well put it as "space aliens made humans" because that's about all you can say without invoking anything else.

While that DOES act as a similar explaination to Adam and Eve, it would still beg the question of where the aliens came from. I believe the OP was asking us to answer whether God creating us or evolution creating us is correct, though he later becomes vague in what he actually wants.

Well with God it becomes: Who created God?

The only thing that makes sense to me is the randomness of the Universe spawned life by accident, which became more and more complex until it becomes completely distinguished from non-life.
But this idea is not something people like to think about because it basically says
1. We're nothing more than very complex machines.
2. We have no purpose.

Well with God it becomes: Who created God?

If you ask Babs or Canadark that they'll say, "He's God. He needs no creator. Just because the things he has created need to have come from something else to exist, does not mean God himself carries this property."

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 23, 2010, 09:14:49 AM

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

When he said, "Events in the bible" he obviously meant that Adam and Eve were created and then evolution took its course. If you read his post in context with the thread you'd see he was not refering to everything else in the bible.

Well if you wanna take ONLY the Adam and Eve bit, you might as well put it as "space aliens made humans" because that's about all you can say without invoking anything else.

Evolution would not allow that, since it predicts that humans and all animals evolved from simplier forms, and did not just appear as they are in their current form.

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 06:34:34 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 23, 2010, 09:14:49 AM

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

When he said, "Events in the bible" he obviously meant that Adam and Eve were created and then evolution took its course. If you read his post in context with the thread you'd see he was not refering to everything else in the bible.

Well if you wanna take ONLY the Adam and Eve bit, you might as well put it as "space aliens made humans" because that's about all you can say without invoking anything else.

Evolution would not allow that, since it predicts that humans and all animals evolved from simplier forms, and did not just appear as they are in their current form.

As I recall there is no biblical text that doesn't say that Adam and Eve couldn't have been Neanderthals...

Not to say were the beginning of the evolutionary chain for everything but rather Adam and Eve could have evolved into human we know today.

Perhaps we are the product of Neanderthal incest.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

As I recall I spent an entire thread arguing with babsinva over this (to no avail).

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

As I recall I spent an entire thread arguing with babsinva over this (to no avail).

And why can't you see why? The bible's abilities to take note of assassinations and real world cities clearly proves that the Great Flood actually existed.

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on June 23, 2010, 09:09:41 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

As I recall I spent an entire thread arguing with babsinva over this (to no avail).

And why can't you see why? The bible's abilities to take note of assassinations and real world cities clearly proves that the Great Flood actually existed.

Adam and Eve, too.  This thread is completely pointless.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 09:11:59 PM

Quote from: Myjafjallajokul on June 23, 2010, 09:09:41 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

As I recall I spent an entire thread arguing with babsinva over this (to no avail).

And why can't you see why? The bible's abilities to take note of assassinations and real world cities clearly proves that the Great Flood actually existed.

Adam and Eve, too.  This thread is completely pointless.

I agree, the OP provided no viable explainations.

Now, if we threw in the Flying Spaghetti Monster into the mix, this thread makes more sense.

Abiogenesis or not, where did humans come from? Was it 2 humans doing dirty incest shit, or a group of humans, or a group of monkeys who became humans..

Dont be difficult, you know what im getting at

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this? Humans did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys are a modern genus. Get your facts straight or go back to school.

Quote from: guilt08 on June 23, 2010, 08:05:45 AM

Abiogenesis or not, where did humans come from? Was it 2 humans doing dirty incest shit, or a group of humans, or a group of monkeys who became humans..

Dont be difficult, you know what im getting at

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this?

Yes, it's a pretty common and inconsequential error.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on June 23, 2010, 07:43:00 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 06:34:34 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 23, 2010, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Lorddave on June 23, 2010, 04:53:11 PM

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on June 23, 2010, 09:14:49 AM

They are not mutually exclusive. The events as described in the Bible could have happened and then evolution took the forms in Eden and evolved them to those we see today.

As everyone else has said, these are completely different issues.

Except that the great flood wiped out all humans except one extended family. 

Not only that but you gotta explain the massive amount of genetic diversity required to sustain a population.  If you took 2 random people, put them into an isolated colony where all they had to do was eat, sleep, and breed.... you'd have a dead colony in about 100 years or so.

Of course, bible guys counter this with "Adam and Eve were perfect and had perfect DNA which had all the possible combination of human genetics within them".  Which I then counter: So where did it go?


Now, the creation story could be something else...
It could be the results of primitive humans being told the origins of civilization by a highly advanced species.

When he said, "Events in the bible" he obviously meant that Adam and Eve were created and then evolution took its course. If you read his post in context with the thread you'd see he was not refering to everything else in the bible.

Well if you wanna take ONLY the Adam and Eve bit, you might as well put it as "space aliens made humans" because that's about all you can say without invoking anything else.

Evolution would not allow that, since it predicts that humans and all animals evolved from simplier forms, and did not just appear as they are in their current form.

As I recall there is no biblical text that doesn't say that Adam and Eve couldn't have been Neanderthals...

Not to say were the beginning of the evolutionary chain for everything but rather Adam and Eve could have evolved into human we know today.

Perhaps we are the product of Neanderthal incest.

Still would not matter really, Neandrathal, nor any other complex animal, could form instantly according to evolution.  They instead evolved from simplier forms gradually.  Modern organs that Neandrathal had such as the heart, or the eye could not have just been created in their current form, nor could vertebre, skeletons, etc.

Quote from: guilt08 on June 23, 2010, 08:05:45 AM

Abiogenesis or not, where did humans come from? Was it 2 humans doing dirty incest shit, or a group of humans, or a group of monkeys who became humans..

Dont be difficult, you know what im getting at

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this? Humans did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys are a modern genus. Get your facts straight or go back to school.

The most correct term would actually be that we are monkeys.  The very same way that we are mammals and vertebrates.

Actually, we're not monkeys, we're apes. Monkeys are on another, very close branch on the evolutionary tree. We are simians, as are monkeys, but we're not part of the same superfamilies that make up monkeys.

As I recall there is no biblical text that doesn't say that Adam and Eve couldn't have been Neanderthals...

I'm loving that triple negative, there.

Actually, we're not monkeys, we're apes. Monkeys are on another, very close branch on the evolutionary tree. We are simians, as are monkeys, but we're not part of the same superfamilies that make up monkeys.

Correct, we are apes, but apes are monkeys.  I asked my Cousin about this a few months ago, who is working on her Anthropology PHD, and she confirmed that the ancestor of Modern Apes and Modern monkeys was itself a primitive monkey.  As a result all apes are desendent monkies and therefore are monkeys.

Also, take a look at this: