Were Adam and Eve the First Humans?

[John Bauer]

In the thread "Genetics and Adam and Eve," DrNoGods claimed that the creation narrative in Genesis describes Adam and Eve as the first humans. He said that

• Adam and Eve have an "explicit role in the biblical creation myth as being the first humans."
• "Their explicit role as the first humans [is] described in Genesis."
• "According to the biblical creation myth there was (...) only two" people originally.
• "Genesis very clearly does describe Adam and Eve as the first humans that this God created."

I would appreciate DrNoGods substantiating this claim of his, for I don't agree that Genesis says this. I would like to see this explored further.

[Andyb7777777]

Hi again,

No-one’s demanding a thesis. And we (if I can speak for most on the non-theist side) accept that you can’t prove your faith.

what is faith, this is the wikipedia definition.

Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, one can define faith as confidence or trust in a particular system of religious belief.[3] Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant,[4][5] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[6]

From this definition alone i hope you can understand that i have no need to prove my faith either to you or anyone else, my faith is personal and between myself and God, its as the definition states a"confidence and trust" i have in God and scripture.

however from a skeptics viewpoint and from the viewpoint you have reiterated many times you require evidence of the faith i have in what i believe, in this case creation, as faith alone does not constitute a good enough debate.

What we do expect is reasoned debate on the particular topic: does the statement for debate have merit or not? Can you provide either evidence or logical reasoning to back up your stance? The ‘weakest’ faith could still have the ‘strongest’ argument, and your own faith needn’t be in question.

my belief is God created Man and Woman and that all humanity descended from two people an article i read some time ago in the daily mail suggests this from a scientific study

A scientific study has prompted speculation that all modern humans could have descended from a solitary pair who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Scientists surveyed the genetic 'bar codes' of five million animals - including humans - from 100,000 different species and the results have prompted speculation that we sprang from a single pair of adults after a catastrophic event almost wiped out the human race.

These bar codes, or snippets of DNA that reside outside the nuclei of living cells, suggest that it's not just people who could have come from a single pair of beings, but nine out of every 10 animal species, too

Stoeckle and Thaler, the scientists who headed the study, concluded that ninety percent of all animal species alive today come from parents that all began giving birth at roughly the same time, less than 250 thousand years ago - throwing into doubt the patterns of human evolution.

Not quite. A scientific ‘belief’ is based on available evidence, and is willing to change, should new evidence emerge which falsifies previous theories.

everything in life requires a certain amount of faith, you cannot go through life with any guarantees, science is the same it still takes an amount of faith to trust in theories or even theories now taken as fact, science tells us and we are taught that the Sun is 93 million miles away how does science know this, it hasnt got a long tape measure or sent a probe there and back with a tacograph on to measure the distance, no it is down to mathematics and we trust maths but we still have to have faith that the formulas used are correct and accurate.

It may seem like that to you, but you can’t speak for those of us who disagree with you. I’m sure plenty of people here are willing to accept when their position is wrong - providing their arguments are shown to have weaknesses.

to disagree with me neither makes you wrong or right thats your understanding, faith upholds my belief and evidence yours thats where we differ and thats where proving arguments can be in some cases futile as im sure we can both summon up arguemnts from far better people than ourselves who have debated this issue for thousands of years.

Then I have to ask, “why are you posting in a ‘debate’ thread? If you are so entrenched in your position that you won’t enter into debate, then there’s little benefit in spending your time in the theead at all.

i find that in any debate as soon as faith is used as a basis for belief in something it is dismissed readily, my point was that sometimes you dont have all the answers or evidence to substantiate why you believe something, in science this is called a theory as a Christian its called faith.

[Andyb7777777]

Hi John,

Incidentally, I appreciate that you have a strong faith—I do, too—but as Christians we do have a biblical imperative to always be ready "to give an answer" to anyone who asks that you give a reason for the hope you possess (yet we must do so "with courtesy and respect"). If you are not prepared or don't care to do that, it is very strange that you bothered to register at a Debating Christianity forum.

I always try and be courteous and respectful, and as Christians when we answer we must always support any arguement in line with scripture so that scripture supports whatever information we use, now the Bible is Clear that

[2:7] then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being

God created man from the dust of the earth and from Man woman was made, if we try and dress this arguement up with anything that is not scriptural or apologize saying that it is just a story or parable then were not doing as Jesus taught us and the apostles that everything must be upeld by scripture, were not being unintelligent or wrong in answering this way for as Paul wrote

2 Timothy 3:16-17
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Who are some of the authors?

general books on evolution but in respect of a book from the point of view of Creation this is the best ive read, The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, By Hank Hanegraaff

Neither one of us can say who will or won't accept a biblical viewpoint on anything, for that is the jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit who is able to transform the hardest of hearts. But you're correct that it doesn't matter how intelligent or eloquent we are in speech; as the apostle Paul said, "My conversation and my preaching were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not be based on human wisdom but on the power of God" (1 Cor 2:4-5).

Jesus said that
Mathew 7:6 “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.�

Mathew 10: 14-15 “If any household or town refuses to welcome you or listen to your message, shake its dust from your feet as you leave. 15 I tell you the truth, the wicked cities of Sodom and Gomorrah will be better off than such a town on the judgment day.�

Jesus knew that some people would not listen to his message or believe in their hearts who he was, and in respect of me acknowledging that some will not listen well thats as true today as Jesus showed us at the time he walked the dusty streets of the holy land, so my statement was not in any shape or form questioning the power of the holy spirit that thought didnt even enter my head.

Because we are called to always be ready to give an answer, to go out into the world bearing the truth of the gospel of Christ. I think it's safe to say that most people will not always respond in repentance and faith right then and there (and I go in fully expecting that no one will), but since their conversion is not our job in the first place that should never be a concern for us. Some are involved in the planting, others in the watering, but it's God who causes it to grow (1 Cor. 3:1-9). Like you, I take the Bible seriously as authoritative and make no apologies for it. However, I am always ready to give an answer when someone asks questions about my faith—not because I need to justify it (I don't) but because I assume they genuinely want to know. Why should I refuse an opportunity to be an instrument in God's kingdom work?

we are always called to give an answer but there are many Biblical truths that require faith, the Birth of Jesus, Miracles and the resurection these cannot be explained with scientific evidence without first becoming a Christian apologetic and watering down scripture with Science.

God created adam and Eve, the liberals hate this comment even most churches now that have become of the world try and deny this truth,not just this but all truths that dont line up with society and liberalism, i cannot remember a time when i heard a sermon on the book of revelation, some vicars even stated that it was too hard for them to grasp, so i hope you can see by just mearly expressing faith in something is not wrong it doesnt mean you cant debatein this way it just means you dont need to prove something to someone who has no intention of believing in it.

God Bless

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 21 by Andyb7777777]

... science tells us and we are taught that the Sun is 93 million miles away how does science know this, it hasnt got a long tape measure or sent a probe there and back with a tacograph on to measure the distance, no it is down to mathematics and we trust maths but we still have to have faith that the formulas used are correct and accurate.

This is an important comment and very telling as far as your understanding of why the distance of the Sun from the Earth is not down to simply trusting mathematics (and physics) in a manner equivalent to faith.

There are multiple observations and measurements that all consistently tell us the distance of the Sun from the Earth and how this varies over one Earth orbit (1 year). We do not need a tape measure to determine this, or anything of the sort. The physics and mathematics relating to orbital mechanics were worked out long ago from direct observations of planetary movements over time, and allows us to describe (and predict accurately) the motion of the planets in this solar system based on gravity and their masses relative to each other, and to the sun (for example, start with Kepler's laws):

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kepler.html

Today we can directly measure the distance between Earth and Venus via radar. But prior to that, direct observations of planetary movements, and parallax measurements, provided values for the distances to the planets in our solar systems, and to other stars. A quick Google search can provide many descriptions of how the Earth-Sun distance was measured going back to the 1600s (just a few examples here):

http://www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/au.html

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/the-un ... termediate

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-m ... ances.html

http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/aa ... nd_the_sun

Unlike faith-based religions, scientific questions such as how far the Sun is from the Earth can be answered, definitively, by direct observations and measurements that can be repeated and confirmed by anyone with the appropriate skills and equipment, and refined over time as better equipment is available and new techniques are developed. There is no need to have "faith" in anything to accept the value for the distance from the Earth to the Sun at any point in time (it varies slightly during the course of a year). But it requires 100% faith to believe that gods of any type exist as these have never been seen or heard, or demonstrated to exist by any method. That is true for all of the thousands of gods humans have invented in their heads.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 21 by Andyb7777777]

Thanks for replying. I hope we’re both getting closer to agreeing on some things. I’ll reiterate that I’m not questioning your statement that you have faith, only questioning statements you make that can be challenged by scientific enquiry and are made solely on the basis of that faith.

In light of that, I’ll respond to your point about the article you read in the Daily Mail by linking to a rebuttal of the claim (of a ‘single human couple’).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmar ... years-ago/

In summary, there are several good reasons to be doubtful of the claims. Newspapers like the Daily Mail have a vested interest in exaggerating their articles (e.g. ‘a cure for cancer is just around the corner’) when the reality of scientific study is a lot more cautious about what the data reveals.

I invite you to have a read of the link above - it’s written for a general audience and isn’t very long.

[mgb]

Genesis is not to be taken literally. It is an allegory of the human condition. Adam is all men. Eve is all women. We are all part of the story. Such are the pitfalls of taking to bible to be a literal account.

[Diagoras]

in respect of a book from the point of view of Creation this is the best ive read, The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, By Hank Hanegraaff

So, Hank Hanegraff is an evangelical Christian and not an evolutionary scientist. When I went looking for reviews of this book that were not written by other evangelical Christians, it became clear that the book is poorly written with numerous false statements, logical fallacies and outdated sources.

For example, around two-thirds of his ‘sources’ are just to other creationist books, not scientific articles. His dismisses the entire fossil hominid record as ‘bogus’ on the basis that there have been four ‘hoaxes’ in the past. He trots out the same tired argument that evolution can’t work due to entropy (discussed elsewhere on this forum) and cherry-picks racist quotes from Charles Darwin to prove evolution is ‘depraved’.

For anyone with a genuine desire to learn about the science of evolution, I’d recommend:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/611 ... w-on-earth[/u]

[Avoice]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

They were the first humans like this person has said.

And thus conclusion comes from Genesis. Like this person says.

Rolling my eyes at the attempt to win by saying not to take it literally or to read it through a modern lens. Rediculous. It's grasping ar straws. If one disagrees just pull that card.

Maybe we shouldn't take anything literally. Especially the one saying not to take it literally. Maybe we shouldn't take this person's comments literally.

I think the original poster needs to define human. In ancient days maybe the word human meant something else. Shouldn't take it literally

[Danmark]

Then how do you interpret Genesis 1:26-31?

That is not relevant. You were asked to support your claim.

Well, you've certainly got this whole thing backward.
No scientist supports the literal Genesis claim. We agree the Genesis story is a myth to explain the origin of man and the creation of the solar system or universe.

Is that your point, that the Genesis creation story is indeed mythical and should not be taken literally? if so, you are in agreement with the majority of Biblical scholars and naturalists.

[Danmark]

I think you're saying that the scientific claims are consistent with the account in Genesis, at least if one correctly interprets the Hebrew, which the English in the King James translation does not. That is an interesting claim. Please tell us more about it.

That's very nearly what I'm saying, yes, although my point is more specifically that there is no conflict between them.

The Genesis account must be taken as completely allegorical to be consistent with scientific claims. However, there is a long history of the church taking those stories as absolutely literal. It is only because of the increasing pressure of reality (science) that the church has begun to cut its losses and accept the truth. Now, in its revisionist history, some Christians are saying, "We knew it all along."

[PeterPan]

[Replying to post 21 by Andyb7777777]

A scientific study has prompted speculation that all modern humans could have descended from a solitary pair who lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

Do you have a link to the study which suggested a severe human population bottleneck 100,000-200,000 years ago?

Humans have low genetic diversity, which suggests that the entire human population is likely to have at one stage consisted of only a few thousand individuals - but I have yet to come across any study suggesting that the human population was ever reduced to two individuals.