Proof That Quranic/Biblical Adam Did Not Exist

[The Enlightened One]

No really.....unless God made approach to many people all at once.....

Touche, as I have no proof to God's non-existence.

Evidence?....you know a work done by many?......all in agreement to what shall be written?

I'm more talking about there literally being one like in the story of creation, a first human to exist.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Somebody please paraphrase it for common understanding, it it too technical.

Regards

It looks like they conclude that it's lower than 10,000

 

[jonathan180iq]

at some point there were 100,000 proto-humans that eventually gave rise to humans. but the proto-humans were not humans. there had to have been a day when ONE proto-human gave birth to a true human. then there was only one true human. they perhaps went on to give birth to many more untill there were over 10,000 humans. there was still that day when there was only one. again it goes back to the wording of the original post. there had to have been a day when there were less than 10,000 humans even though there may have been many times that many prot-humans

Someone had to be first.

This is like asking who the first person was to speak Spanish instead of Latin... It's a very organic thing and to suggest that it's black and white like this shows quite a bit of ignorance on the topic of origination.

We'll all admit, I assume, that Spanish and Portuguese and Italian, just to name a few, originated from a Latin vernacular, yes?
Since we know that Latin preceded these languages, would you attempt to delineate who the first person was to speak something other than Latin? By your logic, "There had to be a first..."
Knowing what you know about language from experience, don't you think it's kind of ridiculous to assume that one day a baby was born speaking Spanish instead of his parent's Latin? What good is a new language if there is no one else to speak it with? And how can there be a first if there must be multiples in order for a new language to exist?

That's obviously a silly endeavour, right? Well, so too is attempting to make the claim that there had to be a first human...

Since all things come from previous things, and since all things are constantly in flux, there is no way of nailing down the first person to speak a new language anymore than there is a way to knowing which person was the first human.

 

[Thief]

This is like asking who the first person was to speak Spanish instead of Latin... It's a very organic thing and to suggest that it's black and white like this shows quite a bit of ignorance on the topic of origination.

We'll all admit, I assume, that Spanish and Portuguese and Italian, just to name a few, originated from a Latin vernacular, yes?
Since we know that Latin preceded these languages, would you attempt to delineate who the first person was to speak something other than Latin? By your logic, "There had to be a first..."
Knowing what you know about language from experience, don't you think it's kind of ridiculous to assume that one day a baby was born speaking Spanish instead of his parent's Latin? What good is a new language if there is no one else to speak it with? And how can there be a first if there must be multiples in order for a new language to exist?

That's obviously a silly endeavour, right? Well, so too is attempting to make the claim that there had to be a first human...

Since all things come from previous things, and since all things are constantly in flux, there is no way of nailing down the first person to speak a new language anymore than there is a way to knowing which person was the first human.

Your post doesn't answer mine.
No matter how you address it......the first person to stand in the presence of God.....to know His presence.....
would have a name.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Your post doesn't answer mine.
No matter how you address it......the first person to stand in the presence of God.....to know His presence.....
would have a name.

Not if they had amnesia

 

[jonathan180iq]

Your post doesn't answer mine.
No matter how you address it......the first person to stand in the presence of God.....to know His presence.....
would have a name.

Would "he"?

Assuming that you could even nail that down, which no one can, what makes you think that primitive human populations engaged in such things as naming individuals?
Have you studied the development of naming in social structures? Do you know how and why we do it today?

 

[paarsurrey]

It looks like they conclude that it's lower than 10,000

You mean at sometimes in the human evolution humans numbered less than 10,000? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

OP has implied that humans are eternal in origin

It is a wrong concept that humans are eternal. Had they been, they would have not died.
Only G-d (Allah, YHWH, Brahman,Tao, Ahura Mazda) is eternal. He does not die, nor was He born, ever.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

at some point there were 100,000 proto-humans that eventually gave rise to humans. but the proto-humans were not humans. there had to have been a day when ONE proto-human gave birth to a true human. then there was only one true human. they perhaps went on to give birth to many more untill there were over 10,000 humans. there was still that day when there was only one. again it goes back to the wording of the original post. there had to have been a day when there were less than 10,000 humans even though there may have been many times that many prot-humans

Thanks for explaining

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It looks like they conclude that it's lower than 10,000

Thanks for explaining.

Regards

 

[The Enlightened One]

You mean at sometimes in the human evolution humans numbered less than 10,000? Please
Regards

From what I can understand, they reference numerous papers that have came up with a wide arrange of estimates, one being as low as 1,000 and others as high as 17,000. 7,000 was pretty common. They analyze the data and give the formulae and define the variables used. They end by broadly concluding that it appears that a smaller bottleneck either happened(?)/could-happen(?) than what was previously thought. I can't tell which number they are using as "previously thought" and the one this paper itself arrives at, though.

 

[paarsurrey]

there had to be a first human.

I agree with you. It is wrong and inappropriate to say "there had to be a first human".

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Your post doesn't answer mine.
No matter how you address it......the first person to stand in the presence of God.....to know His presence.....
would have a name.

Why must first man need to stand before G-d physically? G-d is not a physical being. G-d is Omnipresent; don't you believe that?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

From what I can understand, they reference numerous papers that have came up with a wide arrange of estimates, one being as low as 1,000 and others as high as 17,000. 7,000 was pretty common. They analyze the data and give the formulae and define the variables used. They end by broadly concluding that it appears that a smaller bottleneck either happened(?)/could-happen(?) than what was previously thought. I can't tell which number they are using as "previously thought" and the one this paper itself arrives at, though.

Thanks for providing very good information for an ordinary man.

Regards

 

[The Enlightened One]

Thanks for providing very good information for an ordinary man.

Regards

No problem. I apologize up front if my analysis happens to be incorrect - I too am unversed in the intricacies of the field and honestly felt like I was looking at gibberish when seeing the math and terminology in such a raw form.

 

[paarsurrey]

No problem. I apologize up front if my analysis happens to be incorrect - I too am unversed in the intricacies of the field and honestly felt like I was looking at gibberish when seeing the math and terminology in such a raw form.

I understand and appreciate it.

When one uses too much terminology then in a way one works in another dimension which is out of the ordinary. An ordinary man doesn't have to travel to that dimension necessarily.

By the way; is mathematics 100% accurate and real?

Regards

 

[Parsimony]

at some point there were 100,000 proto-humans that eventually gave rise to humans. but the proto-humans were not humans. there had to have been a day when ONE proto-human gave birth to a true human. then there was only one true human. they perhaps went on to give birth to many more untill there were over 10,000 humans. there was still that day when there was only one. again it goes back to the wording of the original post. there had to have been a day when there were less than 10,000 humans even though there may have been many times that many prot-humans

What makes a "true human" distinct from a "proto-human"? It's like trying to find a dividing line between bluish-purple and true purple in the rainbow: different people will have different opinions on where to draw the line. Even if one could make a distinction between true humans and proto-humans, the true human would have been capable of interbreeding with the other proto-humans that occupied its habitat. Therefore, its breeding pool would have still consisted of 100,000 individuals. That's what the study is saying: that the gene pool from which modern humans descended never fell bellow 10,000 individuals (whether you want to call those individuals true humans or proto-humans).

 

[The Enlightened One]

When one uses too much terminology then in a way one works in another dimension which is out of the ordinary. An ordinary man doesn't have to travel to that dimension necessarily.

I like the metaphore. Like quantum mechanics, it reveals things that are completely against what one would regard as common sense - putting them into a seemingly new realm of understanding. "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." - Niels Bohr

By the way; is mathematics 100% accurate and real?

Interesting question, considering it's at the backbone of many fields that aim to give us an understanding of the world around us. It's a construct we devised, it can enumerate and describe varying relationships very well. There are several branches of mathematics as well as several number systems. Not sure if we can look at it as acurate or not though, it's a system that changes over time to better encompass new problems and scenarios. Example:

Isaac Newton needed a new system of mathematics to explain planatary motion, couldn't account for the precession in the orbit of Mercury. One of his law's was proposed to be incorrect. Laplace later fixed it I believe.​

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

OK now we have a new question. the gene pool from which humans descended was never less than 10,000. at some point there was no living thing on earth. none. zero. then there was one living thing. and all other living things evolved from that one. so the gene pool for all living things was once one.then there was the first dinosaur, the first bird the first fish the first ape then that ape population increased. still seems like there had to be one first human

 

[The Enlightened One]

OK now we have a new question. the gene pool from which humans descended was never less than 10,000. at some point there was no living thing on earth. none. zero. then there was one living thing. and all other living things evolved from that one. so the gene pool for all living things was once one.then there was the first dinosaur, the first bird the first fish the first ape then that ape population increased. still seems like there had to be one first human

There could have been many, it doesn't have to be just one - like if the conditions are right to create one, why not many? No single creature evolves or gives birth to an evolution, it's only an arbitrary(slightly) point in the populations lineage that we say "aha, new species".

If we did, for some reason, say on this particular day is when humans came to exist, would it not be reasonable to think there would be multiple births instead of one?