The first people...

[crystalonyx]

I think I detect some hostility... it's all cool!:rainbow1: I don't want to argue with you about this.

Anyhow, I think that God was the catalyst for our progression, from single cell organisms, to human beings. I'm not Darwin; and I don't have the ability to accurately represent his work. But I think that perhaps, even if I were fully able to explain it to you, you still would not be satisfied. I'm not particularly well-versed in human evolution; but I suspect that had little to do with your response.

Also, He is not 'My God', alone.

If this is true, your god is a most ineffecient creator, it took a billion years for homo sapiens to evolve after life originated, and the odds of that happening were much less than hitting the powerball jackpot. Your supposed god was really rolling the dice on this one.

 

[jtartar]

From whence did we (the human species) emerge? Didn't the first humans come from Africa? My knowledge of this is shaky, at best. Do people who believe in God, and people who believe in evolution, agree on anything? Regarding the origin of species, I mean.

The Great Architect,
According to the Bible, which is the only reliable source for any antiquites, life started in the Mesopotamian Valley, which means the land between the rivers. The rivers being the Tigris and the Euphrates. This area is also called the Cradle of Civilization. This area was known to be the place where man began until recently when men have tried to find, and claim that other places were where life began. Doctor Richard Leaky found what he thought was older fossils, in Olduvi Gorge in Africa. Later Leaky found that the fossils were not nearly as old as he first thought.
The great ages of fossils are based on a false assumption. In carbon dating, the method that is used for dating things that lived, is terribly flawed.
Carbon dating is based on measuring the amount of carbon found in fossils. The reat problem is found when no one knows that in the past carbon fron outer space was absorbed at the same rate as today. When alive an animal absorbes carbon, when he dies, and is found the amount of carbon in the fossil is measured, and the age calculated by the amount found. The problem is: Science does not take into account what the Bible says about a swaddling band that surrounded the earth, before the flood of Noah's day, Job 38:9, Prov 8:28. The error comes because an animal, when living under this swaddling band would not absorb nearly as much carbon as today, so when the carbon is measured, it seem that the specimen is much older than it really is.
It has also been true that specimens have been broken apart and sent to different places to check. The dates have varied wildly.
Argon dating is even more suspect. Argon dating cannot be used on things that lived, so the surrounding area is dated.
This requires, to be acdcurate, that the thin dated is insitu, meanin it has not changed position. This would hardly be possible durin the flood of Noah's day. The entire world would have been radically changed with trillions of tons of water covering the earth. Animals would be washed into places they were never at when alive. The Bible says the weight of the water caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to sink, Ps 104:8.
When the flood of Noah's day came the swaddlin band fell to earth as rain. This is why animals in the North were quick frozen. The swaddling band caused a hothouse effect on the earth. When it dissipated the animals were subjected to the severe cold from space, and were instantly frozen, some still with food in their mouths, and some animals can still be eaten.
Scientists can never get to the truth about the past when they deny what the Bible says.

 

[camanintx]

This would hardly be possible durin the flood of Noah's day. The entire world would have been radically changed with trillions of tons of water covering the earth.

So why is there no record of this flood in ancient China or India?

 

[Fluffy]

So you don't believe you'll fall towards the largest object around when you jump off a building?

That belief is justified by philosophy, not science. Science says "If... then...". Philosophy justifies belief in the "If".

 

[Autodidact]

The Great Architect,
According to the Bible, which is the only reliable source for any antiquites,

No, it's not. In fact, it's not terribly reliable at all. How did you conclude that the Bible was a reliable source?

life started in the Mesopotamian Valley, which means the land between the rivers. The rivers being the Tigris and the Euphrates. This area is also called the Cradle of Civilization. This area was known to be the place where man began until recently when men have tried to find, and claim that other places were where life began. Doctor Richard Leaky found what he thought was older fossils, in Olduvi Gorge in Africa. Later Leaky found that the fossils were not nearly as old as he first thought.

Baloney. There is no evidence that life started in Mesopotamia. However, it does appear that our oldest civilizations may have started there.

The great ages of fossils are based on a false assumption. In carbon dating, the method that is used for dating things that lived, is terribly flawed.

No it's not.

Carbon dating is based on measuring the amount of carbon found in fossils. The reat problem is found when no one knows that in the past carbon fron outer space was absorbed at the same rate as today. When alive an animal absorbes carbon, when he dies, and is found the amount of carbon in the fossil is measured, and the age calculated by the amount found.

And is there some reason why this rate would suddenly change?

The problem is: Science does not take into account what the Bible says about a swaddling band that surrounded the earth, before the flood of Noah's day, Job 38:9, Prov 8:28. The error comes because an animal, when living under this swaddling band would not absorb nearly as much carbon as today, so when the carbon is measured, it seem that the specimen is much older than it really is.
It has also been true that specimens have been broken apart and sent to different places to check. The dates have varied wildly.

What in heaven's name are you talking about? What utter hogwash. Swaddling band? What on earth is it supposed to be, why would it affect carbon absorption, and how do you know.

What about all the other ways to measure age, such as around 20 other kinds of radiometric dating, as well as tree-rings, varves, coral layers, etc., etc.?

Argon dating is even more suspect. Argon dating cannot be used on things that lived, so the surrounding area is dated.
This requires, to be acdcurate, that the thin dated is insitu, meanin it has not changed position.

No it doesn't.

This would hardly be possible durin the flood of Noah's day. The entire world would have been radically changed with trillions of tons of water covering the earth. Animals would be washed into places they were never at when alive. The Bible says the weight of the water caused the mountains to rise and the valleys to sink, Ps 104:8.

Please explain, in detail, how the weight of water could possibly cause mountains to rise. I'm looking forward to it.

By the way, where did all this water go?

When the flood of Noah's day came the swaddlin band fell to earth as rain. This is why animals in the North were quick frozen. The swaddling band caused a hothouse effect on the earth. When it dissipated the animals were subjected to the severe cold from space, and were instantly frozen, some still with food in their mouths, and some animals can still be eaten.

God this is hilarious. I may invite some of my friends in to read this drivel. Rain causes animals to quick freeze do to a hothouse effect! I'm so sorry I didn't discover this thread sooner! This is priceless!

Scientists can never get to the truth about the past when they deny what the Bible says.

Yeah, like how to cure leprosy. Look it up.

 

[Heracles]

Has somebody thought of a way to include Adam and Eve (I mean, in terms of the evolutionary progression)? Or, is it impossible to combine the two strains of thought?
Is there an explanation of the evolutionary process, that includes Adam and Eve?

The idea of there being an Adam and an Eve, two original humans, is not absent from evolutionary theory. Geneticists have used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the human line to one single female, who they dub mitochondrial eve. Basically this woman's lineage has outlasted all others and so apparently every person alive is related to her. There is also a Y-chromosomal Adam, who is similarly related to all people, but through the y chromosome. I'm not really doing the theory justice, genetics is not really my strength. Just check it out on Wikipedia ,maybe it will fulfill your need for bible and science cooperation. You may be disappointed though, they lived at different times and probably in different parts of the world and they really have nothing to do with the traditional Adam and Eve except that we can trace our heritage to them.

 

[fantome profane]

The idea of there being an Adam and an Eve, two original humans, is not absent from evolutionary theory. Geneticists have used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the human line to one single female, who they dub mitochondrial eve. Basically this woman's lineage has outlasted all others and so apparently every person alive is related to her. There is also a Y-chromosomal Adam, who is similarly related to all people, but through the y chromosome. I'm not really doing the theory justice, genetics is not really my strength. Just check it out on Wikipedia ,maybe it will fulfill your need for bible and science cooperation. You may be disappointed though, they lived at different times and probably in different parts of the world and they really have nothing to do with the traditional Adam and Eve except that we can trace our heritage to them.

Don’t be confused by a biblical allusion in the naming of these concepts. These concepts do not refer to the first woman or the first man, they were not the original humans. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam both had parents (and grand parents, and great grand parents etc).


The point is that they are a common ancestor of us all, but certainly not the only common ancestor. They are the most recent common ancestor through a particular way of tracing the line. Note that. Not the first, the most recent.

 

[Heracles]

Don’t be confused by a biblical allusion in the naming of these concepts. These concepts do not refer to the first woman or the first man, they were not the original humans. Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam both had parents (and grand parents, and great grand parents etc).

The point is that they are a common ancestor of us all, but certainly not the only common ancestor. They are the most recent common ancestor through a particular way of tracing the line. Note that. Not the first, the most recent.

I completely agree with you, didn't mean to make it seem like the biblical Adam and Eve are related to this "adam" and "eve" in any way. This is why I alluded to Wikipedia in the first place. These ancestors are named "eve' and "adam" simply because they remind us of the popular bible characters. And yeah they weren't the first in any respect. Its just that their lineages have outlasted all others, or more precisely, we can trace all modern humans relatedness back to these individuals. They certainly had many contemporaries and their own ancestors of course.

 

[logician]

I completely agree with you, didn't mean to make it seem like the biblical Adam and Eve are related to this "adam" and "eve" in any way. This is why I alluded to Wikipedia in the first place. These ancestors are named "eve' and "adam" simply because they remind us of the popular bible characters. And yeah they weren't the first in any respect. Its just that their lineages have outlasted all others, or more precisely, we can trace all modern humans relatedness back to these individuals. They certainly had many contemporaries and their own ancestors of course.

It is certain that homo sapiens cannot be traced to 2 individuals, we'd be lucky to trace it back to one.

 

[Manipulated]

From whence did we (the human species) emerge? Didn't the first humans come from Africa? My knowledge of this is shaky, at best. Do people who believe in God, and people who believe in evolution, agree on anything? Regarding the origin of species, I mean.

Here is a thought:where we human beings before we became concious of ourselves and started using words or grunts saying "I, me or you".I know the Garden of eden is a myth but how long did adam and eve exist there before we awoke our concience.There would have been an explosion of knowledge,as the bible reads,tree of knowledge.Did "we" exist before we needed to wear clothes?

 

[yossarian22]

Please explain, in detail, how the weight of water could possibly cause mountains to rise. I'm looking forward to it.

My guess would be an increase in seismic activity due to massive amounts of shifting pressure and temperature.

 

[Soldano16]

The idea of there being an Adam and an Eve, two original humans, is not absent from evolutionary theory.

They would not be original humans - they had parents.:sorry1:

Geneticists have used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the human line to one single female, who they dub mitochondrial eve. Basically this woman's lineage has outlasted all others and so apparently every person alive is related to her.

Do not confuse mitochondrial DNA with human DNA. The mitochondrial in our cells contain different DNA than our actual cells. That's because the mitochondrial in our cells are actually old bacteria that mingled somehow with our cells and it worked out for both parties.

 

[methylatedghosts]

If this is true, your god is a most ineffecient creator, it took a billion years for homo sapiens to evolve after life originated, and the odds of that happening were much less than hitting the powerball jackpot. Your supposed god was really rolling the dice on this one.

Not:
1) if it was guided
2) if the outcome didn't matter
3) there was only one possible outcome.

I could list more - but there are many possible reasons that it wasn't "rolling dice" as you say.

Inneficient? 1b years is nothing compared to being timeless..... 1b years is a blip. Our concept of time and our experience of time says that 1b years is really really long - because we compare it to us, we compare it to our own lives. If you were to be timeless, then 1b years is nothing.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Please explain, in detail, how the weight of water could possibly cause mountains to rise. I'm looking forward to it.

I'll offer an explanation.

Consider that this story is told by people. Consider that the first story was told by one person, maybe a few more - who may or may not have heard it from "god". Consider also, that the time period associated with the flood of Noah, could be traced to the opening of the wall between what is now the black sea and the mediterranean sea - causing vast amounts of water to flood the area and create the black sea. (Don't know the details of this - but apparantly the black sea was dry and populated at the time)

Imagine that a flat land area is under water. Now - this water starts moving towards the sea - slowly at first, then faster as it gathers momentum. Some parts of the land are much softer than others, and some parts have rocks. Now with enough water, the soft parts will erode (valleys) and the water level will sink. If you're in a boat on the water - it'd look as though the areas where the earth is harder (more difficult to erode) is rising up out of the water - when in fact you're just going lower. (the mountains)

I don't know how water-tight my thinking is here (excuse the pun) but I hope that covers at least one perspective.

 

[The Great Architect]

Not:
1b years is nothing compared to being timeless..... 1b years is a blip. Our concept of time and our experience of time says that 1b years is really really long - because we compare it to us, we compare it to our own lives. If you were to be timeless, then 1b years is nothing.

:yes::clapIt may seem inefficient when one judges the flow of time, through the human concept of time... but this is The Creator's time.

 

[Carico]

From whence did we (the human species) emerge? Didn't the first humans come from Africa? My knowledge of this is shaky, at best. Do people who believe in God, and people who believe in evolution, agree on anything? Regarding the origin of species, I mean.

Since one has to indulge in fantasy to know who the first speaking humans were or even the first humans were, then you'll get as many different answers as there are imaginations. I'd like to know who the first speaking humans were and why they had absolutely nothing to say about their parents, grandparents and ancestors who didn't have vocal chords. :biglaugh:I would have love to have heard their stories about their ancestors who supposedly occupied the earth for billions of years which is of course, much longer than humans of recorded history have been here. So why haven't we heard about those people?

 

[Autodidact]

From whence did we (the human species) emerge? Didn't the first humans come from Africa? My knowledge of this is shaky, at best. Do people who believe in God, and people who believe in evolution, agree on anything? Regarding the origin of species, I mean.

Many people who believe in God also accept the Theory of Evolution. They are not two opposing theories.

 

[linwood]

From whence did we (the human species) emerge? Didn't the first humans come from Africa? My knowledge of this is shaky, at best. Do people who believe in God, and people who believe in evolution, agree on anything? Regarding the origin of species, I mean.

Sunstone gave a good summation in post #2.

If you really want to get into it a little I recommend reading "Guns, Germs, & Steel" by Jared Diamond.

He gives an excellent layout of the timelines and rise of human civilization according to all the evidence we have.

It`s not perfect but it`s a very good story.

I just recently found a 2 part made for TV program based on Diamonds book at netflix if you aren`t into reading it.

Haven`t seen it yet but it`s on my list!

 

[Storm]

If this is true, your god is a most ineffecient creator, it took a billion years for homo sapiens to evolve after life originated, and the odds of that happening were much less than hitting the powerball jackpot. Your supposed god was really rolling the dice on this one.

If a theistic God was in control of evolution, it's not rolling the dice.

As for evolution taking a long time, so what? God's got plenty.

 

[Storm]

Evolution is not a belief, it is a science, just like physics and chemsitry. You don't "believe" in sciences, they are end products of the scientific method.

Utter nonsense. The fact that one believes based on evidence does not change the fact that one believes in the first place.