Where's the proof of Adam & Eve?

Question

Do it without a bible reference and I'll take you seriously.

Look in the mirror? I see the product of evolution

Answer 1

without bible references the entire thing falls apart pretty quickly, not just Adam and Eve.

Answer 2

There isn't any scientific proof.

Adam and Eve is propably just a parable to explain the beginning of mankind. What "they" didn't take into account when "they" devised this story is that incest had to have occured in order to propegate the species. They very thing the Bible so adamently frowns upon had to have been present to have started mankind.

That's always bothered me.

When I've brought up this point to Biblical scholars, they say well, there had to have been other men and women in the garden of Eden. I then asked if that emntion of others was in the Bible. "Well no" was their response.

You can't rationalize with fundamentalist Christians. They'll chew off their left arm before admitting that either they don't know their bibles or that the bible jsut might..JUST MIGHT..be fallable.

I'm not going to sit here and poo poo the Bible. I think if someone finds solace in the Word, fine..more power to them, but to me, so much of what all religions profess, just doesn't make sense. It seems to me that it's just most of the dogma is just an attempt to answer questions.

Where is the truth? Better yet, what is the truth???

Answer 3

While all of my questions will never be definitively answered, I find that rationally my belief is on solid ground. There are many things in the world we do not fully understand or “see”, yet we have no problems in believing them. For example, solar physics is not fully known, yet we all objectively accept, using faith and scientific discourse, the "fact" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Why is it we can believe in many things using rational analysis, even when what we believe is only partially known, yet when it comes to matters like a supreme being, we suddenly want the "show me beyond a shadow of doubt" proof? As Aristotle once stated, "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible."

Persons that seek absolute proof of something are inconsistently applying logic and rationality, for they do not seek this absoluteness in all things. Hence, their epistemologies are not fully formed; they speak without proper understanding of the nature of knowledge.

These persons must first take the time and formal study to answer the question: "What is the justification for the presuppositions informing your epistemology and ethical system?"

What is the justification for the presuppositions informing your epistemology and ethical system?

One cannot simply state “I believe in {evolution, God, young earth, etc.} because anything else is not rational”, for to say this or similar things is irrelevant until one has first defined their presuppositions of truth, knowledge, and morality.

In short, unless two parties to any debate about religion define their inherent presuppositions and the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity (epistemology), there can be no meaningful dialog.

We can discuss matters the easy way (testing for coherency, universality, and uniqueness of claim to truth) or the polemic way (point-by-point rebuttal/back-and-forth until no conclusion is reached).

Totally up to you.

Answer 4

Where is the proof of the Theory of Evolution? The very word Theory means it is a supposition but not proved fact. Show me even one transitional fossil and I shall be indeed impressed.

Good enough to get your grey cells working?

Hope so.

Cheers,

Lisa

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

Answer 5

For every child, there must be a mother and father. For every mother and father, there must also be a parent.
Therefore is it not logical to assume that there was an Original set of parents?
How else did the human race appear on earth?
Were we dropped-in by space aliens?
Were we mutated from some other species?
No.
We appeared on our own in physical form from our spiritual world, in 5 different races all over this planet.
We return to this spiritual dimension everytime we 'die'. Then we return as newborns in a new body! It's called: reincarnation !

Answer 6

Adam and Eve exists. Proof provided in source below.


.

Answer 7

Genetic studies have shown that all humans can trace their parental line to a small handful of Homo sapiens sapiens males (statistically, most likely one), approximately 10,000 years ago, and the same through mitochondrial DNA to a single female about that long ago.

It's not proof but you might wanna be careful... this COULD be construed as 'evidence' of theistic evolution by someone who doesn't have much interest in understanding why these things are true.

---------

Yay for Suzanne proving my point!

Answer 8

Adam? Eve? Look it up in the Dictionary of Meanings.

Answer 9

Ok I'm an atheist so you wont get some crazy answer out of me. Have you ever heard of mitochondrial eve? you should read this- it doesn't mean we came from people magically poofed here but it does mean we all have common ancestors- very neat! see we're not that different!!

Answer 10

Prove that your ancestors beyond 10 generations existed and I'll take your question seriously.

Prove that "transitional man" existed and I'll take your question seriously.

Sorry... My faith doesn't require that you take me seriously.