So, the evolution theory's got evidence backing it up. Bones and left overs of cavemen and ****. So if evolution's a fact, and the very first humans to live were Adam and Eve, then really they weren't humans but fish instead. I mean, right?
2007-01-06 11:30:34 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yeah. Right on. I like fish.
2007-01-06 11:32:51 · answer #1 · answered by Fish <>< 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
which came first, the chicken or the egg?
The Life of Adam and Eve
First, Genesis 1-2 presents them as actual persons and even narrates the important events in their lives. Second, they gave birth to literal children who did the same (Genesis 4-5). Third, the phrase "this is the account of" that Moses used to record later history in Genesis (e.g., Gen. 6:9; 10:1; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19) appears in the creation account (2:4) and of Adam, Eve, and their descendants.
Fourth, later Old Testament chronologies place Adam at the beginning of the list (Gen. 5:1; 1 Chron. 1:1). Fifth, the New Testament places Adam at the beginning of Jesus' literal ancestors (Luke 2:38). Sixth, Jesus referred to the life of Adam and Eve as the first literal "male and female," making their physical union the basis of marriage (Matt. 19:4).
Seventh, the book of Romans declares that literal death came into the world by a literal "one man" - Adam (Rom. 5:12). Eighth, the comparison of Adam (the "first Adam") with Christ (the "last Adam") in 1 Corinthians 15:45 manifests that Adam was understood as a literal, historical person.
Ninth, Paul's declaration that "it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve" (1 Tim. 2:13-14) reveals that he speaks of real persons. Tenth, logically there had to be a first real set of human beings, male and female, or else the race would have had no way to get going. The Bible calls this literal couple "Adam and Eve," and there is no reason to doubt their real existence.
The Genesis account contradicts macroevolution. Genesis speaks of the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground, not his evolution from other animals (Gen. 2:7). It speaks of direct immediate creation at God's command, not long natural processes (cf. Gen. 1:1, 3, 6, 9, 21, 27). God created Eve from Adam; she did not evolve separately. Adam was an intelligent being who could speak a language, study and name animals, and engage in life-sustaining activity. He was not an ignorant half-ape.
2007-01-06 19:40:25 · answer #2 · answered by K 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Evolution isn't fact, it's a THEORY.
There are flaws in the carbon dating system & there is NO evidence of something evolving from one thing into another. You'll find many hoaxes to support the evolution theory but no actual facts.
Darwin borrowed the evolution ideas then published them. He didn't have proof back then, they were just ideas that he said would be proved after his lifetime. Nothing supporting them has come true in all the years since.
There is much evidence that dinosaurs walked the earth - so why not absolute proof that species evolved from one thing into another? - Because it isn't true.
God created mankind
http://www.watchtower.org/
2007-01-06 20:22:49 · answer #3 · answered by **Bonita Belle** 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, it seems you are accepting evolution but in terms of the bible being literally true. That is not possible. You MAY accept evolution and see Genesis as being a creation myth which explains the (then) unknown about our origins, but you are very very confused. Why not start by dropping the myth (Adam & Eve) altogether, then go and read about evolution (it's a fact, not a theory), then you can allow Genesis back in, in the proper context: a story.
2007-01-06 19:36:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No. Adam and Eve were the first bacteria.
In fact, since bacteria are asexual, the first bacteria was both Adam and Eve. Or he was Adam, and Eve was made by splitting from him, like in Genesis.
That's the most accurate correlation between the Bible and the facts of Creation I can come up with.
_
2007-01-06 19:37:08 · answer #5 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Evolution is a fact:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
(and anybody who claims otherwise is misinformed or lying)
The bible story of creation is just that, and it happened mere thousands of years ago, long after the arrival of homo sapiens on the scene. And the first humans, wherever you want to draw the line, were humans. Otherwise, maybe you want to go all the way back to concestor 39, which is a bacteria?
2007-01-06 20:03:47 · answer #6 · answered by eldad9 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They were evolved monkeys.
Fishes are way back in the evolution tree.
Adam and Eve are part of our folklore, not a scientific fact.
How could they have explained evolution to people 2K years ago?
Holy books are full of symbolic tales. They were written for the cultural and scientific level of such ancient times.
Adam and Eve cannot be real, or their sons and daughters should have committed incest!
2007-01-06 19:42:38 · answer #7 · answered by PragmaticAlien 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ok. Do you really want to be descended from fish and apes? They thought they had proof of that too. So I ask you, why did evolution stop?
2007-01-06 19:41:43 · answer #8 · answered by Dragonfly 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we were to consider that the Bible is not necessarily the history of the world perhaps there wouldn't be so much confusion.
The Bible contains the history of a people and God's attempts to offer them reconciliation.
2007-01-06 20:06:23 · answer #9 · answered by drg5609 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you not know that Adam had a wife before Eve? Her name was Lilith, look it up.
2007-01-06 19:39:25 · answer #10 · answered by Wanda W 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋