Someone had to be First

[Thief]

I say that op statement on behalf of God......a lot
I also say it in reference to Adam

Just this early morning, I popped it to a co worker
and he seems to think Adam was the first man......in the altogether
made of dust

I said.....that doesn't make him unique.....YOU are made of dust
and he didn't really get it ( I could tell)

so.....what do you believe?

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I have to go with "none of the above" Thief, no option for the infidel? I guess my "Adam" would perhaps be the first recognisable Homo sapiens, though I don't think a "Homo sapien" popped out of the womb of one of our ancestors one day, it was a gradual evolution. Like most things in life the lines are blurred.

 

[Altfish]

I have to go with "none of the above" Thief, no option for the infidel? I guess my "Adam" would perhaps be the first recognisable Homo sapiens, though I don't think a "Homo sapien" popped out of the womb of one of our ancestors one day, it was a gradual evolution. Like most things in life the lines are blurred.

Yes, me too.

 

[Erebus]

I don't think a "Homo sapien" popped out of the womb of one of our ancestors one day, it was a gradual evolution. Like most things in life the lines are blurred.

Wait, what?


God damn it! Now I have to send those chimps back.

 

[Thief]

I have to go with "none of the above" Thief, no option for the infidel? I guess my "Adam" would perhaps be the first recognisable Homo sapiens, though I don't think a "Homo sapien" popped out of the womb of one of our ancestors one day, it was a gradual evolution. Like most things in life the lines are blurred.

that choice is under.....CHOSEN son of God
I believe Man as a species....Day Six......evolution

Day Seven.....nothing more will be created......it's done

THEN Chapter Two

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

that choice is under.....CHOSEN son of God
I believe Man as a species....Day Six......evolution

Day Seven.....nothing more will be created......it's done

THEN Chapter Two

I don't see the need to bring a god into it though (you know that of course you rascal!). By "Chapter Two" you mean your "resurrection body"? You are deep into Christian theology/doctrine there, so maybe this would be more of a debate for Christians?

 

[leibowde84]

I say that op statement on behalf of God......a lot
I also say it in reference to Adam

Just this early morning, I popped it to a co worker
and he seems to think Adam was the first man......in the altogether
made of dust

I said.....that doesn't make him unique.....YOU are made of dust
and he didn't really get it ( I could tell)

so.....what do you believe?

I believe that there is absolutely no evidence that Adam ever existed. Can you provide any?

 

[Thief]

I believe that there is absolutely no evidence that Adam ever existed. Can you provide any?

Someone had to be first.......is a self evident

 

[leibowde84]

Someone had to be first.......is a self evident

That's not true. We evolved from a common ancestor with apes. So, there certainly does not have to be a first, singular human male. Maybe a woman, but not a man.

 

[Thief]

I don't see the need to bring a god into it though (you know that of course you rascal!). By "Chapter Two" you mean your "resurrection body"? You are deep into Christian theology/doctrine there, so maybe this would be more of a debate for Christians?

Chapter Two is a story of manipulation

apparently ...the item turned loose on the earth (Man).....
was indeed
becoming fruitful
multiplying
subduing the earth
and dominating all things

and that was fine until......Man began using that level of ability upon his fellowman

and with the mentality of and ape......
Man would overrun the planet
use the resources to completion
and die into extinction......never learning to think about life after death
only the next item to acquire

 

[Thief]

That's not true. We evolved from a common ancestor with apes. So, there certainly does not have to be a first, singular human male. Maybe a woman, but not a man.

well.....I tend to be open minded

and Eve was the first to take a 'bite' of that 'apple'

 

[Polymath257]

None of the above.

 

[leibowde84]

well.....I tend to be open minded

and Eve was the first to take a 'bite' of that 'apple'

Well, there certainly isn't any evidence whatsoever that eve took the bit of that apple. So, why do you think that is true?

 

[Thief]

Well, there certainly isn't any evidence whatsoever that eve took the bit of that apple. So, why do you think that is true?

you do realize.....you're in a religious forum?

and your plea for evidence doesn't really .....work

 

[leibowde84]

you do realize.....you're in a religious forum?

and your plea for evidence doesn't really .....work

So, why do you believe that Eve took a bite of the apple?

 

[leibowde84]

you do realize.....you're in a religious forum?

and your plea for evidence doesn't really .....work

By the way, you are in the debate forum, so requests for evidence are absolutely necessary. Arguments that are not based on evidence are next to worthless.

 

[Thief]

By the way, you are in the debate forum, so requests for evidence are absolutely necessary. Arguments that are not based on evidence are next to worthless.

no it is not.....

try again asking WHY I believe
and be content with my reasoning

if you are not content try reasoning with someone not so.......thoughtful

 

[Thief]

So, why do you believe that Eve took a bite of the apple?

duh

 

[LuisDantas]

Someone had to be first.......is a self evident

Hardly. There is nothing beyond very questionable doctrine to even state that there was such a thing as a non-arbitrary "first" person.

To tell a person from other, "non-people" primates, one has first to establish the parameters to do so.

Even then, there is no true certainty that people did not differentiate several times independently - even at the exact same time. Depending on how one defines a "person", it may be even nearly certain that it happened that way.

 

[LuisDantas]

you do realize.....you're in a religious forum?

One that does not choose to take specific dogmas at face value.

and your plea for evidence doesn't really .....work

Only because there is no evidence to be found.