Proof That Quranic/Biblical Adam Did Not Exist

[outhouse]

Does not matter if it is Myth or not,
If it does not cause any harm to anyone

I asked a historical question, not how you personally felt about it.


Thing is it does cause harm. Its a source of fanaticism and fundamentalism. It stops many minds in its tracks to the point it is outlawed from poisoning school children's minds in public schools.

 

[outhouse]

i think it is easier to believe that a male and female were created together

Take a grade school class on biology, it should clear up that confusion.

Evolution is fact and its not even up for debate.

 

[outhouse]

in fact evolution says it takes miliions of years for a species to evolve

That's is just false

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

"outhouse, post: 4292322, member: 25877"]I asked a historical question, not how you personally felt about it.

Namaste,

A Historical question???, I thought you asked for my opinion about this being a Mythology? my mistake

Well in that case, i was not there, don't know if it literally happened in History or not.

Thing is it does cause harm. Its a source of fanaticism and fundamentalism. It stops many minds in its tracks to the point it is outlawed from poisoning school children's minds in public schools.

Thanks, but i have already made that evaluation (Casing Harm or Not), i just did not specify my position yet.

 

[outhouse]

Well in that case, i was not there, don't know if it literally happened in History or not.

You think it Is plausible that a breeding population of two could start the human race?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

You think it Is plausible that a breeding population of two could start the human race?

Well i never said that.

And no, it is not plausible for a breeding pair to start the Human population (not "race" by the way) as it stands today, the probability is quite Low IMO.

And you asked me a question relating to the Historicity of the Claim remember, i cant know the supposed "History", of this claim when i was not there?

Anything else?

 

[The Enlightened One]

well if there wasn't a first human then how was there a second or third? in fact evolution says it takes miliions of years for a species to evolve. So if the first human was a male and there was no female then the species would die out. or if the first was a female and there was no male the species would die out. both a male and a female would have to evolve at the same time and near enough that they could get together and reproduce. but since it takes millions of years for one to evolve what are the odds of both a male and a female evolving at the same time? seems pretty slim

The points at which a new species is formed are slightly arbitrary - no member of a species gives birth to a member of a different species.
For example: When groups of the same species separate, by geographical means or selective reasons, the different groups will stop breeding with each other and they will experience genetic drift and mutations that are now no longer being shared between the groups. Given enough time, these groups will gradually transition far enough away genetically that they would be considered different species from one another.

 

[outhouse]

as it stands today, the probability is quite Low

Quite low or impossible?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Quite low or impossible?

Namaste,

I try not to be too absolute, so "Low", is what I will stick with.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

still trying to grasp how there could never have been less than 10,000. that seems to say that one day there were none and the next day there were 10,000. still seems easier to believe that one day there were none and the next day there were two. please give details on where the 10,000 may have come from

 

[The Enlightened One]

still trying to grasp how there could never have been less than 10,000. that seems to say that one day there were none and the next day there were 10,000. still seems easier to believe that one day there were none and the next day there were two. please give details on where the 10,000 may have come from

If we're still talking about modern humans then the 10,000 would have already been there as a different species, they just gradually started to change over a long period of time.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

still does not make sense. if the 10,000 were a different species then they were not humans. the idea was that there was never a time when there were less than 10,000 HUMANS

 

[The Enlightened One]

still does not make sense. if the 10,000 were a different species then they were not humans. the idea was that there was never a time when there were less than 10,000 HUMANS

The idea was that there would need to be at least 10,000 humans to reach our current state, groups of 10,000+ apes becoming what we call human satisfies this.

 

[paarsurrey]

Ok so the Soul's Mate is Feminine, does that imply the "one Soul" was Male? or is it the one Soul is Feminine and the Mate is the Male???
This is confusing, the verse says:

either way, what i gather here is A Male and A Female (does not matter who came first of what name was given) was created first and from that pair (Twain, Two, actually what is the Arabic word used here for "Twain", could be of interest?) spread many men and women. So to me at least the verse is clear, from 2 spread many.

I was referring to a phenomenon in evolution when we humans were in a state of having not much intelligence, so they instead of being described as "he" or "she", they were more suitably to be described with "it". They could be many in number still evolving on journey to become human beings.

Regards

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

wow. so now 10,000 apes suddenly become humans. this gets harder and harder to believe

 

[The Enlightened One]

wow. so now 10,000 apes suddenly become humans. this gets harder and harder to believe

As I said in post#27 it wasn't suddenly.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

well if it wasn't suddenly then there must have been a time when there were less than 10,000. you can't have it both ways

 

[The Enlightened One]

well if it wasn't suddenly then there must have been a time when there were less than 10,000. you can't have it both ways

You either aren't paying attention to what anybody is saying, or you are trolling.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

the original post said there could not have been a time when there were less than 10,000 HUMANS. then someone said it could have been 10,000 apes but apes are not humans. so how is it not paying attention to ask how the apes became human if there were never less than 10,000 HUMANS as stated in the original post

 

[The Enlightened One]

My apologies then. It's a semantic error here. The OP isn't taking prehuman history into account, the fact that we evolved is implied.