Why Adam and Eve was a true story explained

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,937
Archaeology shows that there have been people who lived in caves and used simple stone tools. There are still people who do the same. All people on earth today are descended from Noah and his family. Before the flood,Genesis indicates there was at least enough technology to make musical instruments, farm, forge metal implements, build cities, and build a huge seaworthy vessel. After the dispersion from Babel, the hostilities induced by the new languages may have forced some groups to scatter rather rapidly, finding shelter where and when they could.

In some instances, the stone tools may have been used temporarily, until their settlements were fully established and they found and exploited metal deposits for example. In others, the original diverging group may not have taken the relevant knowledge with them. Ask an average family group today how many of them, if they had to start again, as it were, would know how to find, mine, and smelt metal-bearing deposits. Obviously, there has been technological (cultural) degeneration in many post-Babel groups.

In some cases, harsh environments may have contributed. The Australian Aborigines have a technology and cultural knowledge which, in relation to their lifestyle and need to survive in the dry outback, is most appropriate. This includes the aerodynamic principles used in making boomerangs (some of which were designed to return to the thrower, while others were not).

Sometimes we see evidence of degeneration that is hard to explain, but is real, nonetheless. For instance, when Europeans arrived in Tasmania, the Aborigines there had the simplest technology known. They caught no fish, and did not usually make and wear clothes. Yet recent archaeological discoveries suggest that earlier generations had more knowledge and equipment.

For instance, archaeologist Rhys Jones believes that in the Tasmanian Aborigines' distant past, these people had equipment to sew skins into complex clothes. This contrasts with the observations in the early 1800s that they just slung skins over their shoulders. It also appears that they were in fact catching and eating fish in the past, but when the Europeans arrived, they had not been doing this for a long time.1

From this we infer that technology is not always retained and built upon, but can be lost or abandoned.

Animist peoples live in fear of evil spirits and often have taboos against healthy practices like washing, and eating various nutritious foods. Again this illustrates how loss of knowledge of the true Creator-God leads to degradation (Romans 1:18-32).
 

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,937
Cliffs

The entire world's population had the technologies of the middle east at the time of Adam and Eve.

Aboriginal Australians only arrived in Australia circa 5,000 years ago not 40,000 to 60,000 as I was taught in skewl

Babel happened and errybody started fightin, cussin and dissin in strange tongues

they moved away from the middle east (where all humans lived) and forgot simple technologies, in the case of the Australian aborginal this included the wheel, they forgot about the wheel.
 

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,937
Well, I'm convinced.
Im just getting started up in this bitch, note I have very good christian friends who would lol at this shit too, I know this because a christian former GF sent these to me.

ON RACE


According to the Bible, all humans on earth today are descended fromNoah and his wife, his three sons and their wives, and before that from Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-11). But today we have many different groups, often called “races,” with what seem to be greatly differing features. The most obvious of these is skin color. Many see this as a reason to doubt the Bible's record of history. They believe that the various groups could have arisen only by evolving separately over tens of thousands of years. However, as we shall see, this does not follow from the biological evidence.

The Bible tells us how the population that descended from Noah'sfamily had one language and by living in one place were disobeying God's command to “fill the earth” (Genesis 9:1, 11:4). God confused their language, causing a break-up of the population into smaller groups which scattered over the earth (Genesis 11:8-9). Moderngenetics show how, following such a break-up of a population, variations in skin color, for example, can develop in only a few generations. There is good evidence that the various people groups we have today have not been separated for huge periods of time.1

What is a “race”?
There is really only one race—the human race. The Bible teaches us that God has "made of one blood all nations of men" (Acts 17:26). Scripture distinguishes people by tribal or national groupings, not by skin color or physical appearance. Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g., skin color) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. We prefer to call these “people groups” rather than “races,” to avoid the evolutionary connotations associated with the word “race.”

All peoples can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This shows that the biological differences between the “races” are not very great. In fact, the DNA differences are trivial. The DNA of any two people in the world would typically differ by just 0.2 percent.2 Of this, only 6 percent can be linked to racial categories; the rest is “within race” variation.




The variation in DNA between human individuals shows that racial differences are trivial. This genetic unity means, for instance, that white Americans, although ostensibly far removed from black Americans in phenotype, can sometimes be better tissue matches for them than are other black Americans.
Anthropologists generally classify people into a small number of main racial groups, such as the Caucasoid (European or “white”),3 the Mongoloid (which includes the Chinese, Inuit or Eskimo, and Native Americans), the Negroid (black Africans), and the Australoid (the Australian Aborigines). Within each classification, there may be many different sub-groups.

Virtually all evolutionists would now say that the various people groups did not have separate origins. That is, different people groups did not each evolve from a different group of animals. So they would agree with the biblical creationist that all people groups have come from the same original population. Of course, they believe that such groups as the Aborigines and the Chinese have had many tens of thousands of years of separation. Most believe that there are such vast differences between the groups that there had to be many years for these differences to develop.



One reason for this is that many people believe that the observable differences arise from some people having unique features in their hereditary make-up which others lack. This is an understandable but incorrect idea. Let's look at skin color, for instance.


However, we all have the same coloring pigment in our skin—melanin. This is a dark-brownish pigment that is produced in different amounts in special cells in our skin. If we had none (as do people called albinos, who inherit a mutation-caused defect, and cannot produce melanin), then we would have a very white or pink skin coloring. If we produced a little melanin, we would be European white. If our skin produced a great deal of melanin, we would be a very dark black. And in between, of course, are all shades of brown. There are no other significant skin pigments.4

In summary, from currently available information, the really important factor in determining skin color is melanin—the amount produced.

This situation is true not only for skin color. Generally, whatever feature we may look at, no people group has anything that is essentially different from that possessed by any other. For example, the Asian, or almond, eye differs from a typical Caucasian eye in having more fat around them. Both Asian and Caucasian eyes have fat—the latter simply have less.

What does melanin do?
It protects the skin against damage by ultraviolet light from the sun. If you have too little melanin in a very sunny environment, you will easily suffer sunburn and skin cancer. If you have a great deal of melanin, and you live in a country where there is little sunshine, it will be harder for you to get enough vitamin D (which needs sunshine for its production in your body). You may then suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which could cause a bone disorder such as rickets.

We also need to be aware that we are not born with a genetically fixed amount of melanin. Rather, we have a genetically fixed potential to produce a certain amount, and the amount increases in response to sunlight. For example, you may have noticed that when your Caucasian friends (who spent their time indoors during winter) headed for the beach at the beginning of summer they all had more or less the same pale white skin color. As the summer went on, however, some became much darker than others.

How is it that many different skin colors can arise in a short time? Remember, whenever we speak of different “colors” we are referring to different shades of the one color, melanin.


If a person from a very black people group marriessomeone from a very white group, their offspring (called mulattos) are mid-brown. It has long been known that when mulattos marry each other, their offspring may be virtually any “color,” ranging from very dark to very light. Understanding this gives us the clues we need to answer our question, but first we must look, in a simple way, at some of the basic principles of heredity.

Heredity

DNA drawing. Copyright, Films for Christ.
Each of us carries information in our body that describes us in the way a blueprint and specifications describe a furnished building. It determines not only that we will be human beings, rather than cabbages or crocodiles, but also whether we will have blue eyes, short nose, long legs, etc. When a sperm fertilizes an egg, allthe information that specifies how the person will be built (ignoring such superimposed factors as exercise and diet) is already present. Most of this information is in coded form in our DNA.5

To illustrate coding, a piece of string with beads on it can carry a message in Morse code. The piece of string, by the use of a simple sequence of short beads, long beads (to represent the dots and dashes of Morse code), and spaces, can carry the same information as the English word “help” typed on a sheet of paper. The entire Bible could be written thus in Morse code on a long enough piece of string.

In a similar way, the human blueprint is written in a code (or language convention) which is carried on very long chemical strings of DNA. This is by far the most efficient information storage system known, greatly surpassing any foreseeable computer technology.6 This information is copied (and reshuffled) from generation to generation as people reproduce.

The word “gene” refers to a small part of that information which has the instructions for only one type of enzyme, for example.7 It may be simply understood as a portion of the “message string” containing only one specification.

For example, there is one gene that carries the instructions for making hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in your red blood cells. If that gene has been damaged by mutation (such as copying mistakes during reproduction), the instructions will be faulty, so it will often make a crippled form of hemoglobin, if any. (Diseases such as sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia result from such mistakes.)

So, with an egg which has just been fertilized—where does all its information, its genes, come from? One half comes from the father (carried in the sperm), and the other half from the mother (carried in the egg).

Genes come in pairs, so in the case of hemoglobin, for example, we have two sets of code (instruction) for hemoglobin manufacture, one coming from the mother and one from the father.

This is a very useful arrangement, because if you inherit a damaged gene from one parent that could instruct your cells to produce a defective hemoglobin, you are still likely to get a normal one from the other parent which will continue to give the right instructions. Thus, only half the hemoglobin in your body will be defective. (In fact, each of us carries hundreds of genetic mistakes, inherited from one or the other of our parents, which are usefully “covered up” by being matched with a normal gene from the other parent—see "Where Did Cain Get His Wife?")
 

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,937
THE WORLD IS 6,000 YEARS OLD AND SHALL FOREVER REMAIN THIS AGE

How old is the earth according to the Bible?
Thousands of years, or millions of years?


THE BIBLE IS CLEAR THAT ADAM, THE FIRST MAN, LIVED ONLY 6000 YEARS AGO. God created Adam directly from the earth on the sixth day of Creation Week. There was no evolution involved. So according to the Bible, the earth must be 6000 years old.

The following timeline by Theodore Pederson appeared in The Christian News, March 26, 2001, page 18 [with one error corrected — Creation Tips editor].

How old is the earth?
If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.If we go back 5000 years, we approach the birth year of Noah, who followed God's command to build an Ark to preserve life through the worldwide flood.If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)
If not, then when?
Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.

  • Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.
  • Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.
  • Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.
  • Was Noah real? The Bible says he was, and Jesus Christ confirmed it (Matthew 24:38). There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction.
  • Was Adam real? Well, the Bible says he was, and the essential theological doctrine of sin comes from Adam's disobedience. If Adam wasn't real there would have been no need for Christ to come to earth in human form and die to pay for the sins of mankind.
And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.

According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago. So according to the Bible, the world also is about 6000 years old.

Ussher's calculation
Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656), pictured at right, calculated a similar date.

In his famous work The Annals of the World, Ussher used the Masoretic text of the Bible to come up with fairly precise dates for people and events mentioned in the Bible. His calculations led him to determine that God created the universe on 23 October, 4004 BC.

Other Bible historians and scholars always come up with a date not far from Ussher's, because even if you use slightly different methods for determining Bible chronology, you can't get away from the fact that the Bible will point you to a date of creation about 6000 years ago.



For more detailed articles, see the Answers in Genesis article How old is the earth?, and the Creation Ministries International article How old is the earth? For evidence that radiometric dating methods may be unreliable, see Physicist Russell Humphreys' paper Evidence for a Young World.

Photo of Mammoth Hot Springs by Mila Zinkova is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License. In short: you are free to share and make derivative works of the photo under the condition that you appropriately attribute it, and that you distribute it only under a license identical to this one. Official license.
 

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,937
Were there human beings on earth before Adam?
What does the Bible say?


THE BIBLE TELLS US THAT GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE, the first man and woman, on the sixth day of Creation Week.

Before Adam and Eve's creation there had been only 5 days since the beginning of the world. In these first 6 days of history God had created plant life (Day 3), water creatures and flying creatures (Day 5), land animals and insects (Day 6), then the first man and woman (also Day 6, Genesis 1:27).

Despite this quite clear order of events, some people think “Adam” was not the first individual human on earth. Some believe that Adam was a name for a group of humans God created, while others believe there was a race of “pre-Adamites” — people who existed before Adam and Eve.

Was “Adam” a group of people?
Those who think that Adam means a group of humans, not just one person, usually point to Genesis 5:2, which says in the King James Version:

Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
The “Adam is a group” misconception comes about when people don't realize there are two slightly different Hebrew words translated into English as Adam. You could think of the difference as being roughly equivalent to spelling Adam with a capital “A” (Adam) and a lower-case “a” (adam).

The equivalent of adam (lower case) can mean either an individual human or a group of humans. This is the word used in Genesis 5:2.

The other word (Adam) is used only in reference to the first man, and to a city on the River Jordan that later was given the same name.

Problem solved!
Knowing this difference solves all the problems that come about if people try to use the English word always to mean the same thing.

Verses such as Genesis 5:3 make sense only when you realize that it refers to an individual:

And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness …
This could not mean that the whole human race, or even a whole group of people, lived 130 years and gave birth to a son. Other verses also make sense only if they apply to an individual.

First Adam, last Adam
In fact, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 the Apostle Paul tells us that the first man was Adam, and he compares this first man Adam with Jesus Christ, whom he calls the “last Adam”.

As Christ was an individual, this comparison makes sense only if the first Adam was also an individual.

A pre-Adamite race?
The pre-Adamite theory is the idea that humans, sometimes sub-humans evolving into humans, lived on earth before Adam and Eve.

The pre-Adamite theory comes in several forms, the worst of which are outright racist.

In centuries past, some people thought there was such a difference in appearance between dark-skinned and Caucasian people that God must have created separate inferior races of humans before Adam.

As the proponents of this idea were light-skinned or Caucasian, they thought that these inferior humans must have been the dark-skinned groups. This racist idea, which has no support in the Bible, gave support to racism and slavery on a large scale.

The problem with all the varieties of the pre-Adamite theory is that there had to have been death before Adam. Yet the Bible tells us that through one man (Adam), “sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12).

Romans 5:14 tells us “death reigned from Adam”, so it is theologically impossible to have pre-Adamites living and dying before sin and death entered into the world.

The Apostle Paul further clarifies this by comparing the death-bringing sin of the first man Adam to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)
So, were there human beings on earth before Adam and Eve?

Absolutely not! There is no reason for Christians to hold to the pre-Adamite theory, and many reasons why they shouldn't.
 

Leigh

Engineer
Pro Fighter
Jan 26, 2015
10,912
21,059
FRAT summary: begging the question by using the Bible to prove the Bible and using science to argue against science.
 

Lord Vutulaki

Banned
Jan 16, 2015
16,651
5,937
Did humans evolve from apes?
If so, which humans evolved from which apes?
IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APES OR APE-LIKE CREATURES, WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN? And which creatures were involved at that important point in history?

With more than 5000 fossils or fossil fragments of apes, chimps, and humans allegedly showing stages of human evolution, which ape-like animal had enough human characteristics for us to say “this one has just crossed the boundary from ape to human”?

The short answer is “none, it never happened,” and the fossils show this. Here's what we mean.

First, there is disagreement among evolutionists about where to place many of the fossils, because they don't all fit into a fully accepted sequence. Many fossils are set aside because they can't be placed neatly in the ape-to-man scenario, or because they appear in the wrong timeframe.

This is why evolutionists have largely abandoned the idea that human evolution was linear, even though the alternative doesn't help them either because it leaves them with a whole lot of unconnected fossils.

Second, here is an amazing fact: None of the ape fossils shows enough specific human features for evolutionists to say without doubt that this is the point where an ape turned human, and none of the human fossils shows enough specific ape characteristics to indicate that they have actually evolved from apes.

A possible sequence
Let's look at the candidates that are put forward as being in this ape-to-human process, and see if we can identify any at the “transition stage”. We must point out that some people object when we say that evolutionists believe that humans evolved from apes. They think we should say that there was once a common ancestor of both apes and humans. Our reply is that evolutionists never name this common ancestor in their evolutionary lists. They simply have apes, then humans. For example:

The evolutionary website Handprint gives excellent descriptions of the contenders in the alleged ape-to-human transition:

  • Australopithecus
  • Homo habilis
  • Homo rudolfensis
  • Homo ergaster
  • Homo erectus
  • Homo heidelbergensis
  • Homo neanderthalensis
This is pretty close to the order given by B. Wood and M. Collard in a paper in the journal Science in 1999 (“The human genus,” Science284(5411):65-71). So if humans evolved from ape-like creatures that evolved from apes, we should be able to discover a fossil that links them somewhere in this list. If the fossil is not in this list, then why believe it happened? Lack of clear transitional fossils is not evidence for evolution, but against it.

With the Australopiths such as “Lucy” now being generally discounted from being ancestors of humans, the first creature with a slight majority of human features must lie shortly after the Australopiths — either Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, or Homo ergaster.

But which one?
The Handprint website says of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis that “there is considerable uncertainty as to how to connect these fossils to other remains from the same geological era, how all of them are related to the australopithids — and which of the Homo skulls shows us the true ancestor to subsequent humans.”

In other words, habilis andrudolfensis are a mess. You can't show how they relate to apes before them, or humans after them, or fossils “from the same geological era.” This is not because they have transitional features; the problem is that they don't show a transition, or even a clear link to anything else. The group just seems to contain a jumble of ape-like fossils that don't show clear links between apes and humans at all. Evolutionists Wood and Collard found only ape-like traits in both habilis and rudolfensis.

So let's try the next step up to see if we can find some human features —Homo ergaster. Now we're getting somewhere. H. ergaster is described like this:

“There is near unanimity among paleoanthropologists that HOMO ERGASTER, which appeared about 2 million years ago, is the anchor species for all subsequent humans.” (Ref: Handprint — Homo ergaster.)

Clearly human
Why do scientists agree that ergaster “is the anchor species for all subsequent humans”? Because H. ergaster walked upright like humans, made tools, had human jaws and teeth, and physically was almost the equal of modern Africans.

H. ergaster was clearly human. And according to evolutionists Wood and Collard, the two “Homo” types before ergaster (habilis and rudolfensis) were ape-like in every major characteristic they were able to test. On the evidence from Wood and Collard's tests, habilis and rudolfensislooked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they had ape brains.

But H. ergaster was loaded with human features. The only possible comfort that evolutionists could get from H. ergaster having any ape-like feature is that it had a smallish brain. But as it was human in every other way, logic forces us to conclude that ergaster was a human with a small brain, rather than an ape that suddenly acquired all the characteristics of a human without leaving evidence that it ever happened.

So if habilis and rudolfensis were apes in every way, and ergaster (which is claimed to have followed them) was clearly human, where is the evidence that there was ever an ape-human between them? Absolutely none!

Fossils of apes and humans do not fit neatly into any clear evolutionary sequence. We believe this is because humans and apes were created as humans and apes in the beginning — natural evolution from non-humanto human has never taken place.

We believe that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, andHomo neanderthalensis were simply racial variants of modern humans and, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.

Footnote: There are other fossils besides those above that some evolutionists might include, such as Homo floresiensis and fossils found at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia.

Of Homo floresiensis, an education source says, “At present, there is no clear consensus among paleoanthropologists as to the place offloresiensis in human evolution.” (Ref: Palomar College, Behavioral Sciences Department). Further, Science Daily in August 2014 summarized a reanalysis of this “hobbit” skeleton, which concluded the individual was not a new species of human or pre-human at all, but simply had Down Syndrome.

Of the Dmanisi fossils, instead of providing answers to how apes allegedly evolved into humans, the Dmanisi fossils have only raised more questions. National Geographic reported in its August 2002 edition, “Along with other fossils and tools found at the site, this skull reopens so many questions about our ancestry that one scientist muttered: 'They ought to put it back in the ground.'”

Erik Trinkhaus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “They were little people with little brains — that doesn't really surprise me.” (Ref: AiG)

Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London said he doubted that the Dmanisi hominids were our direct ancestors. (Ref: BBC News)

University of North Texas News Service said of a new Dmanisi fossil in 2005, “The new Dmanisi skull is among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to Homo erectus or to any species that is indisputably human.” (Ref: University of North Texas news)

So according to evolutionist experts, the Dmanisi fossils are unlikely to be our direct ancestors, because they are “indisputably human”.

Therefore they can't be the link between apes and humans.
 

Hwoarang

TMMAC Addict
Oct 22, 2015
4,004
6,086
Homo Floresiensis/ Flores man/ hobbit man - was a midget with a small head.
Down's syndrome people aren't nearly that short, maybe only on average slightly shorter than average person and their heads are usually bigger than the average man, unlike Flores man's tiny head. Also Down syndrome peeps normally have smaller than average feet, Flores man had huge hobbit feet.
Not to mention that Down syndrome isn't genetic, so unless Flores man's villages were actually outcast colonies for strange midget mongoloids, I would pretty confidently rule out that Homo Floresiensis is actually Homo sapiens with Down's.
 

La Paix

Fuck this place
First 100
Jan 14, 2015
38,253
64,404
I see your wife won, she must have the same tattoo as Jon Jones.
 
1

1031

Guest
I'm still trying to get my head around this mitochondrial "eve" concept. I've had it explained to me but tbh, I keep rejecting the idea almost at the subconscious level.
 

Bluesville

First 100
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
2,577
2,962
I'm still trying to get my head around this mitochondrial "eve" concept. I've had it explained to me but tbh, I keep rejecting the idea almost at the subconscious level.
That's because your subconscious can sniff out bro science.