Better than coming from a dang ape. So is science ever going to be able to come up with the right conclusions. They have came up with so many theories to substantiate their claims. They are becoming a joke. Why not leave it alone and let people believe as they will?
2006-07-29 03:08:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Science and Religion...does it really matter? If Adam and Eve were black or white or purple? No. As far as where man originated, there is no Religious arguement nor Scientific in regards to that. This is straight out of the KJ Bible out of Genesis, note the rivers mentioned and even Ethiopia is mentioned.
The garden of Eden, and the river thereof
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
11 The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
So, my opinion. Actually, the more Science investigates the origins of man, and biblical history in general, it actually reinforces the bible. Yes, I'm Christian, so I'm not well versed in the Quran or the Torah so I'm using it as my basis. There are many examples of Scientists finding things thay can't explain other than to support the Bible. Take the recent findings in the Red Sea of chariots and other debris that would support the Red Sea account told of in the Exodus from Egypt. Just one example. But I rant. The issue of the Bible not mentioning what color Adam and Eve were is moot. It's not important, if it was meant to have some impact on man in regards to God's word it would have been noted.
2006-07-29 10:18:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Inner Light 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is a hilarious one. Black men turned white because they were in a freezing environment and they turned pale?
OMG Tell that to a black guy in Brooklyn.
Why I have never see in the present times a black guy turning white? And the black guys in cold environments like Alaska have they turned white?
And what food do they ate? I doubt their diet was extremely different from ours. Humans have always had the same diets practically consisting of meat, grains, fruits and vegetables, and for what I know it doesn't do any effect on your melanin.
The only people who have melanin gene defects are the albinos.
And Michael Jackson is the only black guy who turned white but by doing some intense therapy and surgery.
2006-07-29 10:08:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If Blacks were the first people, then they were all the same and there would be no reason to differentiate them as Black.
I could care less, and do not think one way or the other about that peripheral point of the story.
The Bible is a collection of works that are written in the oriental tradition of getting a point across, not in the Western method of conveying point by point fact. But the meat of the stroy is consistent.
2006-07-29 10:03:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by electricpole 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
nobody knows the colour of early humans. it is not something in the fossil record. It is assumed they were because the other African humans and apes are. The out of Africa theory has many supporters, but the evidence is not as clear as it could be. Lucy seems to be the earliest humanoid, and possibly might be the mother of all of us. Her skin is missing (kind of to be expected) and even the skeleton is not complete. It would seem if that theory is correct then our earliest ancestors were black, but they might just have been looking more like Chinese.
2006-07-29 10:12:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
- Not that it really matters, but the garden of Eden was in Africa.
- The Bible clearly states such things, so there is no clash.
- Moses' wife was from ethiopia.
- Moses looked like an Egyptian and it was unquestioned in the Word, eventhough, culturally he was Hebrew.
- Solomon spoke of being black
- The prophet Amos spoke of the nation of Israel (Jacobs decendants) as being childrenof Ethiopia
- If all of these facts aren't enough then in addition to reading the bible for yourself, think about the region that these biblical events took place. It is only logical that the people were of brown skin.
These are only the facts mentioned in the Bible, it is no way to intended to divide God's people.
2006-07-29 10:06:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by righton 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The theory sounds very impressive.
Anyway,that man I believed could not had survived anymore because some 75,000 yrs ago the earth was lifeless for period of 1,000 yrs due to megatons volcanic explosions in Sumatra.
Furthermore,if Adam is still alive he would be no more than 7,000yrs old.
2006-07-29 10:33:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by jurgen 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It also was not said that they are white, brown nor yellow.
Some religions take history and religion as one, some view religion as a source of guidance for morals and not as a source for history or scientific explanations.
if you belong to the latter, religion does not necessarily clash with science when it comes to the origins of human beings.
2006-07-29 09:58:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by TraderJoe 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The first man on earth was Adam, and Eve followed.
2006-07-29 09:57:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by latterdaylady 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah I've been hearing the scientific theory that the first person on earth was undoubtedly black or at least darker skinned.
2006-07-29 09:57:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by miss_gem_01 6
·
0⤊
0⤋