i have a question about adam and eve. if it was just those two at the beginning of time, does that mean that we are all products of incest? if so isnt that sin? and how did we all end up different races, isnt that evolution? also how come are DNA is remarkebly simalar to that of primates and why do we look like them? also why are there fossils that show the change from primeates to cavemen and then to us?
im honestly not trying to bash you guys or trying to disprove your beleifs. but lately i have been very interested in all types of religeon and i was wondering what your views are on this subject.
2006-12-08 08:34:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The Bible states that Adam and Eve were the first to be created, but what the Bible does not state is that he could have created others as well. The message about the story of creation in my opinion tells me that God created all things. There are many things we can not scientifically explain about the Bible, so it requires a leap of faith to put your trust in it.
To carry your question a bit further, how about when God destroyed the earth by flood? Did that make Noah and his descendants the new Adam and Eve?
2006-12-08 08:43:33 · answer #1 · answered by zippo 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Adam and Eve, yes were the first humans in existence. Inorder for the human race to prosper; there had to be some incest involved. Incest was not yet tainted then or a sin; for it was needed inorder for mankind to continue into existence.
Humans became different races from the different regions that humans migrated to and fro. Skin pigmentation is what occured for all of us; some more than others, and region has a factor in it...not evolution.
And just because our DNA is similar to that of primates does not mean that we have evolved from them. Quite the contrare. Had this theory been true, we would still be evolving as well as the primates, but we have yet to see another stage of evolutionary product develop.
There are no fossils to indicate proof of Evolution, merely theories and suggestions. There are no such fossils as 'Transitional fossils', matter of fact there are none.
To view upon the universe, and see that our Milky Way Galaxy looms in space, with billions of stars and planets inhabiting it. With our planet in such a perfect position that it can contain life; with the sun giving everything life by its mere rays; by our atmosphere being capable of holding oxygen to give all living things life. To see the diversity of creatures and see that we humans are superiour to that of animals....and then say that there is no God?
2006-12-08 08:55:22 · answer #2 · answered by Tiff 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the problem is that if you really BELIEVE, you don't ask yourself such questions, otherwise you would drown into suspicions and unbelievable, unexplainable things. The faith means that you believe DESPITE many doubtfull aspects - if everything was sure, you would not need to believe - you would just accept the facts. Do you believe in the endless space? Why? Have you been there? Has anyone really prooved what there is? No. But this is not abelief - this is science. And despite doubts, we accept it. And about faith - we rebell.. that is strange.. Man likes to rebell..
And - the Bible is also a piece of literature. We must remember that some passages are metaphorical!!
Actually, we seem to be all children of Noe - remember, that almost all people died in the deluge...
You've read Levi-Strauss? That will give you a v. interesting view of "different" religions and customs...
2006-12-08 08:42:48 · answer #3 · answered by Lady G. 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First - perfect humans would have perfect DNA - thereby no defects when it comes to procreation.
Second - there is no Biblical reference to where the wives of Cain and Able came from - we simply don't know.
Third - there are no fossils showing the change from primates to cavemen then to homo erectus - do your research into evolution if you are going to believe in it. There are huge debates because of the missing links in Darwin's original theory.
Fourth - adaptability and adaptation are not proof of evolution - it is proof that the strongest survive - quite a different offshoot from evolution. Evolution involves the creation of one living organism into many different living organisms which differ from each other. Adaptation involves one organism over time adapting to an environment - a snow leopard differs from his cousins because of the white coat. The explanation goes that because a lighter coat would camouflage a leopard in the snow, the ones that survive would breed with others with lighter coats and eventually an entire group would have the lighter coats.
2006-12-08 08:46:08 · answer #4 · answered by padwinlearner 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
For God to have made descendents, they would have to come from Adam and Eve- that is the way He planned it- But it does say in the bible after some time, when more people were produced that no one should "lay" with their sibling....it became incest at one point. But in order to continue mankind...that is what had to be done in the beginning...so no we are not of incest- well some may be- I mean it does happen in this world unfortunately- but think of all the people before us...way too many to count.
2006-12-08 08:39:42 · answer #5 · answered by Mandolyn Monkey Munch 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well we are like the animals being just a creature as well. However spiritually we are created in Gods image so we can think, reason. love, and be responsible. We did all come from one set of parents but God did not consider at that time family marriage to be incest. That came later when there was enough people and families. As to the "missing" links you refer to they are just a couple bones that are distorted and some believe they are a link others disagree. My thought is if this took millions of years there should be tons of evidence not just a couple disputable bones. You must admit the evidence is far from overwhelming.
2006-12-08 08:44:40 · answer #6 · answered by beek 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Back then there was no written law about incest being a sin. Plus God didn't creat the whole geneology/DNA concept till much later. After the laws were written by Moses, then thats when it became clear to be a sin.
2006-12-08 08:49:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just on the news yesterday they had a report about DNA from humans and apes
the dna is similar
but the genomes ( I have no idea what that is ) are vastly different. They said ..meaning this is entirely two different species
The evolution guys just took a shot in the belly with that one.
2006-12-08 08:47:31 · answer #8 · answered by kenny p 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Certainly some form of evolution can be compatible with Adam and Eve (as long as we believe that God is the ultimate architect of it).
Of course, brothers and sisters would have to marry right at the beginning.
All true Christian apologetics accepts this.
But because of the purity of the genetic line at that time, that would not have caused problems.
The main physical reason that it is not allowed today is that genetic flaws that would be common to brother and sister would compound in off-spring, causing terrible problems.
---
2006-12-08 08:43:27 · answer #9 · answered by Catholic Philosopher 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These people's contradictions make the human race seem even stranger than it is, and Hell is it strange enough already.
How come all the evidence generally proves evolution: because evolution did happen. Open up a science book, read up on eucaryots, homo floresensis, all these things. It's fascinating.
2006-12-08 08:40:27 · answer #10 · answered by bloody_gothbob 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋