Adam and Eve as a Myth

[siweLSC]

And blood is pretty hard and resistant to decay? because scientists have recovered blood proteins from inside insects preserved in amber. The notion that proteins cannot survive for millions of years under the right conditions is not based on science.

Yeah, but it wasn't just hard proteins, but soft tissue and cellular structures as well.

 

[siweLSC]

We arose from the natural processes of the planet.

It's really simple.

Is it really that one single issue that totally baffles you about the atheists?

No, there are other issues, but that is my favourite, and most of the others aren't remotely relevant to this thread.

So you say we arose by abiogenesis and evolution?

 

[siweLSC]

Well, apparently you can't read nor understand what you're reading. Are (literal Christian) creationists always do willfully ignorant. I don't think they are, but I have yet to come across ones who understand the difference between atheism and evolution. And apparently I've wasted my time in the last 2 replies.

Evolution is a science that explain biodiversity & speciation, common ancestry, all through biological research on genes.

Anyone with the will and patient can understand the theory of evolution, not just atheists; there are agnostics, deists, pantheists, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, Jews, Muslims, etc...oh yes, a large majority of Christians understand and accept evolution. Charles Darwin himself was a Christian and theist, so you are not doing yourself credit by forgetting that one important fact.

Being atheists doesn't make them automatically accept evolution. I've already mention my cousins who don't know what evolution because many of them are not scientists. So you only lamely put them in one basket. The name for that is stereotyping and generalizing.

Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of god. They don't believe that god(s) exist, and that's all it is. Atheism is not a scientific position. Atheism is not evolution, and until you understand this, there is absolutely no help for you, intellectually.

Evolution is the only theory of origins compatible with atheism. If you are interested in how we got here, atheism makes you an evolutionist. If we were created by aliens, that only shifts the problem off shore, who created the aliens?

Atheism is not a scientific position, but it mandates that you either believe evolution, or ignore the problem of how we got here.

I would ask your cousins "how did we get here?" and they wouldn't be able to answer.

 

[gnostic]

Evolution is the only theory of origins compatible with atheism.

What about all the theists that understand and accept evolution?

BTW, I'm agnostic, not atheist, but I do prefer verifiable evidences to believe in anything, particularly with god.

ATHEISM is exactly like THEISM. (I am talking about theism in general, and not monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, or what have you). They are alike in the way that both deal with the issue of the EXISTENCE of god or gods. Atheists simply don't believe in their existences.

THAT'S BL@@DY ALL!

There are whole bunch of theists and religious people who accept and understand evolution.

ATHEISM is only theological position: so atheists don't believe in god. ATHEISM is not scientific position. So ATHEISM IS NOT SCIENCE.

ATHEISM is not legal position. Nor is ATHEISM a moral or ethic stance.

If you don't bl@@dy well understand that, then let me approach you from another direction, with some examples for you.

Evolutionary biologist (EB) is a job or career. So as an EB, do you require to believe in god to do your job?

An EB can believe in whatever religion he like, or not follow any religion at all, as long that none of interfere with his works. IF YOU CAN'T separate what you do for a living with what you believe in, then you shouldn't become an EB.

The same could be said about any other job, profession or trade.

So here is another example: Carpenter.

If you were to do carpentry for a living, do you require belief in god in order to work as a carpenter? (My answer would be - No.)
Do you require to give up religion to be a "good" carpenter? (Again, no.)

The level of how good you are, as a carpenter is dependent on your skill, not your belief (or disbelief) in god. Anyone, including atheists or Christians, or whatever religion you believe in can become carpenters.

It is only utter stupidity for anyone to think that atheists are the only ones to believe in evolution. I am an agnostic, and I accept evolution BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE THEORY; UNDERSTAND THE EVIDENCES THAT SUPPORT EVOLUTION; AND I UNDERSTAND THE MECHANISM BEHIND EVOLUTION.

The KEY is UNDERSTANDING.

Anyone can learn evolution.

You apparently don't understand, even with you supposedly have studied 1 year in evolution at university. Apparently you don't understand science whatsoever, otherwise you wouldn't make such stupid claims.

PLEASE, stop linking evolution and atheism as if they are the same.

I would ask your cousins "how did we get here?" and they wouldn't be able to answer.

They simply don't understand because THEY DON'T REALLY CARE about evolution. Their work and educational backgrounds don't require them to understand evolution or any other scientific. They are accountants or financiers or whatever jobs they are doing.

Not all atheists are scientists, just as not all atheists are doctors or accountants or farmers. GOD-****-IT, you're one hell of frustrating person. :banghead3

Must every atheists must believe in evolution? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

BL@@DY UNBELIEVABLE!

 

[javajo]

Evolution does not have anything whatsoever to do with cells happening by chance. Consider the following from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online:

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accepted naturalistic or theistic evolution. That obviously includes the vast majority of Christian experts.

Since Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," he quite obviously did not believe that life on earth originally happened by chance, only that current lifeforms come from preexisting lifeforms. Today, the vast majority of experts around the world, including the vast majority of Christian experts, believe that he was right.

I believe micro-evolution is a fact, just not macro. The lack of the many transitional fossils just doesn't support it for me. I believe God created Adam and Eve in his image right from the start, and while I would not be surprised if some of my ancestors were hung from trees, I just don't think it was by their tails.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them....from Genesis 1.

you posted from a few known quacks that have no standing in modern science.

and it is not up for debate about the age of homo sapiens.

The quack-pack. Big Brother 14! Ian won the half a mil! Dan sold his soul...jk. Well, I believe the account of Adam and Eve. Eve means, "mother of all living" in the Bible, and that's just who I believe she is.

And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No, there are other issues, but that is my favourite, and most of the others aren't remotely relevant to this thread.

So you say we arose by abiogenesis and evolution?

No, there aren't other issues, except with your own personal lack of understanding of the subject.

But yes, that is what I say, in terms of, I accept those two statements as true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe micro-evolution is a fact, just not macro.

They are the same thing, just over different periods of time. Saying you accept micoevolution but not macroevolution is like saying it's possible to walk down the street, but impossible to walk a marathon. It's the exact same process.

The lack of the many transitional fossils just doesn't support it for me.

We have thousands of transitional fossils, and it is literally impossible for us to obtain examples of every single generation of every single species that evolved over the last several million years. Just how many transitional fossils should we have to find before you accept it as evidence?

I believe God created Adam and Eve in his image right from the start, and while I would not be surprised if some of my ancestors were hung from trees, I just don't think it was by their tails.

What you think has no bearing on the facts or what the facts tell us. And what they tell us is that Adam and Eve never existed, and all living organisms on the planet evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[johnhanks]

I believe God created Adam and Eve in his image right from the start, and while I would not be surprised if some of my ancestors were hung from trees, I just don't think it was by their tails.

New World monkeys have prehensile tails; apes and Old World monkeys do not. As far as I know no-one has proposed that we are descended from New World monkeys.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[camanintx]

Atheism is not a scientific position

Philosophical positions rarely are

 

[camanintx]

I believe micro-evolution is a fact, just not macro.

Please explain the difference, and try to be scientific if you can. What mechanism prevents the small changes we call micro-evolution from producing the larger changes we associate with macro-evolution?

 

[Agnostic75]

So you say we arose by abiogenesis and evolution?

What do you mean by abiogenesis "and" evolution? They are two different things. Abiogeneis deals with how life began. Evolution only deals with what happened after life began. One study showed that 99.86% of experts accept naturalistic or theistic evolution. Do you think that it is unreasonable for people who are not experts in biology to accept the opinions of a very large consensus of skeptic and Christian experts?

 

[javajo]

They are the same thing, just over different periods of time. Saying you accept micoevolution but not macroevolution is like saying it's possible to walk down the street, but impossible to walk a marathon. It's the exact same process.

No, they are not the same.

We have thousands of transitional fossils, and it is literally impossible for us to obtain examples of every single generation of every single species that evolved over the last several million years. Just how many transitional fossils should we have to find before you accept it as evidence?

No, we don't.

What you think has no bearing on the facts or what the facts tell us. And what they tell us is that Adam and Eve never existed, and all living organisms on the planet evolved from a common ancestor.

I believe Adam and Eve existed, personally. I do not believe the facts support your statement.

New World monkeys have prehensile tails; apes and Old World monkeys do not. As far as I know no-one has proposed that we are descended from New World monkeys.

I believe we were made in the image of God, personally.

Please explain the difference, and try to be scientific if you can. What mechanism prevents the small changes we call micro-evolution from producing the larger changes we associate with macro-evolution?

Micro is within species and is fact, while macro is (supposed) transition to a whole new species and is not supported by the fossil record. But, this is about Adam and Eve as myth, so...

 

[outhouse]

No, they are not the same.

well you are awrong again.

you have admitted in the past to refusing knowledge on this subject.

No, we don't.

yes we do, this is a FACT


this is intellectual dishonesty on your part due to refusing common knowledge.

I believe Adam and Eve existed, personally. I do not believe the facts support your statement.

You can believe what you want, but dont be suprised when your stood up for crossing the line science claims.

the facts do support his statements, your statements are claimed as mythology by credible historians.

I believe we were made in the image of God, personally.

the actual wording is "gods" plural

and you only have faith in this, not backed by any scientific evidence.

Micro is within species and is fact, while macro is (supposed) transition to a whole new species and is not supported by the fossil record. But, this is about Adam and Eve as myth, so...

false again.


all evolution is supported and taught worldwide as higher education, while creation is outlawed from public schools

 

[javajo]

blah blah blah....

 

[idav]

Micro is within species and is fact, while macro is (supposed) transition to a whole new species and is not supported by the fossil record. But, this is about Adam and Eve as myth, so...

Mitochondrial Eve is about 200,000 years back which is enough time for us to have diverged from our chimp cousins.

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[javajo]

Mitochondrial Eve is about 200,000 years back which is enough time for us to have diverged from our chimp cousins.

Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'll stick with the Biblical Eve. You can believe in Macro and that species evolved into new species and you came from chimps if you like.

 

[idav]

I'll stick with the Biblical Eve. You can believe in Macro and that species evolved into new species and you came from chimps if you like.

In Genesis there were already humans (male and female) when Adam was created which supports the idea of humanoids being around with the plants and animals while maintaining a separate creation for the chosen Adam.

Uh, no we didn't come from chimps, we came from a common ancestor that went extinct. Though of course you may believe that we just came magically out of the ground if you wish. Just super strange that god would go to such great lengths to make it appear that animals gradually came about through natural processes.

 

[camanintx]

No, they are not the same.

Macroevolution is simply the compounded effects of microevolution, so the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one, the only difference between them is of time and scale.

 

[javajo]

In Genesis there were already humans (male and female) when Adam was created which supports the idea of humanoids being around with the plants and animals while maintaining a separate creation for the chosen Adam.

The Bible is very clear that Adam was the first man created by God in his image.

Uh, no we didn't come from chimps, we came from a common ancestor that went extinct. Though of course you may believe that we just came magically out of the ground if you wish. Just super strange that god would go to such great lengths to make it appear that animals gradually came about through natural processes.

I believe we were created by a supernatural God just as the Bible says. We interpret the fossil record differently.