The theory of evolution precludes the idea of personal, identifiable, Adam and Eve. If you accept the book of Genesis at face value, then Adam and Eve looked more or less like the average human. Well, the average human--by which I mean average of all the variations that we call "race" along with other physical variations--minus all the flaws related to genetic and environmental deterioration owing to sin since then. So sort of a mid-brown, swarthy sort of coloration, as a guess, with Adam 6 feet or so, Eve a few inches shorter, unparalleled physical specimens, both. In the evolutionary scenario, Adam and Eve cease to exist, other than as mythology, allegory, or fable. There is no first or prototypical human, just an imperceptible change which has brought us to think of ourselves as different from monkeys. Adam and Eve could just as well be amoeba. Evolution, in the form of evolutionists, was not there to tell us where we started. Only God was, and I believe Genesis is His record.

Evolution is a lie perpetuated by Charles Darwin, who lost his faith in God. Adam and Eve were created in God's image and God is NOT a monkey; therefore, Adam and Eve could not have looked like monkeys. Read the full account of creation in the biblical Book of Genesis.

From VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACT we know that Homo sapiens (that is conscious, self-aware, and soul-filled human beings) have remained un-changed since their ascendance from the Homo erectus line approx 250 000 years ago. There are many physical simularities between erectus and sapiens as are there differences and neither looked much like monkeys save for in the same manner that Homo Sapiens today resemble their lower primate 'cousins'. Genesis is not a book intended to explain how God did things, rather, the intention is to tells us why. If you believe that the Bible is meant to be read as litteral word-for-word truth then you have bigger problems than whether or not Adam and Eve looked like monkeys...you need your head examined.

I've always had the odd little daydream of "perhaps Adam and Eve were a collective pair of evolved beings, representing the level of consciousness when human beings started to develop the concept of 'right' and 'wrong'." Obviously the Genesis authors didn't have that sort of thing in mind when they wrote Genesis, but it makes for an interesting modern interpretation of Genesis.

I tend to agree with CuraAnimarum. Faith is more esoteric and not exotric. It is not about literal stories but more about in between the line and the implicit message. We need to focus on the essence and not the content. We tend to know everybody but ourselves. I think of everyone in a day but me. Who am I. Who is watching this world from inside of me, who is listening to all the noises, and where does it goes when I'll die. GOD is the universal truth it is the essence of us all. He is in you and me provided we shed this fake consiousness and focus on the soul, the eternal truth.

Maybe. We do not know at what point in the long process of evolution that God put a soul in some ape-like animals and created human beings. The Catholic Church does not take the stories of creation in the Bible literally. Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth and not necessarily historical fact. One of the religious truths is that God created everything and declared all was good. Catholics can believe in the theory of evolution. Or not. The Church does not require belief in evolution. On August 12, 1950 Pope Pius XII said in his encyclical Humani generis: The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. Here is the complete encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html The Church supports science in the discovery of God's creation. At this time, the theory of evolution is the most logical scientific explanation. However tomorrow someone may come up with a better idea. As long as we believe that God started the whole thing, both the Bible and modern science can live in harmony. With love in Christ.

read genesis 2.7 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Hmmmm, created from the dust (soil, mud, etc.) wow. God created every thing, it evolved, man evovled, and then he "reathed into hsi nostrils" and give man a spirit.

Evolutionists take us further back than that. Life, they say, started “in some warm little pond”. Curiously enough the statement “and We made, from water, every living thing….Will they not then believe?” occurs in Holy Qur’an 21:30. Make of that what you will.

Actually according to the fairy tale God made man in his image so they probably looked like we do now if you choose to believe the book of Genesis. But on the other hand maybe God looks like a monkey and that's why he hides in the clouds. He sure seems about as logical as a monkey.

No, Eve was a paramecium and Adam was a flagellate. The snake as an amoeba, and the tree was a single-celled algae.

I don't think they looked like we do today, they may have looked like something pre-human. I believe that our physical characteristics did a lot of evolving after Noah and the flood, before that who knows what most humans looked like?

Ah, that's the catch, isn't it? The basis of the whole Creationism vs. Evolution debate. If you believe in the Adam and Eve story as told by the Bible, with no room for interpretation, then they looked just as we look today and evolution is a farce. If you believe in evolution, the Adam and Eve story is impossible, and creationism is a farce. Personally, I believe the truth is neither extreme but some sort of middle ground. We really have no way of knowing till we're dead and, at that point, it's really kind of irrelevant.

If Adam and Eve were the first humans and they had two sons together, then which son did she fuck first to populate the earth?

No, not like monkeys. They would probably be the two most beautiful people ever to exist. God Himself said they were "Very Good".

the bible informs us that God created man in his own image. God being perfect, is incapable of creating anything less than perfect. his "activity is perfect." (deuteronomy 32:4) he thus created adam and eve in his image, meaning that he made them superior to any animal life that he had already created, including the ape family. man received gifts that the animal creation did not receive. man was created with qualities that set him apart from any other creation here on earth. he was endowed with the qualities of love, power, justice, and wisdom, among other qualities and talents. he received superior intelligence. he received powers of reasoning and mental faculties unlike the animal kingdom. one more thing man received that does not exist in the animal creation, that would be the faculty of possesing a conscience. all these qualities set man far ahead of the animal kingdom.

I think it's important to remember that, at the end of the day: #1. We are merely humans,and we will never know everything. #2. 'Science' is the study of nature. Combine the two points, and every "scientific fact" developed by our mere-human-lead-scientists remains a theory, regardless of how convincing. Until the age of 21, I grew up a God-hating atheist, partly because I have an atheistic family, and partly because of my secular studies and upbringing in the public schools. I was born into being an atheist who would laugh at the idea of a young earth and simple creation, and so much so that I went to university and took philosophy courses where I would make rude remarks to my religious peers about how impossible their viewpoint was on the origin of life. I am now pretty ashamed for how blind I was to all the possible explanations, because I was born with one idea, I decided to discount every other possibility- especially because it seemed so "traditional". On the contrary, I realize that what I was already believing was the traditional viewpoint because of how our public school systems work, and the opinions of those who work there. That's not why I don't believe in evolution; that's just a point that I realized on my own, when I became curious about other explanations and theories. It's important to be prideless and modest when discussing heavy scientific theories; we need to remember that we don't know EVERYTHING. We know what the books show us, we know what the media shows us and chooses to update us on, but we weren't there at the beginning, and we're not all-knowing about what REALLY may be going on around the world. Do you think you're open to discussion? How much have you actually CONSIDERED anything I or anyone else has said? Do you invite outside opinions to think about, or do you often find yourself blocking things out because of how you're used to thinking, or what society finds appropriate or acceptable? The question of whether the earth is young or old is a pretty redundant one for some, because unless you're willing to grow up and consider what someone else is bringing to the table, you might as well zip your lip. Freedom of speech is only as helpful and necessary as what people are discussing. Everything else is useless bulk that needs not to be said because of the kind of anger, human separation, it causes. That old question comes up again and again "You can hear me, but are you listening?" This ramble of mine may have seemed pointless- and fair enough- but I'd like to finish with a small handful of things that may or may not be thought-provoking. Now, please don't take this as "Preaching the Gospel"- I'm merely trying to clear up a few things that people get confused. You can skip this part if you want: - Death is not an option, so what happens after you die? - The ceolecanth fish, frilled shark, and other water-dwelling "dinosaurs" are still around. Does this support the Flood 'myth'? - Doing good deeds doesn't make you go to heaven, and sinning doesn't make you go to hell. Don't believe me? Read the Bible. Actually read it- don't say "Oh, I KNOW what the bible says; I don't need to read anything." There are two parts to read- the old testament, and the new testament. The new testament is the really important one. - When the human body dies, it APPARENTLY (I can't back this up, so go find out for yourself) inexplicably loses 3 ounces of weight. Is that a person's soul, gone? This one I'm still looking into! :) - Contrary to popular belief, God LOVES every single human. Even Hitler. No matter how much his immature and angry kids mess up, God still loves his kids. That's His nature. - Again, contrary to popular belief, people don't go to hell for sinning. If you cheat on your wife, you're not going to hell. If you kill someone, you're not going to hell. If you steal, you're not going to hell. The ACTUAL cause of going to hell? according to the new testament, you will go to hell (or have some kind of bleak and depressing separation from God- depending on what you believe) for not accepting this: ***Christ gave himself as a sacrifice for man's sin*** THAT'S what makes people go to hell- choosing to separate themselves from God. If you don't want to have anything to do with God, you'll get what you requested when you die. He will separate you from Him. Now, the bible is something that is not to be taken lightly. Many people believe PART of something- like what's in the bible- but that's crap. You can't PARTLY believe in something, it doesn't make sense. "I believe that fire gives you light, but don't worry; it won't burn you." Do you PARTLY believe in fire because it's more comfortable for you that way, and causes less stress, and that way, it can be more of a crowd-pleaser? Sorry, but you can't please your entire audience. I don't know everything and you don't know everything. All I know is what I've seen and what I've looked into- but that may all be a bunch of crap, because my education is limited to that which the media- which is mainly controlled by the government- provides to me. We all become more useful when we start acting like we DON'T know everything.

Adam and Eve (if they existed) were not the first humans.

Biblical stories are a series of parables telling you how to live. Period! Love, God

my theory to this is that it may of been evolution as in God made the earth and made animals on the 4th day or 5 then made adam and eve on the 6th. but we don't know how long his days are they could of been thousand of years for the earth.bascaily then saying we transformed from some monkeys and the first to do soo were adam and eve makeing out they were the first humans then they repruduced so on so on

Adam and Eve were actually tiny organisms that lived in the ocean.

The Adam and Eve story was plagiarized from the Sumerian tales of the Anannaki. In the original version, "Eve" was male and the snake a kind Anannaki trying to help the natives there escape enslavement.

Adam & Eve and Evolution come from two completely different world views, and cannot be made compatible. If you talk about A&E, then evolution is simply not a relevant concept, and vice versa. Apart from anything else, A&E are supposed to have lived only 6000 years ago, and 6000 years is not enough human generations for any significant amount of evolution. Currently, we believe that humans 40,000 years ago were indistinguishable from modern humans.

Somebody is seriously confused about Creationism and Evolution, ain't ya son?

i wouldnt adam and eve it!