jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (354 posts)

Who came first Adam and Eve or Homo Sapiens

  1. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago

    Man started wearing clothes 170000 years ago
    Adam and Eve were naked 6014 years ago

    Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200000 years ago , most people can believe this, then how come most people are Religious?

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I guess most people really don't believe this. Religion aside, I'm still not convinced homo erectus or whatever his name was originated in Africa. There's just to much that's undiscovered archeologically.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You do believe like most people, we (man) began on earth 200,000 years ago?

        1. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not sure about the time frame but definitely back there.

      2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Recent DNA evidence shows clearly that we all originated in Africa.

    2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      True, based on the study of the evolution of lice we estimate humans have been wearing clothing for tens of thousands of years. Some believe this most likely coincides with the migration north out of Africa where humans probably began wearing animal pelts to keep warm.

      The real question is, when did humans become bashful unlike any other living thing and wear clothes to cover themselves? After all, there are still tribal cultures to this day that don't feel compelled to cover themselves as those in the civilized world do.

      Right after Adam and Eve ate the fruit it says 'the eyes of both of them were opened'. Then they were ashamed of their nakedness. This requires a self-awareness that apparently wasn't there before.

      Here's something I wonder, and something that feels relevant to this question... if the self-aware human consciousness we know now developed naturally over the course of hundreds or thousands of generations, why is it that our own bodies, that have also formed over many generations, are a complete mystery to us? Our brains physically developed right along with everything else and can make everything in the body function, yet it's all a complete mystery to our conscious mind. We have to study our own selves just as much as we study the outside world, including the very brain where we believe our consciousness resides. Like it's foreign to us.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image90
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I've wondered the same thing as you expressed on your last paragraph. How come the human brain is more intelligent than the conciousness that inhabits it?

      2. Philanthropy2012 profile image91
        Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Humans probably developed the clothing addiction to shield themselves from the cold, what with us being bold and everything.

        The idea of "shame" is a concept that we're taught. Children don't care that they're naked on the beach, much to the dismay of many other people who find it shameful behaviour.

        It's ridiculous to think that we're born with an innate desire to cover only our genitals up out of some sort of religious historical event, when there is clear evidence that it's not true on the very beaches that we holiday to lol

        And why is it surprising that we aren't born with a full understanding of ourselves? That would be nice though, biologically unfeasible, but nice.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, clothing in the beginning was functional. Served a purpose. At first it was to keep warm. But when did we become bashful? Where's that dividing line between those of us that feel the need to cover ourselves and those still in existence today that don't? Those in the wave of civilization that spread throughout the world consider it indecent to be nude. Those untouched by civilization aren't nearly as concerned. What's the difference?

          How is that biologically unfeasible? The brain subconsciously controls all of the intricacies of the body right from the beginning. It doesn't have to learn first. But our conscious mind does. We don't know anything about our conscious mind, so how could it be deemed biologically unfeasible if we don't yet understand exactly what it is? Wouldn't we at least have to have a grasp on consciousness biologically before we can deem anything related to it feasible or not?

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image91
            Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It still is functional. Ask the Inuits if they wear clothing because it's rude not to, or because they would freeze to death otherwise.

            The dividing line is society and social values. Nudity in public is socially considered as rude, so is picking your nose, or farting in public. It serves a purpose, some people do not like seeing other people's genitalia.. Especially that of disease ridden or elderly people. It is a natural desire to stay away from such genitalia. It creates disgust. And on the other albeit still negative side of the spectrum, some people would not want to be constantly sexually aroused whilst working around their workplace. It can be distracting.

            This social value has clear social bonuses. Most societies contain these factors, and so most will have come to the exact same conclusion that covering up is the best and most efficient way. It's so simple lol

            And I have no idea where you are getting the idea that we know nothing about the human brain from. There is an entire science known as neuroscience.

            The brain does not "subconsciously control" all of the intricacies of the body, most of it is just diffusion and reactions.

            We do know a lot about the conscious mind. We know that dualism isn't true, and that our mind is an effect of the physical properties of the brain. That's why drugs effect our mind, and that's why being knocked on the brain effects our mind.

            And it's unfeasible biologically because there is no function for the brain to grow memories without any stimulus at all. That is, a baby cannot physically know the notes to the Moonlight Sonata before ever hearing it because memories are made from some sort of stimulus.

            Evolutionarily speaking, the gradual development of a false, from birth memory evolving through generations into something useful seems also equally unfeasible.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why is nudity socially rude? In the extreme cases of diseased genitalia I can certainly see your point, but not sure that really sums it up. Just being elderly shouldn't make the entirety of the civilized population universally decide they should cover themselves. And I'm not sure nose picking and farting are so universally considered rude. I do know some cultures consider burping after eating a compliment and to not do so is considered rude. As for your 'constant sexual arousal' scenario, that doesn't seem to hinder any other species on the planet and apparently hasn't become that big of an issue in central African or Australian Aborigine tribal cultures. If anything, that scenario goes farther towards supporting what Genesis says than anything.

              I'm familiar with neuroscience. You're right, just like any other part of the body, the brain is a physical mechanism that can be affected by trauma or chemical changes. We can trace where oxygenated blood is routed based on various stimuli and actually study physical changes, but we haven't even begun to grasp the will that drives the brain in any sort of physical form.

              And yes, there are numerous functions of the body subconsciously controlled by the brain. Your eyes, for instance. You consciously decide to look at and focus on an object. Signals from the brain are sent to the muscles that control eye movement and make the necessary adjustments to comply. This all works from birth.

              And why would memory be necessary in matters involving the body? We use memories in regards to the outside world, including the Moonlight Sonata. That's all totally outside of our evolutionary development. Why must our conscious mind have to learn our own bodies just as it does everything else outside of us?

              1. Philanthropy2012 profile image91
                Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @Headly Von Noggin, Genitalia connote sexuality and sexual intercourse, which universally leads to sexual stimulation. Either that, or sexual repulsion. Either way, it's universally not good to allow nudity in a society. Most societies figured that out.

                I didn't say burping, I sad farting, which has an obvious unpleasant effect. Burping isn't considered civil in some societies only.

                "I'm familiar with neuroscience." Then you should have known that humans have a mammalian brain and enjoy sex and wouldn't have said the following:

                "that doesn't seem to hinder any other species on the planet and apparently hasn't become that big of an issue in central African or Australian Aborigine tribal cultures."

                Which is a null point entirely. Other species do not have to concentrate on mathematical solutions or concentrate on anything daily for their survival. Furthermore, you have completely neglected the fact that other mammals rape each other when they want to reproduce. In humans, that's a hinderance.

                I take it you do not need me to explain the social function of disallowing rape?

                Clothing remind humans that they are in a civilized society, that they must act according to the law, and respect the rights of others. Children do not want to be exposed to adult genitals at a young age, neither do many other people for the reasons stated before. Again the reverse, many men and women claim to naturally find other same sex genitals revolting and would be displeased to see them on a regular basis.

                There are endless social functions that clothing provides, it's a no brainer to wear clothes lol

                "And yes, there are numerous functions " You said all previously. I was merely correcting you because that is way off.

                "And why would memory be necessary in matters involving the body?" Sorry, that's also a moot question. In essence you have answered yourself.

                By your logic, our brain already knows everything about itself. Our active mind however does not. Remember, our bodies ARE us. If there is no need for "memory" as you have claimed, then it is sufficient for you that the body knows itself, and it does. It knows the inner workings of itself chemically and knows how to react. Much like our macrophages, B cells and T-Killer cells, they know what is a foreign antigen and what is not.

                So if you're excluding memory from the question, you should be very content in knowing that we already know everything about our bodies.

                However I assumed you were asking why our active minds were not born with an understanding of our own body. An understanding of course, is predicated on remembering from sensory stimulus.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "Furthermore, you have completely neglected the fact that other mammals rape each other when they want to reproduce. In humans, that's a hinderance."

                  You're right, I did completely neglect that. A hinderance? So, is your mammal rape example based on signed statements from the victims or your eye-witness observation that one of the participants didn't appear 'willing'. You know, there are many other examples of intercourse where one of the participants doesn't appear willing .. it often happens in marriage. Hay-Ohh! Pa-dump

                  Look, I don't discount the power of the sex drive. I mean, it populated an entire planet. It's a powerful thing. But to reduce us humans down to leashed animals on the verge of unspeakable public sex acts held back only by our willingness to conform to clothing is a bit much.

                  "I take it you do not need me to explain the social function of disallowing rape?
                  "
                  Seriously?

                  "By your logic, our brain already knows everything about itself. Our active mind however does not. Remember, our bodies ARE us. If there is no need for "memory" as you have claimed, then it is sufficient for you that the body knows itself, and it does. It knows the inner workings of itself chemically and knows how to react. Much like our macrophages, B cells and T-Killer cells, they know what is a foreign antigen and what is not."

                  You didn't quite sum up my logic there. I know you don't see or realize it, but you're making my point. If our 'active minds' were just as integrated into our physical bodies as the physical brain is then it stands to reason that there wouldn't be such a divide. Our conscious mind is completely unaware of anything and everything, including our own bodies and minds, until it learns through the senses, establishes memories, and draws associations.

                  I agree that our physical brains developed through evolution. I get that it can be damaged or drugged. That it shares the same chemical reactions related to sexuality as other mammals. And I get that we can even associate certain things with particular parts of the brain; motor skills, name/word associations, all of that.

                  But if you really dig around what's known through Neuroscience you'll find that there is still no grasp of where exactly in the physical brain we can find the conscious mind. We do know it's not one particular region. Multiple regions seem to 'light up' (based on tracing oxygenated blood flow) at different times, often working together, based on stimuli and such. But there's no one region that stays 'lit up'. No central piece that seems to drive the rest of the process. In fact, the only tie between the separate regions that appear to work together on a given task is the blood itself. There's no other discernible tie that we can find.

                  Oddly enough, Genesis says that life is in the blood. Funny how that still seems to hold true with all we know today medically compared to those who first wrote it.

                  Look, we can obviously argue the particulars of this on and on for days. Kind of like I said in a reply to your comment on your Evolution is right Christians/Muslims/Jews are Wrong Hub, I realize there's nothing I can say that's going to make you immediately reprogram your whole perception and way of thinking and accept what I'm saying.

                  But I would like to say that your certainty in much of what you wrote about how obvious patterns and lines of progression can be seen in this and that and therefore requires no other consideration beyond it, that comes dangerously close to a close-minded state. Approaching any topic with a 'knowing' posture rather than a 'learning' posture is in essence the death of intellectual progress.

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, there is that innocence of being a child. Okay, look at it this way... all around the world where civilization sprang up humans unanimously decided clothes are necessary independently. Totally unrelated civilizations reach the same conclusion without exception, no matter their religious beliefs. Does that not suggest something more than just learned behavior?

          1. Philanthropy2012 profile image91
            Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No of course it doesn't :L

            From your statement I can deduce that you don't believe that we stemmed from one large group of humans who were already wearing clothing.

            Then by your logic, because we all learned to hunt animals separately, we all learned to make tools separately, we all invented similar housing, medicines, separately, there is some sort of divine force driving it?

            What about the idea that humans have the instinctive will to survive, and because they can think, will think of basic ideas such as food, warmth and disease. Those that didn't follow these simple ideas would have died, which is why there weren't any humans in cold climates who didn't feel the need to wear clothing.

            So it is learned behaviour, we are not born with the desire to wear clothing, but we are with the desire to stop discomfort, e.g. cold. That is why on a warm summer day, children, the best example of our nature, having not yet been affected by society, show that if it is warm, we would naturally not give a damn about anyone else seeing out junk!

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, what I'm saying is that civilized humans throughout the world wear clothing for reasons other than functionality. By your reasoning civilizations in warmer climates wouldn't have necessarily reached the same conclusion. Children like to be naked for good reason, it's comfortable. Things can breathe. But within civilization, no matter the religion, wondering around naked is frowned on, even if it's the more comfortable option.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A half naked women around the work place would take men off their focus from their jobs, that's understandable. What I found out from a thread that Questioned is masturbation a sin? When 98% make do it, it's amazing how many christian find it wrong, like every time they do it anyway, it's forgive me father for I am about to sin.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, human interpretation muddles things up, that's for sure. From what I can tell, a lot of the more conservative religious people idealize a proper christian lifestyle should resemble 1950's America. Personally I don't think the act itself is a sin, but the stimuli chosen to get the job done could certainly get you into some morally muddy waters.

                  1. Philanthropy2012 profile image91
                    Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    CastlePaloma pretty much sums this one up and a few more reasons are listed above.

                    Please take the time to consider the many social functions clothing serves, there are endless and creative ones, and you'll see that it is generally for the best.

                  2. Philanthropy2012 profile image91
                    Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Another really obvious one is the idea that genitals should be reserved for your loved ONE and showing them to others is akin to adultery.

                    This has it's roots in monogamy, another thing that was enforced upon humanity.

                    Having one partner for a man of course, not being a natural occurrence.

      3. secularist10 profile image93
        secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Headly:

        "The real question is, when did humans become bashful unlike any other living thing and wear clothes to cover themselves? After all, there are still tribal cultures to this day that don't feel compelled to cover themselves as those in the civilized world do."

        Like countless other cultural developments, the preference for clothing has a utilitarian basis. In colder climates (remember there was no gas or electric heating in those days), the communities that placed greater emphasis on clothing, and shunned nudity, survived longer, had more offspring and could defend themselves against outsiders better than communities that did not.

        In warmer climates, clothing is not as important. That is why warm weather cultures tend to not be as uptight, culturally, when it comes to clothing and nudity. They are more relaxed, because they have that luxury.

        Over time this cultural uptightness informed religious and moral values, hence the story of Adam and Eve.

        It's all evolution, folks smile

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So your answer to the transition from humans wearing clothing for functional/decorative purposes to wearing clothes due to being self-conscious about everything being on display is that over time cultural uptightness informed religious and moral values? That seems sound, don't get me wrong, but I'm not convinced there's no reason remaining to look here to maybe help us understand the origin of human consciousness. Unless you know the answer to that one as well in which case I can just let this go.

          1. secularist10 profile image93
            secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure I get it. I don't know what clothing per se has to do with the origin of human consciousness. Anymore than, say, bananas do.

            If you're trying to say that using clothing made us more conscious over time... I guess in some tangential way we can imagine that dealing with the activities of making, transporting, sizing and putting on clothing exercised parts of the brain that otherwise would not be used. Just like using other tools or implements.

            But that seems like a bit of a stretch.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, nothing like that. What I'm saying is when exactly did humans become self-conscious about being bare? It's one of the many things that sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. Human consciousness is a unique phenomenon in the natural world. Unless you think it began at conception (in this case meaning earliest forms of Homo genus or hominins) then human consciousness developed at some point along the way. The point in history when humans began wearing clothes beyond a functional-only capacity in my mind would be a very relevant clue.

              Or, to maybe put it more simply, when did we transition from wearing clothes because we were cold to wearing clothes because of what others might think? Self-conscious, so to speak.

              1. secularist10 profile image93
                secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well people have always been self-aware. Tribes in Africa where everyone wears next to nothing are of course aware of their bodies.

                Even animals have a kind of self-awareness of their physical bodies. If you put a funny hat on a dog, the dog will feel it and move around in an uncomfortable way.

                The difference you are referring to, when people wear clothes because of some arbitrary social norm, is just a function of culture. If someone is raised in a culture with a different attitude toward clothing and the human body, then they will have a different attitude. It doesn't mean they are more or less "conscious."

                I work with a lot of fashion people. I can tell you some people are FAR more conscious of the message their clothing sends than others. Does that mean they are capable of more complex thought than slobs? I doubt it.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Just look on how they are always comparing  clothing in church

                2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  "arbitrary social norm"
                  "function of culture"

                  The self-awareness that tells a 20 foot snake its hind-end is in some sort of danger is the same self-awareness that tells that dog that a foreign object is on its head or tells you you're cold. Every living thing has this at least to some extent. If they didn't then they probably wouldn't have lived long enough to pass it on.

                  But the self-awareness that tells you that how your dressed (or not dressed) is inappropriate, that's different. And I'm not just talking about being aware of the "arbitrary social norm". I'm talking about the awareness that had to come first before that social norm was established. I'm talking about awareness of a) yourself, b) others, c) yourself compared to others.

                  Do you agree we come from the animal kingdom? Is there self-loathing in the animal kingdom?  So when exactly did we splinter off with this heightened self-awareness? The 'function of culture' or 'social norm' you refer to is part of it, but is a result of it. Therefore it came first.

                  Take the fashion people you work with. Fashion is a form of art. Expression. Like a different form of communication. Now look at the tribes in Africa you referred to. What's the difference?

                  Genesis says that at first Adam and Eve were naked and didn't have a problem with it. Then they ate the forbidden fruit, 'the eyes of both of them were opened', and they were aware of their nakedness. So, before there was no difference between them and the rest of nature. They lived in harmony with nature, just as tribal cultures continue to do today. But after, they were aware of themselves and no longer felt comfortable in their natural skin.

                  This is quite the profound observation, whether you believe the story is true or not. And this to me says volumes about what sets us apart as a species and I would think offers some valuable insight.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                    Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    yes

                  2. secularist10 profile image93
                    secularist10posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm no expert on human evolution, but our heightened self-awareness probably arose tens of thousands of years ago.

                    First this capacity for self-awareness developed, and then cultures developed, and then their arbitrary customs and traditions, hence why some people in some cultures have one attitude to nudity, and others have a different attitude.

                    "Take the fashion people you work with... Now look at the tribes in Africa you referred to. What's the difference?"

                    There is no difference. People are the same everywhere. All human cultures have certain standards about fashion and personal presentation. In the US among fashion-conscious women, there is one standard. In a community where people don't wear very much clothing, there is a different standard.

                    They might put more emphasis on jewelry, or their hairstyle, instead of clothes. But it's the same process of self-expression at work. The specific standards or norms themselves are arbitrary, based on arbitrary historical, cultural, demographic, economic and even political forces.

                    Yes, of course our unique self-awareness is one of the things that distinguishes humans from animals. But the story of Adam and Eve is itself a manifestation of those arbitrary cultural forces--in this case, the culture of ancient Israel, and their preoccupation with nudity. In other words, the story of Adam and Eve is not an account of how things actually happened. It is a cultural myth, and that is why it contains the assumptions and mores of the culture that wrote it.

      4. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The fable of Adam and Eve is just there to teach us (those who are willing to listen that is) that when you look for knowledge you will no longer believe in God. Think of the apple as knowledge and the story takes on it's true meaning.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I get that Jesus often spoke in parables and understand how some can view stories like that of Adam and Eve as a fable as you put it, but what that view doesn't take into account are all the bits that give specific information like their ages and their descendants. Or the fact that the new testament directly links Jesus to Adam by way of his ancestors. It is clear that the story of Adam and Eve and Noah and the flood and others are nothing like the parables found elsewhere. There's way too much detail given to ground these stories in reality. Way too many ties to other non-fable bits of the bible.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Don't take a bite out of the apple of knowledge or you will be kicked out of the garden of Eden. Many Christians don't trust science because of these teachings. They think any knowledge that contradicts the bible is of evil intent. But what they don't understand is that the only intent science has is knowledge. Science is in search for the truth. Science has no agenda, but ID does have an agenda. They want science to fit into the bible.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're right. Science is an unbiased search for the truth. The scientific method in and of itself protects against the injection of the ID's input because facts must be testable and repeatable. ID has no say.

              Facts ascertained through scientific methods do not contradict the bible. To say they do is to say that either the scientific facts are wrong or that the bible is wrong. Non-truth.

              Reducing large foundational chunks of the bible to mere fable does a huge disservice as well. You might as well call them lies because they're not presented as fables or parables. They're presented as ancestral history directly linked to Abraham and David and Solomon and Jesus.

              St. Augustine, one of the founding fathers of the church and one who's writings partly inspired the Reformation, believed God reveals His nature to us through both the 'Book of Scripture' and the 'Book of Nature'. I agree. He also believed that if at any time the two appear to conflict then it's human interpretation that is flawed. I agree with that too.

              "Interpretation of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of demonstrable knowledge" - St. Augustine

              Think about it. All science contradicts are traditional interpretations of Genesis conceived centuries ago by people who knew way less about the natural world than we do now. The church has a tendency to proclaim they're interpretations as infallible truths and are slow to change. Believers are reluctant to even question because they equate questioning what doesn't make sense to fledgling faith.

              St. Augustine wrote on this topic as well. In his literal interpretation of Genesis he included this bit at the beginning ...

              "I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation."

              In other words, we should be willing to adapt and re-think things when new information comes to light. We've got a lot of new information. The only things this new information contradicts are things like Adam being the first human ever or the flood being global. However both of those ideas are human interpretations. Genesis itself says no such thing. In fact, Genesis specifically speaks of others in existence during Adam's time and speaks of survivors of the flood outside of Noah and his family.

              Human interpretation is the only fallible part.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There many fallible parts. If you believe the bible is flawed then it could not be the direct word of a perfect God because a perfect all knowing God would have made it perfect.

                As yourself if the following is the word of God.

                Deuteronomy 20:10-14 NIV
                When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

                Or

                Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV
                If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

                The bible is the only so called proof of God. With out the bible the idea of God answers no questions as to why or how we are here. One can't explain how the universe started by stating someone that has always been here did it, because then you have a much bigger question "how can someone have always been".

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Just as is always the case, context is important. Both of these quotes are from Deuteronomy, which is a sermon given by Moses to the Israelites just before they claimed the land promised to them.

                  This was a very specific situation. The priority throughout the books of Moses and beyond was to protect the chosen bloodline that would ultimately bring about the savior of all. Before free will God could simply do whatever needed to be done because life followed His will. Once free will was introduced, people did what they wanted. So, sometimes force was necessary to ensure the bloodline was protected. Slave labor was not a strange thing then. Basically, what it actually says is that they would be 'tributaries', or servants to the Israelites. What was strange was anyone commanded by their God to marry the woman they 'violated' and spend the rest of their lives with her.

                  It may sound barbaric to us nowadays, but it was what was required to realize the ultimate outcome.

                  As for the question, "how can someone have always been?", we understand today better than ever that time is an illusion. Tethered to time as we are the idea of something having no beginning and no end is beyond our comprehension. We are of a physical/material world where nothing lasts. Everything dies. We die. We cannot even fathom that notion, but that does not make it false just because we can't grasp it.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay, I say the universe has always been here and just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's not so. Ridiculous.
                    It sound barbaric to us today because it was barbaric. It was barbaric because it was written by men. If a God wrote it for us it wouldn't sound barbaric to say, for a victim of Rape marry the rapist and stay married to the rapist, but only if he got caught in the act.

            2. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image84
              BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Rad Man, you keep saying "apple" and I'm wondering where in Genesis you found that word.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry Blackandgoldjack,
                Perhaps I should have said forbidden fruit or tree of knowledge. I think you new I was referring to fruit. The tree of knowledge fits in very well with what I was saying.

      5. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
        Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So you are saying that tribes who wear almost no clothes are not self aware?
        Sounds like a bit of flaw in your hypothesis to me.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not necessarily. I'm saying Adam and Eve, and everyone born of them, were more acutely self-aware. If the natural world is God's creation, then it exists according to God's will. One single, unified will. The whole point of the Adam/Eve story is that they could behave contrary to God's will. They acted of their own will, contrary to everything else in the natural world. Indigenous tribes all throughout the world have the same inherent feeling of connectedness to the natural world. And they're much less selfish and self-involved. They're tribe minded. They're not materialistic. You don't find class or social stratification, but equality. Including between men and women. And they're much less uptight where it comes to being exposed or about sex in general. To them it feels natural. We're disconnected, having a more pronounced, acute ego that makes the natural world and even our own bodies seem foreign and strange to us. Something to be ashamed of and to cover up.

          This is an observable change in human history, as 'matrist' cultures gave way to 'patrist', starting in the same time/place in which the events of early Genesis are set. Starting in southern Mesopotamia we see the first signs of class stratification with the pre-flood Sumerian city-states, having a ruling class that organized the work and a working class that did the labor. This is also when humans became much more materialistic and violent towards one another. Behaviors born of being 'walled off' from the natural world. Evidence of the emergence of the modern human ego. A change that led to dramatic behavioral changes in humanity and that brought about the age of civilization.

          1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
            Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But I still don't get what you are saying because are not all humans descended from Adam and Eve? So shouldn't these tribes that wear hardly any clothes and that are not self conscious  be as self aware and self conscious as we are? Or are you postulating the idea that there are people who are not descendants of Adam and Eve and therefore have no original sin?

            Is it not more likely that culture has more to do with it than anything? The Jews were self conscious about nudity, but some of the other tribes around were not.

            There are many people today that have no issue with nudity.

            As for when these events happened, most of the Genesis stories are direct rip offs from Sumerian and other legends, adapted to the one god hypothesis.

            Noah in the Sumerian story did not have a world food, he had a regional flood, but all other details are close enough to say it is the original. The Babylonian version in Gilgamesh is the second, and the Jewish and most outlandish of all is the third version., The tower is another Sumerian reference. They built towers for the gods to come down to earth in and to then have access to the underworld. Even the snake in the tree of knowledge is Sumerian. Sumerian gods were often trees and plants with specific powers like ever lasting life and knowledge etc.

            Moses may not even have existed, or may have been one character from one wave of exit from Egypt. Scholars no longer believe that the exodus happened in one go. There were at least 4 waves of people who left.

            Even the Jewish scholars are beginning to doubt that Moses was more than a pawn in King David's attempt to unify the tribes by giving them a common history, seeing as Deuteronomy was mysteriously found in the temple circa 900 BCE. Till then no one wrote about Moses. After that a whole history of Moses comes to us, and a whole lot of legends about him even the Jews don't regard as cannon.

            And I think you are mistaken in thinking that Genesis/Adam and Eve do not fit the idea of parable. It sounds like the  natives stories about how the snake lost it's legs. I've also, like you, always thought it was meant to be the story of how humans became conscious. It is a cautionary tale but it includes the idea that knowledge is a double edged sword. Being aware gives the disadvantage of thinking of your own demise, something other animals are probably not aware of.   

            The story asks the question: "Why are we more aware than other animals? Why do woman have a hard time in child birth? Why is life hard?
            and it comes up with a model based on those facts.

            That's what all models are. They are explanations for  already known facts.But in this case the facts are right concerning the human condition, but the model is wrong. How could the explanation be right coming from primitive uneducated superstitious people?

            To top it all off these stories had different versions depending on the tribe that retold them. The only reason we have the stories in their current form are because they were written down staring from 600 BCE by the two remaining tribes after the conquest and deportation of the ten by the Assyrians, we really only have one tribe's stories when it comes down to it.

            I can't see it as anything but a fantasy based on the facts of the human condition. But fantasy non the less.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I am saying the world was already fully populated by homo sapiens by the time Adam was created. That the creation of humans in Gen1 and the creation of Adam in Gen2 are two separate events. That's why I think Cain expressed concerned about being harmed by others when he was banished in Gen4, and I think that is what the bit at the beginning of Gen6 is talking about in its explanation for why the flood was necessary...

              "When human beings began to increase in number on the earth [in the land] and daughters were born to them, 2 the 'sons of God' saw that the 'daughters of humans' were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”"

              Though Gen5 says Adam and all his descendants lived for centuries, this bit says humans are 'mortal' and only live 120 years. Right before this, before Gen5 was edited in to explain who this Noah character was, Gen4 says Cain built a city, and begins to tell the story of his descendants. Then, in Gen6 it says that when human beings began to increase in number, the 'sons of God' found the 'daughters of humans' beautiful and began having children by them. Cain's city would explain humans increasing in number in the region.

              The flood according to Genesis wasn't global either. That, like Adam being the first human ever, is an assumption. But it's clear in the fact that Moses and the tribes of Israel encountered descendants of the Nephilim in Num13, that there were survivors, as Gen6 says the Nephilim were there before the flood. Plus, that whole bit at the end of Gen4 regarding Cain's descendants 'fathering' all those who played stringed instruments/herded animals and lived in tents would be pointless to mention if everyone they 'fathered' died in the flood. Besides, whether it be in the traditional context of Adam and his ten generations of family being the only humans, or whether it be in this context where Adam's descendants introduced free will/ego/knowledge of good and evil into humanity by intermingling with them, thus resulting in rampant wickedness, a global flood would not be necessary. A regional flood of the Mesopotamian valley would still be their whole world and everyone in it.

              It's also assumed that the biblical stories must be taken from the Sumerian stories because the Sumerian stories seem to be so much older. The fact is, nobody knows how old the books of Moses are or who originally wrote them. Especially those first 11 chapters of Genesis. All we know from a scholarly standpoint is that it appears they were edited together from multiple much older sources. Two of which told such a similar story that they could be edited together into one. In actuality, given the region and timeframe given in Genesis, if Adam was indeed created in an already populated world, the humans who eventually became the Sumerians would be the humans in the background of those stories.

              The thing about the Sumerians is that they really did change humanity forever through their inventions. They built the first city-states, the first urbanization, leading to the first full blown civilization, they invented the first government, the first laws, as well as a whole slew of inventions from the wheel to kilns to sail boats to astrology/astronomy, mathematics, and writing. However, once writing became advanced enough for the Sumerians to begin writing down the oral stories of their ancient past, they did not give credit to their ancestors for all these inventions. They say they were taught by immortal gods, who were human in form, male and female, who lived among them on the Earth, inhabiting the temples at the center of each Sumerian city, and that they were moody and unpredictable. And they go into great detail about how these gods 'gifted' them with the 'mes', the decrees of the gods foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization.

              If Adam really were created as described in Genesis, and if he and all his descendants really did live for centuries, then to a 'mortal' Sumerian, they'd seem god-like. Like you said, the facts are right concerning the human condition. I argue that the model is right too. In this light, the Ubaid culture would be the setting of both the pre-flood Sumerian stories as well as pre-flood Genesis. It lasted roughly the same length of time as Genesis specifies between when Cain was banished (within 130 years of Adam's creation) and the flood. We know there really were city-states built by that culture, including Eridu, the first Sumerian pre-flood city-state, as well as the location of the world's oldest known ziggeraut, or tower. And the Ubaid culture really did come to a very abrupt end that was at least partially due, at least in the case of the region of Ur, to a flood.

              The Uruk culture picked up right where the Ubaid culture ended, and though they're counted as two different cultures archaeologically, were very similar. The first major city-state of that culture was Uruk. Both the Sumerian King's List and Genesis say Uruk was established not long after the flood, and both describe the ruler who established Uruk as being a 'mighty hunter'. And both Genesis and the Sumerian King's List also say lifespans were incredibly long before the flood, then got gradually shorter after. Which would make sense if beings who lived centuries were breeding with humans who lived much shorter lives. And there really were large human migrations, much like what's described in the Babel story, triggered by dramatic climate change in that region due to what's known as the 5.9 kiloyear event. This transformed the Sahara into an arid desert for the last time and sent scores of people towards lands near river banks. In each case, with Sumer, Egypt to the west, and the Indus Valley culture to the east, the foundations that led to the dawning of civilizations first started with the arrival of nomadic people from a growing desert. People who brought their own languages and who's patriarchal ways of life quickly overtook the inhabitants of the regions they came into contact with.

              It's from there that the first civilizations spawned and spread. Multiple civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Akkad in northern Mesopotamia, all began independently of one another, each with their own unique language, in a very short amount of time during the 4th millennium BC. The rest of human history just continues the story, with 'civilized' cultures dominating the landscape and overtaking the indigenous cultures of the world. As if the modern human ego were first introduced into a populated world, then spread like seeds throughout the world, spurred on by climate change. And every civilization that came from those lands surrounding the Mediterranean believed there were immortal beings who existed in their ancient past. The Sumerans/Akkadians/Bablylonians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans. What if that's not all entirely myth?

              This all lines right up with the timeline in Genesis. Abraham is said to have been born roughly 1800 years after Adam's creation. By that time Sumer was already in existence because it says Abraham's father was from Ur, and Egypt was already in existence because Abraham interacted with them. In the traditional context, that's not much time, considering Abraham was born just a couple of centuries after the flood, for full blown civilizations to come into being, but in an already populated world scenario with the flood only being local, it all lines up quite nicely.

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Facts are of no consequence to the brainwashed.

      1. lizzieBoo profile image79
        lizzieBooposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That explains a great deal about you.

        1. 67
          paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          A Troubled Man wrote:
          Facts are of no consequence to the brainwashed.





        2. Philanthropy2012 profile image91
          Philanthropy2012posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes yes and the Pope is a great guy.

    4. Sky9106 profile image50
      Sky9106posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for what I believe is a great question. I know know nothing about Home Sapiens , well at least nothing nothing that anyone else may not know. All I know  about Adam and Eve is what I have always heard and what the Bible says.
      Why I got attracted to this question is because I believe it ends with what one believes.
      Because I believe the Bible and I believe in the Most High God, and  yes I love to term him this way, because whatever he will turn out to be and he will , because what I have seen so far in simply breathtaking for my imagination.
      Looking at how fragile and feeble we are as humans , we die so easily.

      "Life is, and  it was, and it forever will be."

      Now that our minds have developed to reached a stage of being actually  limitless.
      One would barely  be using any, if one decide to stop at who was really  first. So I applaud you for the great question, but I don't believe anyone truly knows.

      What I believe about myself , is that somehow I always was,  in some unimaginable form, and at this  moment in time I materialized in this form and eventually the the Most High , who created all forms, will continue on with his plans. We can only hope it's all great for us, by doing the very best we can at all times . We will know what our best is. For we have had many examples.
      Thanks man.

    5. 67
      paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Where you get it from?
      Why did they start wearing clothes?
      Were they Atheists/Non-Theists?

      1. Disappearinghead profile image90
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I suppose that in the Quran, Eve's first wardrobe consisted of a set of black burkahs. wink

        1. 67
          paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Did she have a wardrobe?

          Burkah is not mentioned in Quran.

    6. 67
      paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this



      Some tribes in Africa still live naked, I think.

    7. ediggity profile image60
      ediggityposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Because not everyone believes in the magic fairy stardust sprinkled down from space that coincidentally created life through abiogenisis.  smile

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        parr

        I know of some beaches where people are naked, not in the middle east, they will beat you to death for that.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image59
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sure, in America, there are nudist camps all over the place. There is no modesty but some people still wear shoes to protect their feet! Black's Beach south of La Jolla, CA is/was a great nude beach (haven't been there since the 70s). South America has topless beaches. It's legal for women to be topless in the city of New York. Most people don't actually do it, but it's legal. What about breast feeding in public? Another form of nudity.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I was in an international sand sculpture contest in Netherlands which was on a partly nude beach. I asks this fellow Chinese sand sculptor contestant, will all these naked women going throw you off your focus in this contest. He just smiled from ear to ear, then I told him I had competed in China a few times and found in China they had very strict nudity laws, I ask ,what was the punishment for seeing an naked woman ?. He said we have to spend one week in a mental hospital being reprogrammed by a doctor for each naked woman we see. Then, I said after a week here, you we are spending years in a Chinese hospital

            1. 60
              Sara Jean Martinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              wow  is that really true

    8. Onusonus profile image88
      Onusonusposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's definitely a debatable subject. Especially when coming up with a specific age to a fossilized bone. Carbon dating is really only accurate for a few thousand years back. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old. That date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So guess what they did? They tossed the results out. And kept the theory that this dinosaur lived millions of years ago. It's a common practice in the scientific arena.
      So then they use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
      They do it over and over, using different dating methods each time. The results can have as much as a 150 million year difference.
      They then pick the date that they like best, based upon their preconceived idea of how old their theory states the fossil should be.
      So they start with the assumption that the dinosaur lived millions of years ago, and then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion. And you thought scientists come to conclusions after the evidence is pieced together. Not when they have an agenda.

  2. Eric Newland profile image61
    Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago

    Someone once told me that the first thirteen chapters of Genesis--all the way up to the first mention of Abraham, who is the first historically verified biblical figure--may be nothing more than folk tales, important for their message rather than any implication of historical accuracy.

    That someone was a priest.

    So, no skin off my nose when mankind originated. Maybe Adam and Eve were real people, maybe they were an allegory for man's sinful nature. Doesn't change my faith one bit.

    And hey, even if you go the fundamentalist route there's evidence in the biblical text that Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, or at least not the only first humans. Their children found spouses. Those spouses aren't named as other offspring of Adam and Eve. Therefore there were other people around.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do not most Christian even give a dam about Science or natural history or about the other million  species, spices and earthling that share earth?

      Did the Adam's Family have dinosaurs as pets, 1500 years later did Alien teach humans how to read and write, are not Christian at all curios enough about these question?

      1. 67
        paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is a fact that not every human beings is interested in the peer-reviewed science; with big mathematical equations or crypt computer languages or complicated lengthy terminology; they want to live simple life.

        Why not? It is their right.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are Christian more interested in football and beer. Why don't they take a trip down to the world's largest Creative Museum is a Museum in the Kentucky which presents origins of the Universe, Life, Mankind and man’s early history according to the book of Genesis. Earth and all of its life form were created 6014 years ago an over six-day period.

          Now museum like this make about half of Americans believes the World is less than 10,000 years old. Yet most of the world believe mankind began 200,000 years ago .

          Scientist believes the jellyfish have thrive in the worlds oceans and have been successful for over 650 millions years. The jelly fish has no brain and no backbone and the bible is jealous of the jellyfish, they call him Manowar.  In 2005, a particularly bad year, the Sea of Japan brimmed with as many as 20 billion of the bobbing bags of blubber, bludgeoning fisheries weighting up to 400 pounds. They won't see any of these things on Fox News as they are being banned in some Countries

          1. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting. I think it's called Manowar because of its deadly sting. And if you look at naked pre-historic cave figures in the Middle East, they'll probably stone you to death for that, too.

      2. Jean Bakula profile image96
        Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Castlepaloma,
        Christians just believe, even though facts prove the Earth is so much older than the Bible. I think it's obvious that Adam and Eve are myths, and there had to be other people around, unless she was sleeping with her sons to populate the Earth. Several years ago I engaged in a Bible reading. My childhood friend was dying, and her Uncle was a Jehovah's Witness, so we were all nursing her. I was friendly with one woman, my age, intelligent, great sense of humor, met her husband at the height of women's lib. But although I never would have read the Bible without her, I can't understand how a smart woman like her could believe it, literally, as JW's do. She was an engineer, until her hubby, under the "headship" rule where the man rules the family, told her to stop. I tried to reason as far as maybe a divine being caused the Big Bang? I mean, cultures of Matriarchal societies in Crete were around over 10,000 yrs. ago. I just couldn't change her mind. I know alot about scripture for a non Christian too, and sincerely believe that many people completely miss the point with Jesus. He said, "The kingdom is within you" Hello, the chakras. He was always meditating. And where was he from when he was 10 teaching at the temple to the end of his life? Studying in so called "mystery schools" in India. He tells his disciples they will do as he does, and things much greater. It amazes me how people twist it all or even can believe. And if they are all Christians, what's up with all the "My church branch is better than yours?"

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          See, Jesus WAS a yoga teacher.

        2. mischeviousme profile image59
          mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Very true or so it appears. smile

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yoga is another Religion, now why would he do that. unless Jesus did not really care that much for Religion

            1. mischeviousme profile image59
              mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't think he ever intended for a religion to follow in his name. He was part of the whole and was prepared to die to prove it. If anyone wishes to cut my head off, I'll prove it that way, but I much prefer the scientific and philosophical method. lol

            2. couturepopcafe profile image59
              couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yoga is a religion?

    2. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If the Bible is to be believed, A/Es kids married their own siblings. It's the only way. If you don't accept the premise of A/E then the rest falls apart. Can't have it both ways.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        he Pope dose not mind those facts, he will protect the Adam's family ways , some incests and clergymen young lover are OK, Three hell marry and off you go again and Oh! Atheists were Nazis

        1. Eric Newland profile image61
          Eric Newlandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I uphold that they were creepy and kooky, mysterious and spooky. However, I have a little trouble buying that they were altogether ooky. Just not enough evidence to support it. Does that really make me a fence-sitter?

          1. couturepopcafe profile image59
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Great! lol I love Castlepaloma's inadvertant use of the words "hell" Mary, may she rest in peace.

            @Castle - in the days of A/E, it was not considered incest and their were no biological repercussions. Somehow over time, it became degenerative both physically and psychologically. Maybe it was because our life spans went from 1800 years to 89 years. In 1800 years, it could work to marry your own cousin. I don't know.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Adam and Eve were not of homo sapien lineage. They were created separate from naturally evolving humans. We are the descendants of homo sapiens. For us, there are genetic consequences to breeding with close family. Adam and Eve were created specifically to be able to populate the earth while staying totally within their bloodline. But free will allowed for some of their descendants to stray and blend with homo sapiens, which resulted in the flood, which resulted in a fresh start with humans of both bloodlines. Lifespans lessened, but free will remained.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Awesome story. Are you saying there were homo sapiens around when A/E were in the garden (or after the fall?) Because that would certainly explain a lot, like why God created Adam.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I believe Adam was the introduction of free will into an already populated planet just a few thousand years BC. I think this is the catalyst that kick-started civilization. At the very least, whether you believe all of that or not, Genesis says directly there were other humans. We just never read it that way. If you do, you're right, it makes a lot more sense.

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                    couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So what were all those other humans like before God introduced free will according to this heretical theory? (I'm just saying.) They were not dumb and they certainly did what they wanted as witnessed by ancient civilizations as far back as 25,000 years at least.

              2. 67
                paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Your source please?.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Could God have Created Adam with a  mixed of 85% Neanderthal and Homo sapien genes which all had Adam's family Values. The other 15% of Adam's son's went undeveloped with a missing link illness called Neanderthal mix with homosexual genes. The ones with too much of the  Neanderthal gene went extinct 30,000 years ago  from  miscarriages,  homosexuality or eaten by dinosaurs. The 10% Homo sapien  that had the homosexual genes in them still exist and thrive today in happy marriages in a churches by Gay Priest.

                  I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of Bible thinking people, please help me Christians, I don't know what I am saying or what I do?

                  1. mischeviousme profile image59
                    mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Let it all go and start at the beginning.


                    1) We cannot observe the unobservable. If there was an Adam and Eve, they are probably dust by now.

                    2) Even the universe has unobserable qualities. We are the illusion of what we observe. I am neither here nor there, just as a table or lamp.

                    3) we are not solid or wave. We see solid objects, but we know now that they are more like a build up of many smaller things and they also are neither here nor there.

                    4) Time is multi-dimensional. What has occurred is gone, even myself. I am being created and destroyed every moment. Therefor, we are Adam and Eve every moment of the day, we are created, destroyed and tempted.

                    5) Everything in this universe happens every moment and the moments are eternal, for they have no true numeric value.

                2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Short answer, the book of nature and the book of scripture.

                  Longer answer ...

                  Genetic anthropology has confirmed every human alive today shares a common ancestor dating back tens of thousands of years in Africa.

                  Genesis 6: 1 - 3
                  When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

                  The only other two explanations I've been given for who the 'sons of God' and 'daughters of humans' are..
                  1. sons of God are rebellious angels, daughters of humans are Adam's family
                  2. sons of God are descendants of Seth (righteous line), daughters of humans are descendants of Cain (unrighteous line)

                  Neither make any sense for numerous reasons I won't go into here. The only explanation that does make sense is that the 'sons of God' are Adam and his family and the 'daughters of humans' are exactly that. It even says humans are mortal and only live 120 years, one chapter after specifying the lengthy lifespans of Adam's kin. The above verses lead right into God's reason for the flood. Humanity had become wicked and this intermingling is directly related. It then says that God regretted putting humans on the earth.

                  So, the original intention was not for this intermingling to happen. Just as the forbidden fruit enticed Eve, these beautiful humans enticed Adam's descendants. The result had to be swept away in one of the many floods along the Tigris and Euphrates. Free will was running amuck, which is probably why God placed this destructive element in such an easily flood-able plain.

                  The humans who 'increased in number' in that region at the time before the flood were the Sumerians and their budding first cities to ever exist. Two chapters before, in chapter 4, it first says Cain is cursed an unable to grow food and says he'll be a restless wonder on the earth. But then it says he 'settled' immediately after. Then it says he built a city.

                  Centuries after the fact the Sumerians wrote about how civilization began in great detail by explaining that immortal human-like gods taught their ancestors. In fact, they believed these gods created them to serve them because that's exactly what they did. In exchange for this wisdom, including year-round agriculture among others, the Sumerians provided the fruits of their labor to these gods who physically inhabited physical temples we know actually existed. Cain, having the knowledge of farming but cursed and unable to grow food himself, built a city, settled, and had roughly seven generations of family before the flood.

                  We've yet to be able to comprehensively explain this acceleration of human advancement exhibited by the ancient Sumerians. Scientifically, we attribute it to the development of agriculture and the close-knit interactions of a community.

                  The rest of the books of Moses chronicle God's protection of the chosen bloodline, the tribes of Israel. Literally hundreds of rules are given that strictly forbid breeding outside of the bloodline and protect against incest-related issues, among other things. Once the new testament says Jesus came from this bloodline, that hands-on approach stopped.

                  Unfortunately, there's no 'source' I can point to as I'm kind of on an island with this one so far. That's why I'm writing about it. It just plain makes sense. It makes the rest of the bible make sense. Just read those first few chapters again with this in mind and tell me it doesn't make way more sense in this context.

                  If I'm totally delusional, perhaps I'll find someone who can correct me and prove this utterly ridiculous. All I can seem to find in my research is more evidence that supports it.

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image59
                    couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    All I can say is that trying to explain who the sons of God and the daughters of humans were is like trying to explain the difference between The Son of God and The Son of Man (Jesus).

                    And I'm going to use this in the 'Chivalry' forum. It goes to the point of how women became 2nd class citizens and has to do with the fact that religiosity bestowed favor upon men and cast women in the role of tempter.

                    Ancient civilized societies, such as Athens, did not differentiate between the sexes but only as a matter of class not gender.

      2. feenix profile image61
        feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        First, even though I am a devout Christian, I do not believe that the story of Adam and Eve is supposed to be taken literally.

        In my opinion, the story is an analogy. It is a lesson about how screwed up things get when people get high on dope.

        Furthermore, it is made clear in Gensis that there were other humans on earth when Adam and Even were here.

        The most telling incident is that when their son, Cain, killed his brother, Abel, Cain was cast out of the Garden of Eden. And, following that, he traveled to the Land of Nod where he found a wife.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Was Cain or Abel before Adam,? where did all these 10 million people come from before Adam?

          1. feenix profile image61
            feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Perhaps all the males came from Mars and all the females came from Venus.

          2. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            From this silly question, I can wait for an even a funnier reply

  3. steveamy profile image60
    steveamyposted 4 years ago

    Archbishop Usher vs Science .... same old song and dance

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We need to hear more from you on the subject since you are studied in it.

    2. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ussher was actually a brilliant scholar. If he were alive today, he'd likely admit that something was amiss with his 4004 BC date.

      Many of the dates we now use in our history books were researched by Ussher, or have been modified only slightly from research since Ussher's day.

      His problem was taking the timeline as literal. It wasn't mean to be taken that way.

      1. mischeviousme profile image59
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Especially since there is no true timeline, just bad judgement and shotty math. You can't explain away a fairy tail, just as I can't give you my enlightenment. I can explain it, but then it would just be a wordy mess you would not understand.

  4. 0
    Muldaniaposted 4 years ago

    Religion has existed for thousands, of years, but the origins of man is still a new understanding.  So the religious are unlikely to decide to drop their long-held beliefs, because of new knowledge.  And it is mostly the evangelical fundamentalist religious who insist in the 6,000 year age of the universe.  The majority manage to accept the findings of science.  Recent discoveries have placed civilisation much further back in time than was previously accepted, such as the unearthing of 12,000 year old buildings in Turkey.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      One thing I never understood. There is no time frame in Genesis regarding the beginning of man so how do they know it was only 6000 years?

      1. 0
        Muldaniaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Bishop James Ussher dated the creation of the Earth at 23rd October 4004 BC.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This was based on lifespans and lineages specified in Genesis, Numbers (I think), and elsewhere, combined with the assumption that creation was six literal days.

          1. mischeviousme profile image59
            mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Pure speculation. Usher was just another primate, playing with the tools of the mind. To take it litteraly, is like stabbing the brain with a toothpick, it's nonsensical all around. Though Usher could have been completely sane, it was insanity to believe he was absolutely right.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Okay. Not that I have any special feelings toward Ussher one way or the other, but I have to say reducing Ussher to primate status seems a bit harsh. Keep in mind he was from the 16th century during Galileo's time. People in that time still thought the Earth was at the center of the universe and were still a long way away from discovering evolution or defining the geological formation of the planet. Again, I know very little about him, so maybe there's some atrocities lying at his feet that I'm unaware of that would warrant such a strong reaction, but in regards to his attempt to pinpoint a date for creation, I'm not sure his intent was of the mind game variety.

      2. 67
        paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        A good question.

    2. 67
      paarsurreyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The fact is that science and its discoveries are a joint effort of Theists and the Non-Theists; six thousand years ago either the atheist did not exist or they believed the same things, more or less.

  5. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Man came first. Created by God, he had dominion,but naming wasn't a strong point. Adam "created" by LORD God, was relegated to a specific area in the dominion of Man (the garden). Created male and female, THEY were a tribe, with a name. He called THEIR name Adam. And due to recent archaelogical finds, the date for the emergence of man has been pushed back another 200,000 years.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Right, humans have been around a long time. And the humans created in Genesis 6 match up exactly with this chain of events. Then it says Adam came. Reducing those early stories to nothing more than symbolism dilutes the whole thing considerably.

      Just look at creation. It actually describes the formation of everything relevant to humans in the correct chronological order and manages to describe it from a surface of the planet perspective, even though those events happened millions and billions of years ago....

      Day 1

      13.7 bya Heavens
      4.54 bya Earth
      4.2 bya Oceans (we only recently figured out the oceans came first)
      3.8 bya Light*
      * before the surface cooled enough, all of the water that makes up the oceans was trapped in the atmosphere. as the surface cooled the oceans formed. as that global cloud of water vapor thinned the sun's light began to reach the surface and has shined on it ever since

      Day 2

      3.5 bya Firmament (oxygenated atmosphere, which coincidentally required both oceans and light as it was a photosynthetic process)

      Day 3

      2.5 bya Continents
      542 mya Cambrian Explosion
      488 – 433 mya Plant Life on land

      Day 4

      Sun, Moon, Stars set in firmament to track seasons/days/years...
      550 mya (Continents deep in southern hemisphere)
      275 mya (Continents well across equator)
      * before the Cambrian explosion the majority of continental land mass was positioned beneath the planet where days last 6 months. between the appearance of plants on land and the emergence of life from the seas the continents drifted back up to where they were positioned around the equator and have remained there since. this literally moved the sun, moon, and stars into position so they could be used for the exact reasons stated

      Day 5

      488 – 443 mya Vertebrates appear in ocean (not on land)
      443 – 416 mya First fish with jaws, first sharks (not on land)
      359 – 318 mya Vertebrates appear on land (Continents already across equator)
      150 mya First birds

      Day 6

      65 – 55 mya placental mammals
      55 – 34 mya modern mammals
      .16 mya Humans

      Basically, I think there's a lot more to Genesis we should consider before ruling it out as nothing more than mythology or symbolic tales.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did this guy walk with dinosaurs

        http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/images/nephilim2.jpg

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Assuming that is an actual human femur... no. Early mammals were no larger than rodents during the age of dinosaurs and no variation of the Homo genus showed up for tens of millions of years after.

          1. lone77star profile image90
            lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Some land mammals during the Miocene Epoch were far larger than elephants!

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              True, the Miocene Epoch is right before long-legged grazing animals first appeared during the Pliocene. After that comes the Pleistocene Epoch, which is where megafauna existed; sabre-toothed cats, mammoths, dire wolves. This was all 40 million years after the KT mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. So neither large mammals or humans existed when dinosaurs did.

              1. lone77star profile image90
                lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                True. KT was a distant and ancient memory.

                But, if a new biblical timeline is right, then humans may have existed during the latter half of the Miocene -- big mammals and all -- some 3x the size of elephants!

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  There's no evidence to support that. Dinosaurs came way back between life from the sea (vertebrates- amphibians then reptiles) and birds. Genesis specifies both in the same day, day 5. Humans were day 6.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ^ Disregard the bit about dinosaurs. I misread. The Miocene Epoch is when the first upright walking hominins appear, but they at that time showed very little resemblance to humans. To my knowledge there were no species of the homo genus until homo habilis during the Pleistocene millions of years later.

        2. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Castle, I've seen pix like this before. It could easily have been doctored (normal femur superimposed). Some people are pretty good at Adobe Photoshop.

          I like to see the carbon-14 dating test on this, if the article isn't fake.

          It would be a pretty exciting find, if it's real.

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And it could be, @HeadlyvonNoggin, that Days 1-6 were only timeless images in God's mind (the "Word" or blueprint of creation).

        Maybe we're living in God's day of rest -- all 13.7 billion years of it.

        "Resting" (or what the Buddhists call "allowing") is the "perfecting" element needed for an idea to become manifest in physical reality.

  6. Disappearinghead profile image90
    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago

    I think the creation account of the bible is just one of many different stories each with some similarities. The only reason the Church believes in A and E is because that happens to be the account inherited from Israel. Each civilisation has its own folklore and with regards the bible the folklore probably developed with different elements from the original in order to teach certain lessons and principles.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image96
      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In Edgar Cayce on Jesus, he says that Adam was really  Jesus in one of his earlier incarnations. That Jesus incarnated 30 times before he became the supposed Son of God. I was going to write a hub about it, but was afraid I would get banned from Godpages.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I were reincarnated as a 10,000 year old tree, Would I be cut down and made into Bibles books?

  7. HistoryProdigy profile image78
    HistoryProdigyposted 4 years ago

    We were not there; therefore, we do not know, and never will know. It is useless asking questions like this. Some people will claim they know the "facts", but in reality they are only deceiving themselves. Everybody has the right to express their opinions, but in the grand scheme of things, history simply does not care about mine or anybody else's opinions. Never post in your comments, numbers, to try to date historical events without the words "perhaps", "maybe", or "possibly". Contrary to popular belief, no dating method is full proof. Even if they were accurate how would you know? That is circular reasoning. Each number is just as potentially corrupt as the next. The only true answer to the question is "I DON'T KNOW".

  8. 60
    Mister Rayposted 4 years ago

    If we compute literally, then Adam and Eve would be 6014 or so years old. But in the Bible, particularly in 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." So if it's a thousand years to a day for the Lord, at 365 days a year, 6014 years would be 2,195,110 days and multiply this by a thousand and we'll get more than a  billion years of human existence.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A billion years of human existence, what did those giants eat,?
      Granite rock and drank it down with  molten  lava

      1. mischeviousme profile image59
        mischeviousmeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Adam and Eve are us all of the time. The Universe is The eve of Atom.

  9. 60
    Mister Rayposted 4 years ago

    Sorry, it's a billion days of human existence...or millions of years of human existence.... which more or less confirms scientific claims on man's length of existence here on earth.

  10. pisean282311 profile image56
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    its like who came first mickey mouse or tom cruise?...obviously one is fiction and other is real....adam ,eve is fictious story...homo sapiens is real species...

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Mickey Mouse, he is 5 time more famous  thanTom and 25 years older

      Mickey was created in a image of a real mouse within a church and worshiped by millions

  11. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    Ussher was a Brilliant Scholar

    @Castlepaloma, good question, but Ussher's timeline was based on the best evidence he had at the time. We still use many of his dates in our history books (like the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great). On many dates he was pretty close.

    He took Genesis literally, but he shouldn't have. Today, he'd likely reject his own hypothesis as faulty. He seemed to be that kind of a serious scholar. Even Isaac Newton came out with his own biblical timeline, decades later, similar to that of Ussher. Even he didn't know better.

    Bible Not Meant to be Taken Literally

    The Bible was written to elicit humility from us -- humility or rejection. I don't envy the ones who reject it. Any really good scientist uses humility in the search for answers. It's a mandatory ingredient in research. If you think you already know all the answers, you're going to trip yourself up (that's hubris). A lot of so-called Christians may miss the salvation "boat" because of similar arrogance. I hope they wake up before it's too late. I hope I do, too, and I'm still learning.

    Because of the desire to elicit humility, you can bet that there is a great deal of wisdom hidden in the Bible.

    Genesis Code

    There are certain factors in Genesis which, when multiplied by the already outrageous ages of the early patriarchs, reveal a timeline compatible with those in science. There is a lot more symbolism and metaphor going on there than most people realize.

    The 200,000 year figure is only the latest date from anthropological science. One reference in my library pegs earliest Homo sapiens at 50,000 years ago. What a difference thirty years makes. Will the date of earliest human be pushed even further back?

    The actual date in Genesis for earliest man is something like 10,434,130 BC! That places Homo sapiens in the latter half of the Miocene Epoch. And there were some very scary mammals roaming around then. Some far bigger than elephants and as scary as dinosaurs.

    There's more on this at http://www.GenesisCode.net

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lone

      How did you arrive at the Earth being 10 million years old?

    2. Jean Bakula profile image96
      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lonestar77,
      Although I am not a Christian, I do believe there are "clues" in the Bible, good advice about living in many cases, and a lot to learn, especially from Jesus. I just think people miss the point, especially the more literal Christians. I don't have the answers, I'm just a seeker.

  12. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    This is a very odd question. We are assuming way to many facts based on possible theories on very little evidence. I think a lot of possibilities have not been entertained. For example what did the World look like prior to the great flood? was it advanced? If it was, what technology tree were they following? We assume a past world would have done the same thing we are doing today. The World may be ancient and it definitely seems older then what many Biblical scholars accept even. Still the evidence of when man arrived pending a World wide disaster offers little proof in answering how and when. Genesis offers very little data in many areas but has a beginning and end with absolute proof but gives us no definitive starting point for the record it was recording. Just as inconclusive is the story of variance and the science behind what it was and what it is today. A dog has always been a dog but look at all the different dogs we have today and the enormous changes this one specie was capable of making. Even if something has made enormous changes does not prove that its DNA was changed in terms of its variance and its possibilities. We are a long ways from taking physical appearance and determining the evolution of anything outside the context of what it has always been. Even if God had handed us a library explaining everything we would assume that we would know everything and could understand it. We are so bold to think that we can find the answer to everything but if the answer does not exist within our dimensions of human understanding. We create an answer to satisfy ourselves to allow us to satisfy our own agendas on Earth.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How can I travel to heaven and come back to teach my people the answers of to natural history?

  13. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    I considered that same question. In Job God appears and tells him you and your friends do not know anything but fell for the devils tricks. He goes on to ask Job all the questions we ask today but never presents the answers but tells him you do not understand.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I wonder what those med evil Giants could tell us about dinosaurs wail grunting around a camp fire inside a cave.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        RUN SONS OF GOD RUN!!!!

  14. 72
    SanXuaryposted 4 years ago

    The Giants a so called hybrid between Angels and humans another example that makes us wonder what the past was like.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow, what imagination cavemen had.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Imagination is often used to fill in the blanks when the context isn't clear. Reading early Genesis in the 'Adam was the first human' context leads to all kinds of crazy misconceptions... like half-angel/half-man halfbreeds, for instance.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Have you ever seen the graves on giants and their wedsite or photo  from 9 feet to the size of a football feild. No real professial sciencist will approve these finding. So let your imagination go wild without being grounded by facts.

  15. qeyler profile image79
    qeylerposted 4 years ago

    Please open your Bible to Genesis 1:6...."Male and Female created he Them, he Blessed Them and told Them to be Fruitful and Multiply and Replenish the Earth."

    Hence the create of people.

    Some time later, a Man was taken from the 'dust of the earth'  If one reads their Scripture one will know that the term is often used describe abundance, dust of the earth, stars of the sky, sand of the sea...etc.  It means 'multitude'.

    In Genesis 2: 29 we read how 'man became a living soul..' and how Eve is taken from Adam.

    Those who don't know Scripture point out 'mistake!'  as if a paragraph was accidentally repeated in a text book. 

    Those who know Scripture understand the physical and Spiritual creation; the fact that there were people bobbling around; homo sapiens, until this particular incident of 'Soul'.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Which day were the homo sapiens created? I'm not trying to be caustic. Just that I'd never heard or read this and now two people are saying the same thing.

  16. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    Eve was a Homo Sapiens. God is one heck of a scientist.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lol

  17. icelol profile image61
    icelolposted 4 years ago

    Adam & Eve were the first humans according to the Bible but today we find from fossils an evidence that it wasn't like that at all. In fact there was an "evolution" that happened. I agree with your question Castlepaloma, why people are still so religious. If you meet preachers from different places, they will also tell you different interpretations of what's written aon the bible. Peace everyone.

    1. icelol profile image61
      icelolposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      To the OP kindly delete my comment above, I misspelled aon instead of on. I will like to re post only the first part of this comment where the last or two sentences is not included. Thanks.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, no fossils ever connected Man and Dinosaurs together. You would think that Adam and Eve and their Adam's family would be riding Dinosaurs around like the Flintstones did.

        1. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Homo Sapiens is Latin. Is the question who came first, Adam and Eve or Latin?

        2. Druid Dude profile image60
          Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Ever tried to ride something that views you as dinner?

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Man can train most big animals to be ridden, yet to herd T Rex or Raptors may be a bit hard, in fact I think they can eat any mammal larger than a rat walking on the surface of  the earth,

  18. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

    "You think maybe God had another creation over in the next county?"


    Clarence Darrow to William Jennings Bryan during The Scopes Money Trials





                                           http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6186572.jpg

    1. feenix profile image61
      feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have this theory that both evolution and creationism occurred.

      Thus, I believe that Adam and Eve and their offspring were human beings, quite similar to what humans are today (but far superior), and "over in the next county," there were beings who had evolved from apes and who were akin to Neanderthals and Cro magnons -- and Cain took one of those as his wife.

      Therefore, the reason why "mankind" is so "impure" today is it is comprised by a species that descended from beings that were a mixture of human beings and "cave men."

      And I'm thinking about writing a novel based on my theory. ;-)

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        let me get this straight

        Adam and Eve were the most superior human beings ever lived on earth, smarter than Einstein
        But not so smart because these super human were out smarted by talking serpent with an apple

        Their children must have been very smart because they could lived  to an old age 600 to a 1000
        But not so smart because each generation of children got less and less intelligent and kept devolving to the fight club, as it is today

        These super Human beings were a mix of 16 foot giants, angel, and Sons of God in Yahweh image
        Still they partied too hard and had sinful beastly ape sex with an Neanderthal and Cro magnons.

        Mankind thought they were smarter than God, So Yahweh killed 99.9999% of people, Hitler score 2%
        But God was not so smart because most of the Worlds population today do not know who Yahweh is.

        Yahweh plan in 2012 is to kill 99% of us, to prove he loves us and he is smarter than a cave man.

        Did I get it right?

      2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You're on the right track, Feenix. I've been discussing a very similar theory with people for a couple of years now and while they're often reluctant at first, the more you think about it the more it makes sense. Usually the trend seems to be that believers will reject the idea at first, but then start to come around as they re-read the bible after hearing the theory. Once you've heard it, it's hard not to see it.

        The difference is natural humans were much further along by the time Adam and Eve showed up. Both Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man had been gone for tens of thousands of years. Homo sapien humans were no different than us physically. They just didn't aspire to be anything more than they were. They were content living in harmony with nature the way many tribal cultures isolated from civilized humanity still do today.

        Like you pointed out, Genesis 4 is a big clue. Not only did Cain take a wife in the land of Nod, he feared being harmed by 'others' and he built a city. But the most glaring clue is Genesis 6 ....

        Genesis 6:1-3 - When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.

        This comes just one chapter after showing that Adam and his descendants lived for centuries. Every ancient civilization in that region of the world speaks of immortal gods, human in form, who existed in their ancient past and had children with mortal humans. The Sumerians/Akkadians/Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans.

        What if those ancient mythological gods aren't entirely fictional? What if there really were beings in existence at one time that these stories were inspired by? Beings who existed for a short time about 5000BC, lived on the earth for roughly 1600 years, then got wiped out by a flood?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Did they live a short time, or did they live to be 1600? lol lol

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think I have to tell you, Mark, that 1600 years is a short time frame when you're looking at the entirety of human history.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              LAWL It sure is a long time in the last 7,000 years. lol

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                7000 years since then, but human history goes well beyond that.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How far back does human history go then?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well there are differing views on when exactly our ancestors officially became 'human'. If you want to include the first bipedal hominins then it goes back roughly 6 million years. The appearance of Ardipithecus, an early hominin genus, about 4.4 million years ago. Homo habilis 2.4 mya, homo erectus about 1.7 mya. If we're just talking about homo sapiens, then that's about 370,000 years if you go all the way back to when homo sapiens and Neanderthal first diverged genetically.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And what if Greek mythology wasn't entirely fictional? Sounds like the same story. We should all pray to Zeus and Hercules.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They all sound a lot like the same story because they all are the same story. Just different descendants of Noah after they were dispersed at Babel. The lifespans of these descendants continued to last for centuries for generations. By generation 20 Abraham only lived to 175. Moses died at 120. Before that there were literally dozens, hundreds, maybe more, who lived a very long time and would have been quite god-like compared to mortal/natural humans.

            1. 0
              jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nonsense knows no limits.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                well, nonsense usually doesn't match up so well with all the evidence. Maybe you can tell me what it is exactly that you know that allows you to deem this nonsense with such certainty. Because many people have initially approached what I'm saying with that same kind of certainty, ready to pick it apart, only to leave not nearly as certain.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Evidence, you have evidence. Please share any evidence you have that is NOT in the bible.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, rad man, we're discussing existence here, so you kind of have to look at everything. The bible, human history, science. Everything. I have hubs that go into more detail. I have a blog that goes even further. If you have any questions I'll be happy to address them.

                2. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You base all your assumptions on the book of nonsense.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nope. This is a combination of known human history, the history of the earth and evolution of life according to science, and the bible. I line everything up with known facts and evidence. The bible is just the guide. In this modern age we now know enough to be able to actually see how it all played out. We just have a bunch of pre-conceived ideas getting in the way.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Shhh, I've got some swamp land I'm going to sell him. If I can only somehow connect it to the bible he'll buy it.

                1. 0
                  jomineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ha ha Good luck.

              3. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Wait a minute jomine

                It makes perfect sense if God is sadistic megalomaniac bully who pushes most people around who are not even aware of Yahweh. You promote Yahweh by threatening all lives on earth, if that does not work the threaten to be torture them for eternity. That's because Yahweh God loves you very very deeply greater than you can imagine or think. The Yahweh fight club is simply jomine, what is so hard to understand, you burn in hell forever or join the World Champions killing team like a the totally true fairy tales in the bible. Just give it up jomine Adam is the smartest man who ever lived, we can only get dumber as time goes on and live shorter lives as Christian bring us One World Religion, it's cool it will all be over in 2012 anyways.

                Just three question for feenix

                1. I wonder, was Adam smarter than Jesus?

                2. Since after the flood man has not manager to live over the average age of  40 until mid 1800 when smarty pants Darwin made us think about Evolution, Is God going to kill most of us because we became smarter again?

                3. If everyone on earth become whole heartily faithful to Yahweh and everyone follow him to the end of earth. Would Yahweh give us back the incentive plan of living to the age of a 1000 years ? If so, I Personally  would Join in a HEART BEAT!!!!

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your words "Homo sapien humans were no different than us physically."
              This gives me pause. You do realize WE are homo sapiens?

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I do. But so are aborigines. Physically, we're no different. But starting with the Sumerians in Mesopotamia there have been those humans who continued to live in harmony with the natural world, content to live a simple tribal lifestyle, while others became very inventive and imaginative, inventing tools, studying the natural world and the heavens, endlessly pondering life's questions, writing literature and making music and art and civilizations and armies and weapons and governments. Meanwhile, aborigines and tribal African cultures continue to live as humans had for tens of thousands of years.

          2. feenix profile image61
            feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I have often seen a person make an attempt to discredit some one else by taking a schoolyard-type jab at him or her.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I've gotten used to it. I've had these discussions many times. The more someone tries to dig into my theory to pick it apart the more the conversation begins to turn. It becomes harder and harder to deny the more you get into it, but to accept what I'm saying for many would be a rather jarring realization.

              So it can sometimes make otherwise very rational people get a little irate. You see a similar reaction in believers who try to defend a young-earth view. After a while some begin to attack me or God or the bible or whatever. I can understand that. So I just plant the seed, sit back, and let this idea sink in and marinate for a while. It just takes time.

              You wouldn't believe the number of discussions I've had that have been totally deleted from hubs. I'll go back to see if they've responded and find any mention of me or my theory totally gone.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't have a theory. This is the typical refrain of the Christianist.

                "Woe is me. They attacked me as speaking nonsense."

                You speak nonsense. There is no jarring realization to be had. What you suggest is ridiculous because it has no basis in fact.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It has plenty of basis in fact. Literally too much to mention. I wouldn't know where to start. So how about this. You tell me what you know for a fact that proves me wrong. We can start there. I've had this discussion with dozens of very knowledgeable individuals hell-bent on showing me and everyone else I'm full of it. Whole hubs have been written to do so, only to be edited later to remove my involvement. But I won't say I can't be wrong. Anyone can be wrong. Maybe you'll be the one to finally prove it. This is my world view we're talking about so if you could show me that I definitely have something wrong here then you'd be doing me a favor. I don't set out to be wrong. I set out to find answers. I want the truth. It's important to me.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No - it has no basis in fact. It has basis in a book of myths.

                    And we go back to you spouting nonsense and demanding others prove it wrong. lol

                    Sadly - This is why your religion causes so many fights. sad

              2. feenix profile image61
                feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Personally, I always try to use Mohammed Ali's "Rope-a-Dope technique."

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              My comment was not a school yard jab. If the stories are the same and you only believe the stories of the bible. Why would you find greek mythology not real? Why not start praying to Zeus?

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I get the point you were making, and didn't personally see your comment as a jab, but I can also see how feenix might read it that way.

              2. feenix profile image61
                feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                During my many years on this earth, I have heard a very large number of nonsensical questions.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm sorry you could not make sense of my question. Perhaps if you read it slowly.

                  1. feenix profile image61
                    feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I could not make sense of the question?

                    Please.

                    I believe that you intended to say, "I am sorry you could not UNDERSTAND my question?

                    Anyway, I will end this comment by saying, Quite often, I read questions in these forums that are very silly, and that are nothing more than one's pathetic attempt to be witty and/or clever.

                2. Castlepaloma profile image23
                  Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  feenix
                  During my many years on this earth, I have heard a very large number of nonsensical questions.

                  it's time to change up who you hangout with

  19. feenix profile image61
    feenixposted 4 years ago

    Hello, Headly von Noggin,

    I really did enjoy reading your response to what I wrote.

    You provided me a with a lot of food for thought and I am printing out what you wrote so I can have it for future reference -- like when I start writing a novel about "The Theory."

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have 3 hubs on the topic under the title 'God created Evolution' as well as a blog where I wrote more extensive pieces before I became a Hubber. This goes well beyond just realizing Adam wasn't the first human. If you continue to follow that train of thought you'll eventually find that it seamlessly fits in with known history and helps explain the dawn of civilization from the Sumerians to the Egyptians and beyond. Eventually you'll find that all of these seemingly unrelated puzzle pieces start to snap together every direction you look. Human history, science, mythology, as well as the rest of the bible.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What museum in the world, would support your theory

        If you Step into the prehistoric and biblical time of the  world's largest Creation Museum in Kentucky USA. The creation/evolution controversy only began when the  word dinosaur was invented in the 1800s. Most people internationally today, believe that man began 180,000 years ago. Many Americans believe and the the bible says the earth began over 6000 years ago.

        The Creative Museum is a Museum that presents origins of the Universe, Life, Mankind and man’s early history according to the book of Genesis. Earth and all of its life form were created 6000 years ago an over six-day period. It shows dinosaurs and human coexisted, and the dinosaurs were in the Noah’s Ark along with T REX

        Do you support this Museum, if not , what Biblical Museum do you support because the Flintstones documentary is not  enough

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting that the dinosaurs were able to fit in a boat 500 feet long when many dinosaurs were over 200 feet long. Two of them end to end would be about all you could fit.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They all piggy backed together and all shared the same vegetables buckets (hold the meat please). extremely co operative animals without becoming water logged, weather proof and rust proof too

            Anything is possible in the Holly lands under one God= Yahweh, all other Gods and people are fakes and liars, which we know how Yahweh shows his love to them

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. flood happened about 6000 years ago.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              From what version of bible study did you find this information. Where there were dinosaurs or these kinds of dragons like creature 65 millions years old.

              From no plan or idea where you are coming from, then how do you know where you are going?

        2. scottcgruber profile image93
          scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I thought the current creationist theory was that the dinosaurs allied with Satan and didn't get on the boat, thus dying in the flood. Hence all of the dinosaur extinctions at the K-T boundary. Apparently Noah's flood was rich in iridium.

          Of course, this doesn't explain why plesiosaurs and mosasaurs and other marine creatures also died out at the flood-caused K-T boundary, but I'm sure creationists can make something up.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            That can be explained by the lock ness monster. Well he can't explain it now because he's under water. You see what I did there...

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You have to admit Mr Noggin is entertaining. big_smile

              Persistent and - I have to admit - consistent to a large degree.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                He is everything except right!

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  LOL True.

        3. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I do not support this museum because it promotes bad human interpretation over scientific knowledge.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So no other Biblical Museum exist to support Christian science and natural history?

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know. I would hope there is. You have to understand that a lot of the knowledge needed to actually be able to see how well Genesis lines up with history has only been learned in the past decade or two. What was known before that wasn't very widely known. Between the combination of an abundance of available/accessible information and the exponentially larger knowledge base regarding the history of the world, only now are we able to really get a clear enough picture to realize the context that Genesis is actually set in. And now it makes a lot more sense.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                A guy by the name of John (in the white lad) gives demonstration on  how Man was created on youtube

                check him out on youtube

  20. feenix profile image61
    feenixposted 4 years ago

    Hello, Castle Paloma,

    My mama taught me that it is not nice to be condescending.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      feenix

      Tell that to the other 10,000 Gods, how can I be condescending if everyone has been getting dumber by every generation since Adam

      I promote everyone as God as we are all created equal, I.m not promoting my group as the superior super human beings with a one sided God called Yahweh. How in the World or Universe am I being condescending when you are claiming just one stop shop and be all way to GOD???

      1. feenix profile image61
        feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Debating 101: Put words into the mouth of the one you oppose, then go about the business of shooting down what you contend that he/she said.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not into debates or argument and trying to get a closer understanding from  anyone or group 

          Your  God demands one only his side and over obedience or else the punishment is far greater than the crime. it would be nice according to you to join this kind of social club, Yet I known it would be unkind for my soul to promote any kind of spiritual political fighting or any kind of concept of hell in it

          1. feenix profile image61
            feenixposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How strange.

            Why would one who is "not into debates or arguments" participate in the forums of HubPages?

            Also, opening a remark by saying, "Your God demands ... " is argumentative. Only a person who is looking for a fight would preface a statement in that manner.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I do not encourage angry discussion, that is your gift to the Forum, and I give you back your gift to me for it belongs to it's rightful owner, you.

              Yahweh has 10 commandment that nobody can achieve here on Earth

              My 2 commandment can be achieve by most people and I am living proof they are achieved
              1. Be Honesty
              2 Do not Harm

              What can be as simply, productive and peaceful as this?

  21. Einy51 profile image59
    Einy51posted 4 years ago

    Good question and nice answers.. learned few thing.. thanks.

    1. Brandon Tart profile image60
      Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sentience came first.  When the universe was "made" there was a GAP between its Origin, and homo sapiens.  Adam and Eve were an idea, and taken out of context, may be looked at as mere firsts of a kind.  Ideally, at least conceptually, Adam and Eve were words (as were all things created of GOD, semiotically speaking[In the beginning was the WORD/LOGOS]).  The Logos, or, logic, speaks of a "type-set," textually, Male and Female.  Different, but one of a kind (which is a type) -- human.  "Ish," Hebrew for Man (Adam) and "Isha," Hebrew for Woman (Eve).  Ish means firm, and it is imbedded in Isha, denoting the feminine article "a" (Like YHWH, or SHEKINAH - connotes a feminine presence).  ISH - means firm, and ISHA means gentle and firm.  What came first was an IDEAL set, at least biblically, which teaches what man and woman are to and for one another.  Both are to reciprocate the (tsela - Hebrew for side - where the proverbial "rib" came from) other side of one another.  Male mirrors the "feminine side" and female mirrors the "masculine side."  Male and female, then, as mirrors of their own egos, independent of singularity.  "It is not good for man to be alone."  Therefore, I should say that offspring would be both impossible alone, and if man were indeed given BONE OF HIS BONES AND FLESH OF HIS FLESH.  What he was given, was a place to disseminate (Eve as earth) his genetic matter.  What came first, was the WORD, which, too, became flesh, and dwelt amongst us.  Translated from LOGOS, the Word, Christ, did the same - in that he disseminated his sentience, even amongst a type "IN (prepositional status of man) his image.  IN, an infinite THING IN ITSELF.  Not that we resemble what GOD "looks like," but that we have the capacity to reciprocate GOD's hypostases:  Male, Female and either son or daughter.  We are IN GOD, conceptually, since anything that is infinite cannot cease to be either here, or there.  Again, first of all things is LOGOS, LOGIC - and it spoke, and it made man to act, live, think, fuck (if you will) and reproduce like ITS SELF.  Consider that in time, God made these things, from eternity... so time as a tenet of the quantum mechanics of the universe is altogether, somewhat of a philosophical anomaly.  It is difficult to deduce one way or another whether ADAM AND EVE were homo sapiens, though it is certain that they were IDEAL from a truly Religious perspective...where Religare is revered as the etymological origin of the word, "religion."  Religare means "to bind together," and I think science (Latin: knowledge) should do just that - Ideally speaking.  Yes, Sentience "came"  first.

  22. starme77 profile image85
    starme77posted 4 years ago

    haha this is awesome smile did you ask in the religious forums? I want to follow this one smile awesome point made here smile thumbs up to ya

    1. Brandon Tart profile image60
      Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No - I just feel through where I feel I need to either conjecture, or offer what little I know.  Maybe we all know more than we think we do... the subconscious is always active whether we are conscious of what it is picking up or not.   Who are you, Starme?

  23. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Get your ages right.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I really like that, Brandon. I point out that when God, in first Genesis, creates man, "In the image of God made he him, male and female made he them." I see that as stating clearly that the feminine aspect is one with the image of God, just as the male aspect. Answering the age old question: Is God male, or female. The answer is 'YES'

      1. Brandon Tart profile image60
        Brandon Tartposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Both Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  I have an interpretation of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit as being the same idea as Solomon had about a scorned woman - "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned."  Ultimately, according to Christ, one cannot be forgiven for Blaspheming the Holy Spirit (YHWH's Shekinah Glory), but  "all other blasphemes against either the Father or the Son,"  Christ followed that these could be forgiven.  In it all, I think that the bride of Christ, the CHURCH, is a fourth to the Hypostases of the Godhead.  A father with his bride, and a son for who there is a plan to create a holy bride for him.  It is romantic, really, that Christ wants a bride that believes his word, and waits with joy for his return.  There are probably 1000s of instances where the Feminine in the Trinity is proven very easily, even in the English translation.  Yes - I LOVE IT TOO -  It gives me hope to know that God has a maternal nature.  This may be why the Kabbalist idea of the Matrana (sp.?)  so on and so forth...

  24. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 4 years ago

    @Castlepaloma, I just noticed this forum. You started another fun one. Thanks!

    The dates you mention in the OP are of course estimates and interpretations. It can cause problems if we treat them as absolutes or "truth."

    The anthropological dates are minimums. That Homo sapiens has been around for at least 200,000 years only means that they may have been around that long or LONGER. Forty years ago, one encyclopedic source showed that Homo sapiens had been around for 50,000 years. See what I mean. In forty years, the age of humanity has grown (from new discoveries) from 50,000 to 200,000 years. Since we haven't discovered everything, there remains the possibility that Homo sapiens could be considerably older.

    The Adam and Eve date looks like the Archbishop Ussher date for Genesis and a biblical timeline, but this is based on his interpretation. Even Sir Isaac Newton tried his hand at a biblical timeline, arriving at one close to that of Ussher. And Ussher's was published when Newton was only 7 years old.

    But Ussher was taking Genesis literally. There are many dates that Ussher's brilliant scholarship found that we still use in conventional, secular history (like the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great). He was that good. But there were many things Ussher didn't know, in 1650 AD, about history.

    Ussher's date for the Flood was 2348 BC, but he didn't know that Egypt's Sixth Dynasty started 3 years after that date and that Sargon the Great conquered Sumer 13 years after that date. Too much was going on for the Flood to have occurred then, if it happened at all.

    There is precedent in the Bible for using a factor to greatly lengthen the numbers given and the clues lead to a Flood date of 27,970 BC, and a start for humanity (Adam and Eve) of 10,434,130 BC.

    The fact that we should not take Genesis literally is suggested in numerous places. For instance, the fact that Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit, but did not literally, physically die on that day, means that we need to take the statement interpretively. In other words, we must interpret the meaning from context. Adam and Eve died spiritually, not physically.

    Genesis 5:2 is another example that Genesis must be taken with interpretation and wisdom, rather than literally. It says that Adam was both male and female and "they" and "them," not "him." Adam was all of early humanity. In fact, the Hebrew word used means exactly this -- not the individual man, but the who group of all men -- humanity.

    I cover this new timeline in one of my hub series on Genesis.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      From your hubs I don't get what you are saying,

      Adam or no other human being ever had sex with Homo Sapien but did have sex with Neanderthal women, who were some what attractive, I guess with enough wine any woman can seem attractive to a med evil male

      Then God did not grant Neanderthals life upon the flood because it was too shameful to allow these kinds of relationships with superhuman to be continue. Maybe God was so embarrassed or for some reason God took Neanderthal out of the human gene pool. In spite of this proof,  today professional scientist keep finding the Neanderthal gene in human except humans genes from Africa where Adam and Eve were created. Thank God Adam was too smart to have ape sex with an Neanderthal woman and obeyed God long list of sinner laws, or what would our world come to?

      Is the the right track?

      1. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not really, Castle, but nice try.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Were Humans ever homo sapiens and how did Neanderthal jump out of our gene pool,? Many more the magic tricks,  I assume?

          What's the story again, try it without the dates that add up with serious scientist

    2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are right regarding homo sapiens. According to genetic evidence, both homo sapien and homo neanderthalensis are descendants of homo heidelbergensis. Genetic testing estimates these two lineages began to diverge genetically about 400,000 years ago and were fully separate populations by around 370,000 years ago.

      The issue with chronological determinations based on the bible is that there's an unknown gap of time between the books of Moses and the rest. The books of Moses were already ancient history and were very much a mystery even in the eras that most of the rest of the bible was written. In the centuries leading up to the birth of Jesus there were those in the Jewish community who were dedicated to deciphering the unknowns in the books of Moses.

      But to not take the story of Adam and Eve literally is a disservice to those stories and ignores the copious amount of specific information given about how old each person was, who begat who, and all of the references throughout the rest of the bible that treat these as real events. Genesis is telling a literal story about real people.

      I've read a bit about the idea you're suggesting to greatly increase the lengths of time given, but that just seems to be a way to try and reconcile two opposing views that conflict with one another. Plus it seems it would not be worth the effort it would take to tell a story using such a purposefully misleading or purposefully ambiguous method. It just doesn't make sense to me. Maybe it would make more sense to me if you could tell me what the purpose would be conveying a story in this manner.

      1. scottcgruber profile image93
        scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you believe this, you are completely delusional.

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          +1

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the assessment. Maybe you could help a brother out beyond the initial assessment by telling me what exactly makes you so certain of that?

          1. scottcgruber profile image93
            scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Besides the fact that you're claiming a work of allegorical fiction to be literal fact? Do I need another reason?

            Maybe some of the begatters and begatted were the names of real people. I'll give you that one. Did they live to be 900 years old? No. To believe that as literal fact is just ridiculous.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And what makes that ridiculous exactly? There was a time that the idea that the universe as we know it was once condensed into a singularity that expanded outward was considered utterly ridiculous. Just the idea that the universe even had a beginning was scoffed at. There was a time when the idea that our bodies actually being colonies of billions of individual cells working in unison would have been dismissed as ridiculous.

              So, what exactly tells you that beings living that long is absolutely ridiculous now? Every civilization from that region of the world claimed beings in their ancient past lived immortal lifetimes. We assume nowadays it's all myth and assume that's just the human brain trying to make sense of things it didn't understand. But who says? That's just our best guess given what we know. That's our human brains trying to make sense out of something we don't understand.

              In fact, if you look at the history of this planet and all the crazy things that had to happen just for us to be here having this conversation, you might think twice at deeming anything ridiculous if you really thought about it.

              1. scottcgruber profile image93
                scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And then it was demonstrated by empirical observation and data, turning the Big Bang Hypothesis into the Big Bang Theory. So if you can provide empirical evidence that people lived to be 900 years old in the days before medicine, hygiene, and sanitation, I'll accept it as a possibility. If not, I will continue to assert that it is a ridiculous belief.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's my whole point. The idea first came about as a possibility. The guy that first came up with it did not prove it. Others who believed it possible as well proved it. Now we're all better and more knowledgeable for it. And all along the way were the scoffers who sounded much like you do now. Those that declared with absolute certainty that that's just ridiculous.

                  1. scottcgruber profile image93
                    scottcgruberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Prove that humans once lived to be 900 years old and I'll quit scoffing. Until then, I'll continue to declare with 99.99999% certainty that it is a ridiculous notion.

  25. healthyfitness profile image85
    healthyfitnessposted 3 years ago

    Whoever believes in Adam and Eve also is a firm supporter of incest which is disgusting!

    1. 60
      Sara Jean Martinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Adam and Eve at the dawn of time 77 million years ago were from two different galaxies,   Anna and Du which is what we call them were living amoungst the stars the suns and the comets.  Both were not originals on the planet Earth it's where we get white people from ........they were fair and highly intelligent with supernatiral abilities and help from their Gods.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image85
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        o.... k...

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Someone is clearly from another realm.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Or another galaxy.  Adam, returned to guide us all?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            And thus, light skin.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Could be,  If he evolved from a dim or dying star you might expect light skin - something all the pictures plainly show Adam had.

      3. healthyfitness profile image85
        healthyfitnessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I lold at that

      4. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder how they managed to deal with all the many species of carnivorous dinosaurs roaming the planet and managed to live through the catastrophic event that led to their extinction?

 
working