Has evolution facts destroyed Adam?

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps Adam and Eve represent the first humans as we know ourselves (first ones to not be as primitive). After all, didn't their sons have wives? Do you believe they married their sisters? I hope not! I see it as there being other humans, just that Adam and Eve were the first of modern species.

Oh, I just had an idea. Maybe they took ape-wives! That explains our evolutionary past and still fits creationism!

My understanding of the names "Adam" and "Eve" from the Bible is that they are words representing humanity rather than specific individuals, like saying "mankind" and not mean specifically some Allan Robert Stumpelstilskin (or whatever) in Minnesota.

And the forbidden tree was the tree of wisdom, i.e. science, philosophy, thinking, reasoning, etc. The separation from Eden (hunting and gathering) into the agricultural society was that we started to think too much. Tried to control our life, conditions, harvest, weather, etc. And that's what the "original" sin really is. We constantly get stuck in a reductive and scientific thinking and forget emotions, empathy, art and so on. Just take fast food as an example. How the food culture has become so watered down and unsatisfactory. Food made by an artisan chef is million miles away from ordinary food. And we miss out on "communion" with "God" (Nature) when we just grab a "bite" that contains and taste like cardboard. To enjoy life, that's the Gospel. Find connection with the good life. God and God's kingdom is within us. That's the salvation.

 

[illykitty]

Oh, I just had an idea. Maybe they took ape-wives! That explains our evolutionary past and still fits creationism!

My understanding of the names "Adam" and "Eve" from the Bible is that they are words representing humanity rather than specific individuals, like saying "mankind" and not mean specifically some Allan Robert Stumpelstilskin (or whatever) in Minnesota.

And the forbidden tree was the tree of wisdom, i.e. science, philosophy, thinking, reasoning, etc. The separation from Eden (hunting and gathering) into the agricultural society was that we started to think too much. Tried to control our life, conditions, harvest, weather, etc. And that's what the "original" sin really is. We constantly get stuck in a reductive and scientific thinking and forget emotions, empathy, art and so on. Just take fast food as an example. How the food culture has become so watered down and unsatisfactory. Food made by an artisan chef is million miles away from ordinary food. And we miss out on "communion" with "God" (Nature) when we just grab a "bite" that contains and taste like cardboard. To enjoy life, that's the Gospel. Find connection with the good life. God and God's kingdom is within us. That's the salvation.

Hmm that's a nice way to see it too. I thought of some of it like this too, although not in such details!

 

[Ouroboros]

Hmm that's a nice way to see it too. I thought of some of it like this too, although not in such details!

The serpent was a symbol for wisdom, knowledge, insight, healing, and such in the ancient times (you know the caduceus for instance, or Moses copper snake that healed the people). So you can see that the story talks about how these things led humanity away from Eden/God (Nature and harmony) and into agriculture (because that starts after the fall according to the Bible).

 

[outis]

And the forbidden tree was the tree of wisdom, i.e. science, philosophy, thinking, reasoning, etc. The separation from Eden (hunting and gathering) into the agricultural society was that we started to think too much.

Though there is definitely an allusion to the transition away from hunting and gathering, I rather like to think of that woody plant as "the tree of value judgements". ;-)

 

[Ouroboros]

Though there is definitely an allusion to the transition away from hunting and gathering, I rather like to think of that woody plant as "the tree of value judgements". ;-)

Works too, in the aspect of "don't eat that fruit", yet they did.

The point of an allegory of the kind in Genesis is that it's multilayered. There are many interpretations and insights to be found in those stories. They were intentionally made somewhat mystic and for the purpose of evoking contemplation.

One aspect of the story is, it was much better in the past. Eden was so nice, cozy, warm, and you only had to pick a fruit and eat it for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But of course, that wasn't enough, idiot Adam had to break the rules and f-ed up the nice living.

 

[Jainarayan]

You are refusing to answer a simple question because you have no answer.

A chemical process changes the composition of 'existing' chemicals/materials - just a hint.

Are you going to say lipids did not previously exist? Are you going to say carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms did not exist (hint, they are the components of amino acids)? Are you going to say that lipids, which are essentially hydrocarbons, do not form rings? It's already been proven in laboratory experiments that lipids, which previously existed, can form cellular membranes and branch off each other. That's called change.

I gave you the answer, you refuse to accept it. I'm taking the hook out of my mouth now.

 

[McBell]

If i'M lying, it should be easy to prove. Making baseless accusations reveals your character, and the portrait is not flattering.

The first two or three times you posted your bold faced lies, we took it to mean that you were merely wrong.

However, since it has been explained to you why and how you are wrong a multiple of times, it is safe to say that you you know how and why you are wrong and to repeat the same bold faced lies is lying.

 

[McBell]

And the self-replicating molecule around 4 billion years ago popped out of thin air ?

No.
That is the Creationists claim...

 

[loverOfTruth]

Are you going to say lipids did not previously exist? Are you going to say carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms did not exist (hint, they are the components of amino acids)? Are you going to say that lipids, which are essentially hydrocarbons, do not form rings? It's already been proven in laboratory experiments that lipids, which previously existed, can form cellular membranes and branch off each other. That's called change.

Even the simplest kind of replication requires a relatively complex system. So what kind of non-replicating system might have served as the predecessor of evolution, paving the way for life as we know it - and where did that come from ? I hope you do realize that only the 'chance appearance' of the first life form, a unicellular bacteria is the basis for evolution.

"The simplest bacterial cell we can possibly imagine will still require at least 600 proteins, DNA, a cell membrane, RNA, nucleotides, lipid molecules, sugar molecules, 20 types of amino acids available for protein synthesis, some type of protein assembly machinery, a system of translating the DNA code into protein sequences, error correction systems, some form of energy capturing and converting machinery, suitable supplies of inorganic elements necessary for life, and of course the correct chemical combination and structural arrangements of these parts. This would be the first reproducing entity, so the above mechanisms would all have to be randomly synthesized at the same time. This is clearly completely preposterous. The most advanced technology and the best brains on this earth cannot even put together one DNA molecule, so for chance to put the above cell together, it is something only the one blinded by ideological dogma could believe." [1]

Also, "If the primordial atmosphere contained oxygen, amino acids will be broken down and oxidized. If the atmosphere contained no oxygen, then the ozone layer would be absent, and the ultraviolet rays would degrade all organic compounds. So they claimed that the reactions must have taken place in water (which would shield from UV radiation), but this is also discredited as proteins are readily broken down and hydrolyzed in water, and extremely unlikely to be formed. So there was no amino acid soup, and there were no organic molecules in the primordial atmosphere." [1]

[1]http://www.discoveringislam.org/evolution_vs_islam.htm

I gave you the answer, you refuse to accept it. I'm taking the hook out of my mouth now.

First, you tell me I am trying to secretly talk about Creationism and then you say I am putting a bait for you for the Gotcha moment.

I am not sure what are you so worried about if you have the facts on your side. We are having a simple open debate - nothing else.

 

[F0uad]

The evidence for Human evolution at Smithsonian: Human Evolution Evidence | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

There is no evidence in the link sorry?
Moreover the evolution of human's cant be solved with foils there is much more to it and each time i hear human evolution different time tables are given.

 

[jonman122]

There is no evidence in the link sorry?
Moreover the evolution of human's cant be solved with foils there is much more to it and each time i hear human evolution different time tables are given.

You have to actually click on the links to get the evidence, but I did one for you, it was for genetics. I've found that to be the most interesting evidence for evolution, but you don't have to agree.

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

There is a LOT more to evolution than just fossils, they're just the part that we can easily show people.

 

[loverOfTruth]

You have to actually click on the links to get the evidence, but I did one for you, it was for genetics. I've found that to be the most interesting evidence for evolution, but you don't have to agree.

Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

There is a LOT more to evolution than just fossils, they're just the part that we can easily show people.

That's the biggest joke and no evidence whatsoever. Just because human DNA matches closely to the DNA of another species, so we come from them? Where did the first DNA come from (See my previous post regarding this)? Also, note that human DNA have a 90% match with that of CAT's as well. May be those wussies came from the Cats ? ;-)

 

[jonman122]

"
Due to billions of years of evolution, humans share genes with all living organisms. The percentage of genes or DNA that organisms share records their similarities. We share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us.
Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.
DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago."


I'm assuming you didn't get this far in with your read, and I'm also going to assume that you didn't see this picture, because it's directly below that paragraph:

I should have added, Chimps and Bonobos share 99% of our DNA or more. That's quite a bit more than cat's, I'm afraid to say.

 

[loverOfTruth]

"
Due to billions of years of evolution, humans share genes with all living organisms. The percentage of genes or DNA that organisms share records their similarities. We share more genes with organisms that are more closely related to us.
Humans belong to the biological group known as Primates, and are classified with the great apes, one of the major groups of the primate evolutionary tree. Besides similarities in anatomy and behavior, our close biological kinship with other primate species is indicated by DNA evidence. It confirms that our closest living biological relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos, with whom we share many traits. But we did not evolve directly from any primates living today.
DNA also shows that our species and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor species that lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. The last common ancestor of monkeys and apes lived about 25 million years ago."


I'm assuming you didn't get this far in with your read, and I'm also going to assume that you didn't see this picture, because it's directly below that paragraph:

I should have added, Chimps and Bonobos share 99% of our DNA or more. That's quite a bit more than cat's, I'm afraid to say.

And that's not evidence for anything...it does not answer the question where did the first DNA come from ? It is just speculation that we share common ancestors because DNA matches closely...so where's the cut-off for a completely different line of ancestor - 95%, 90%, 70% ? So many loopholes in this theory. But that does not negate the fact in anyway if different species have some similar features then they would have close DNA matches - not an evidence for evolution though.

 

[jonman122]

So... What is your counter argument then, your better solution? You've probably posted it somewhere, but I seem to have missed it.

 

[McBell]

So... What is your counter argument then, your better solution? You've probably posted it somewhere, but I seem to have missed it.

His counter argument is simply "God Did It".

Anything that disagrees with with his version of "God Did It" is wrong and not evidence of anything he will accept.

 

[loverOfTruth]

So... What is your counter argument then, your better solution? You've probably posted it somewhere, but I seem to have missed it.

And also that 99% match is probably off ... you can see some analysis here :
99%? 95%? 87%? 70%? How Similar is the Human Genome to the Chimpanzee Genome? | Proslogion

You can read detailed analysis/refutation about the deception of evolution here :
Evolution vs Islam

In summary, my view is : "God created the universe and everything in it, including all forms of life, and that all his creation down to the cells and even further to the atoms and electrons" including that God created the first man Adam and then the rest of mankind after him.

How do I come to that conclusion ?

I have discussed how there are more rational reasons to believe there is a God than no God in my posts here :
Religious Education Forum - Search Results

And I have discussed how there is evidence for the Truth of Islam here :
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/129347-there-any-evidence-truth-islam.html

Once I have evidence that God is True and that Islam and hence the Qur'an is from God, I have no reason to deny anything it states. Please note Muslims believe based on evidence that Qur'an is the Verbatim word of God and here's what the Qur'an states about Creation :

God caused Big Bang for the creation of the Universe ...
"“Have not those who disbelieved known that the heavens and the earth were one connected entity, then We separated them?...” (Quran 21:30)

God created mankind ...
"O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you." (Al-Qur'an 4:1)

Why ?
"[He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving -[And] who created seven heavens in layers. You do not see in the creation of the Most Merciful any inconsistency..." (Al-Qur'an 67:2-3)

For more detail on creation, you can read this : The Muslim View of Creation - Understanding Islam

Feel free to ask me anything regarding this.

Peace.

 

[jonman122]

His counter argument is simply "God Did It".

Anything that disagrees with with his version of "God Did It" is wrong and not evidence of anything he will accept.

Darn, I was just going to post a link to The Blind Watchmaker book, I didn't even know there was a free version online that was at the top of googles list until now, but now I'm not sure he'd take the time to read all 11 chapters.

 

[loverOfTruth]

His counter argument is simply "God Did It".

Anything that disagrees with with his version of "God Did It" is wrong and not evidence of anything he will accept.

Of course God did it but I have provided scientific arguments that refutes evolution which you guys couldn't show any evidence for.

 

[jonman122]

first I'll ask, do you believe that all life came from Adam and Eve? that all human beings are the descendants of these 2 people?