- NEW!
by jalex137 on October 4th, 2005
How do I add my site to Deliverance Ministries?
by Answerbag Staff on August 16th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What is the meaning of Bishop Jugis'coat of arms?
by Answerbag Staff on August 7th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who was St. Catherine of Siena?
by Answerbag Staff on August 2nd, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Why is there a general belief that in order to be good,or to seen as being good, one has to embrace religion?
by mike_70 on May 21st, 2012
| 3 people like this
What does "monotheism" mean?
by Marky Mark on May 20th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading If Adam and Eve were the first humans, did they look like monkeys, as that's where evolution tells us we started?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Yes! It no longer says I've rated you too positively recently. Whoo-hoo!
by Joshua Zambrano on February 13th, 2006
Adam & Eve weren't monkeys & evolution is false doctrine perpetuated by ignorant men. This is correct! Good job!
by Answers101 on February 27th, 2006
good answer
by wfbrad on March 25th, 2006
God could have guided evolution to create the two physically perfect humans that Genesis calls Adam and Eve and then let all others die out while they were in the Garden. I am not saying this happened, but with God anything is possible.
by Glenn Blaylock on June 2nd, 2006
Evolution isn't something made up by "ignorant men". People put a lot of effort into studying it. Would God really have wasted his time creating ALL the species of the world? Life flourished and changed after he created the basics.
by GLACEAUU on July 8th, 2006
God doesn't operate in the dimension of time. He actually created it. And He's definately not limited to it. So yes, He created ALL the species of the world. And no, He didn't waste ANY time doing it, seeing as He's not affected by it.
by The Wade on August 27th, 2007
But what is a waste of time to Him? Your concept of God still does not preclude the possibility of Him taking however much time He wishes for creation. If he exists out side of time, then what does it matter to him if the work of creation took six days or 4.5 billion years?
by Glenn Blaylock on August 27th, 2007
The Bible identifies God as the creator of all things.(Gen 1:1) The creation account in Genesis is scientifically accurate and to be understood is that a creative day is not 24 hours but rather thousands of years.The marvel of the human body is the testimony to an intelligent creator and a loving one also.
by Anonymous on November 28th, 2007
Anonymous, I will agree with you that the marvel of life in general argues for a divine creator who designed all of it. However, I will have to disagree with you on the scientific accuracy of the creation account in the book of Genesis. There is no evidence to support the idea the Earth was created in a mere few thousand years.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 28th, 2007
It is true that the earth is millions perhaps billions of years old but the creation account in Genisis describes how God prepared the earth to be inhabited by man whom he made in his image.(Gen 1:26)The order in which things were created again is supported by science. Also everything made according to its kind again is scientifically accurate.
by Anonymous on November 28th, 2007
I don't think its all that important when or how long it took to make the world. What is important is that beautiful Gospel of Jesus Christ and what you do with hearing it. beware of science falsely so called.
1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
by wfbrad on December 13th, 2007
I will agree with you in that it does not matter when or how long it took God to create the Earth. The important thing about the creation story is understanding that God did create everything. Beyond that, the details are interesting to ponder, but from a spiritual perspective, they are not necessary for our salvation. I do look forward to the time when we can all see the whole story of just how He did everything so that we can see how all the piece actually fit together.
by Glenn Blaylock on December 13th, 2007
"Would God really have wasted ALL of his time creating all of the species of the world?"
It only took Him 6 days, so not too much time was wasted, and besides all of that, God is beyond time. Time does not affect Him. :)
by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on December 17th, 2007
Romans 5:18 (KJV)
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."
If Adam wasn't an actual individual, this teaching on the origin of sin, and God's beautiful solution is absurd. If you believe in evolution, “Adam” represents a phase in the process of natural selection, not a man with a personal relationship with God, so the next question must be is Jesus an actual individual with whom we might have a personal relationship.
by j-moine on February 4th, 2008
The possibility that God used evolution to create humans does not exclude the possibility of Him creating Adam and Eve or the validity of the story of the events in the garden.
by Glenn Blaylock on February 4th, 2008
Actually, you can't really honestly believe in the Bible and believe in evolution at the same time. Let me explain. In Romans, it says that the wages of sin is death. And if you believe in evolution, you believe that death came before sin, because death HAD to come before Adam and Eve for evolution to happen. And Adam was perfect untill he sinned, which brought death into the world (read Genesis 3). Now to say that you believe in evolution, would say that you DON'T believe that sin came before death, therefore taking out the validity of that verse in Romans and Genesis 3.
by The Wade on February 5th, 2008
You're confusing Abiogenesis with Evolution.
by Carnivalius on February 5th, 2008
The Wade is right. You cannot honestly believe both the Bible and Evolution. They go completely against each other. If you ask me, I personally think that evolution is science-fiction rather than actual science.
by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on February 5th, 2008
Abiogenesis with what kind of evolution? I'm sure I've asked you this question before, so I'll keep it short. What kind of evolution are you talking about? Cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic, macro, or micro?
by The Wade on February 6th, 2008
What do you define as Stellar evolution? Pretty much the latter three in evolution are probably what I was talking about.
by Carnivalius on February 6th, 2008
stellar? star formation, planetary formation, pretty much any stellar object forming "by itself". And the latter three? organic, macro, and micro? Well organic and macro go together, but micro isn't related at all to the other two. Organic and Macro evolution aren't supported at all by science. Micro (ex:dogs and coyote having a common ancestor) is supported, but has nothing to do with the other two. Like gives rise to like.
by The Wade on February 8th, 2008
Stellar evolution is to do with the formation and aging of stars, nothing to do with planets, hence the word "stellar" in the title, which means to do with stars. It just states the lifetime of a star from when its first created to when it dies and how it differs under differing conditions. Much like how you can describe how a baby is made, lives, ages and dies. How Stellar Evolution pertains to your argument of bible and evolution is what I was going on about and is why I was referencing the latter three in that argument and not the former.
Organic evolution is supported as this would be what the whole creationist, evolutionist argument is about (that of change in inherited traits over time).
In biology Macro would be change above a species level and micro below a species level, this has been observed. I'm not sure about what your definitions are of these were talking about here.
by Carnivalius on February 8th, 2008
you seem to be a very confused individual. Look up macro and micro evolution. Macro is a change from one species to another, which couldn't happen, and micro is a change within a species, which happens all the time. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but the source doesn't seem to be reliable.
by The Wade on February 12th, 2008
Macro (big) is a change above a species level (this would be a change between two different species) and hence a big change like speciation. Micro (small) is the changes within a species (like a change in a specific gene). Which is what I said about micro and macro above. Macro is the compound effects of micro evolution (change enough genes over time and you have a new species to the original one). There's no confusion there, you're just fostering ambiguity for your argument.
I get my sources from scientific publications, not the internet like you.
by Carnivalius on February 12th, 2008
Assuming again, along with a put-down, how sweet of you.
One species just doesn't become a new species like that, humans have always been humans. Apes have always been apes. Etc. Humans and animals have different numbers of genes anyway, with few exceptions. Evolution is just rediculous. There's absolutely NO archaelogical evidence. If there were, we would've found MILLIONS of fossils by now! We haven't even found ONE! Darwin went with the assumption that we'd find some evidence by now... we haven't.
by The Wade on February 14th, 2008
The change from one species to a next can take a great deal of time and increases and decreases information in the genome can occur due to mutations. Given enough time small DNA changes can yield a new species or a species differing enough to be classified as a new one. This doesn't necessitate the destruction of the old species as these changes don't happen in all of them at once.
There is genetic evidence showing the relatedness of Humans and Apes. Humans have 23 chromosones, apes have 24. But two of the ape chromosomes look incredibly similar to one of the humans and indeed there is abundanct genetic evidence showing this chromosome is a merging of two chromosomes. If you'd like a paper on it read (Ijdo et al. 1991) or (Avarello et al. 1992). Indeed many transitional fossils of humans exist, if you want further reading on this read "Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls" by Drews, C. 2002.
by Carnivalius on February 15th, 2008
Transitional fossils exist! The only way they don't is if you redefine "transitional fossil" to mean that it has to be a direct descendent of this species and a direct ancestor of this one. What a transitional fossil shows is a group of features from an older and a more recent organism. Plenty of these exist. There indeed even exist transitional fossils between families, orders and classes. To say there isn't even one fossil is far from the truth.
I should state you started the whole "assuming" thing when you asked where my data comes from and where my knowledge of physics is from, you have no clue as the level of my education or the extent of my library.
by Carnivalius on February 15th, 2008
I'm sure you probably have a doctorate or at least a masters, you're a pretty smart individual, although it'd be nice if you told me. And dude, seriously, there isn't any arcaeological evidence. AT ALL. Piltdown man, Nebraska man, etc. Fake. If there really is any evidence whatsoever, please, show me a link, show me ANY evidence, I doubt you'll find any credible archaeological evidence
by The Wade on February 15th, 2008
So what would you say all these "transitional" fossils are? Are they all fake just because some have been shown to be false or hoaxed? I would take this as even more evidence that transitional fossils these days are more carefully checked to filter out for these occurances.
Here's a link from NewScientist magazine on "Human Evolution":
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/dn9990
Sadly several of these papers below require a subscription to view, so I don't know if you want to pay to read them (fair enough if not but they're peer reviewed scientific papers):
Titanotheres of Ancient Wyoming, Dakota and Nebraska
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/72/1856/92-a
It shows stages of evolution in the skulls of the Titanothere.
by Carnivalius on February 15th, 2008
Morphology, Palaeoecology and Evolution of the Genus Gryphaea in the British Lias
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4622(19680822)254%3A792%3C91%3AMPAEOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
How coiled oysters become larger and broader, but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic.
There is also a fun website hosted on the Michigan State University's website looking at Hominid fossils.
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/index.htm
by Carnivalius on February 15th, 2008
Hmm. the Gryphaea link won't paste properly. If you just put the title in google, it should come up as the first link with the abbeviations "JSTOR:" infront of it.
by Carnivalius on February 15th, 2008
Thinking about it. Would you and I just agree to disagree?
by Carnivalius on February 17th, 2008
Maybe?
by Carnivalius on February 17th, 2008
okay, looked it all up, and it was funny! They said that lucy was complete, I know that to be a lie. They found the lower half of lucy a mile away. The little evidence there is here is highly questionable anyway. If there was evolution, you would've been able to give me a link with THOUSANDS even MILLIONS of complete fossils. I didn't even see ONE complete fossil. Some of these I know to be wrong. Some have fragments that come from five different locations, that even if they were found in the same location, they'd STILL be questionable!
by The Wade on February 19th, 2008
most of those are reconstructed poorly as well. Take a look at the Kenyanthropus platyops on the msu site. Looks like dirt to me. It very well may be bone fragments, but it's easy to tell that it had to be reconstructed. I took a look at this particular specimen and found that it was based off of a few fragments found in Kenya. 36 of them. Most(31) of them were just teeth, and only five were found to contain bone fragments, extremely damaged bone fragments. Not even a complete scull. That's evidence? Sad.
by The Wade on February 19th, 2008
So yeah, I didn't wanna subscribe to the other thing, just so ya know. But I still can't believe that people really believe this stuff. They don't even give the full story! They're brainwashing people! They come out and say they found a new fossil that was part of the evolutionary chain, but fail to mention that it's still under discussion and this one fossil comes from five different sites. Why are people so desperate to believe in this rediculous theory? Why do they deny the existance of God? It just doesn't make sense.
by The Wade on February 19th, 2008
It just shows how little you paid attention to those articles I sent you. They said "remarkably complete" for Lucy, that in no way means a whole COMPLETE skeleton! You also don't know your facts, all of lucy's bones were found in one location. The misconception that creationists use is that the same person found a knee joint in 1973 not far from Lucy's location and argue it's hers and so she is a composite of bones from miles around. It's not her knee and it isn't included in her skeleton. I can give you loads of links about evolution but I have little time to do what your capable of doing yourself. I gave you examples which is what you wanted (A link is what you said).
You know very little about archaeology and the rarity of fossilisation if you believe that you can expect to just pull a complete fossilised skeleton from the ground. Some come from five locations do they? Which are these?
by Carnivalius on February 19th, 2008
I can see you really delved into what I gave you too look up since you're quoting Kenyanthropus platyops that's linked straight off the front page of a website I labelled as "fun". I linked you to it to show there is a variety of transitional fossils for the hominds. It's a badly damaged specimen I will agree, but there are other hominid fossils of that time, so disputing that one doesn't help.
Well about brain washing, I could say the same about people clinging to Creationism as they believe everything they read from a 2000 year old book is absolute, complete and exactly true. Creationism has no evidence that stands up to scientific analysis apart from "the bible says so". Alot of Creationists time is spent trying to debunk evolution with little that supports their own claims. If evolution was debunked this wouldn't lend any more credence to genesis fitting that gap then say Norse Mythology.
by Carnivalius on February 19th, 2008
Evolutionary theory is backed up by current observations and evidence and of course fossils don't give the full story. To say there's evidence that has debunked it is to have no knowledge of the scientific community at all (who would have dropped evolutionary theory).
Fossils are incredibly rare and need very specific conditions for their creation and survival over the years. You don't expect the fossil record to give you finely detailed transitions for millions of years, but indeed several fine gradations do exist (like one of the scientific paper links you didn't read). A good case for fossil rarity would be be the passenger pigeon that existed in their billions, now extinct for over 100 odd years, yet you'd have a hard time finding a fossil of one. If they're hard to find, then it'll be even harder to find a fossil of a smaller population that has been subjected to millions of years of potential erosion.
I should point out evolution doesn't deny God. You are obsessed that it does.
by Carnivalius on February 19th, 2008
Evolution isn't backed up by much evidence whatsoever. It's a straight up lie to say it is. I can tell you're brainwashed or something, because alot of what you say is just the same thing I hear over and over again, that I know for a fact to be a lie. I just don't think I could continue this conversation. If you believe a lie, you may or may not listen to the truth.
by The Wade on February 21st, 2008
Have you thought whether the reason you keep hearing it over and over again is because it is Scientific truth?
Perhaps YOU are the one who is brainwashed...
by Doctor Astro on February 21st, 2008
I would have to say that it's only online I've ever heard this Creationism idea. So maybe you are the one who isn't really looking into things too deeply. I have looked into all the evidence you gave me for your arguments and given you the scientific responses. You however would seem not to, what with the "lucy complete" confusion. I would also say that if you know for a fact then how do you know? Did you read it somewhere? Or did you do the calculations/research to show it matched up? Case and point would be your inability to do any internet research which would show you that gas clouds (in space) over a specific critical density can collapse. The equations are out there on the internet on sites without the words "creation", "bible", "evolution" in the titles. I would also add that evolution has much more evidence than creationism has (none infact) as is show by its endurance to testing for ~150 years and creationism not even being classed as a theory by the scientific community.
by Carnivalius on February 21st, 2008
Are you familiar with statistics and the mathematics of calculating the chance of something happening? You know, calculate the number of variables and multiply. I want you to calculate the chances of a protien molecule with 50 amino acids coming into existence by chance. Don't worry, there's a point to this.
by The Wade on February 22nd, 2008
Yes I'm very familiar with probability thanks. I can see you're using the odds of a protein forming for evidence of creationism, which is an irrelevant argument in this case. First of all complex organic molecules don't form by chance (probability) but interact with one another in complex ways so there are not even outcomes for it forming or not (it's weighted, just like many other things in life). Also to calculate the probability you need all the forms that you can create life with (not just the one that we currently have). You also need to calculate the probability for the first instance of life which would have been much simpler than what you're asking me to calculate. Complex organic molecules are already produced in space all the time, so they could easily have had a hand in the creation of life here on earth. Also the thing with probability is even, if its unlikely it doesn't mean it won't happen.
by Carnivalius on February 25th, 2008
"I want you to calculate the chances of a protien molecule with 50 amino acids coming into existence by chance."
100% evidently.
by Anonymous T. Jackson on February 8th, 2009
Couldn't it just be possible that these primitive men fossils are just abnormalities among the human species? We still have abnormalities today, possibly not on a scale as great as back then because of our advanced health and maintenance technology, possibly, but we still do. For example, deformed skeletal structure and that hairy family in the Guinness world record.
Or couldn't these so called " species transitions" just sinful breeding across different animal species? lol
And the reason they may look so different from today is because of micro evolution between the original animal families before they started breeding?
by mistoryman123 on March 2nd, 2010