Is this Pre-Adam or Post-Adam (of Adam & Eve)

Two million-year-old creature had mix of ape, human traits

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - A 2 million-year-old ancestor of man had a mixture of ape and human-like features that allowed it to hike vast distances on two legs with as much ease as it could scurry up trees, according to research published on Friday.

Discovered in cave near Johannesburg in 2008, the fossils of a species named "Australopithecus sediba" have given researchers clues about the evolution of man and which traits in our ancestors fell by the wayside.

Click to expand...

"It is the perfect compromise of something that has the need to walk on the ground efficiently for long distances. At the same time, it is a very capable climber," said Lee Berger, project leader at the Wits Evolutionary Studies Institute in South Africa.

Click to expand...

2 million years ago. Was the before Adam & Eve?

Or was Adam something more like this guy, and less like Homo Erectus?

Dragonfly said:

Two million-year-old creature had mix of ape, human traits








2 million years ago. Was the before Adam & Eve?

Or was Adam something more like this guy, and less like Homo Erectus?

Click to expand...

I would say it depends on whether or not he had the ability to reason at an at least fundamental level, and make judgements as to how decisions affect his life. The Adam and Eve story appear to be representative of when humans decided that the concepts of good and bad existed.

Dragonfly said:

Two million-year-old creature had mix of ape, human traits

2 million years ago. Was the before Adam & Eve?

Click to expand...

Interesting. And it was before Adam:

And now regarding thy question, “How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?” Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time.
Moreover such forms and modes of writing as are now current amongst men were unknown to the generations that were before Adam. There was even a 173 time when men were wholly ignorant of the art of writing, and had adopted a system entirely different from the one which they now use. For a proper exposition of this an elaborate explanation would be required.

Click to expand...

Baha'u'llah, "Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah": 87

Or was Adam something more like this guy, and less like Homo Erectus?

Click to expand...

Adam is a mythological person representing man in the moment when man developed from an animal form to a human form. I don't know where exactly in man's evolution this point is, if there even is a particular single point.

Dragonfly said:

Two million-year-old creature had mix of ape, human traits

2 million years ago. Was the before Adam & Eve?

Or was Adam something more like this guy, and less like Homo Erectus?

Click to expand...

"Adam," if we take the story to be literal in nature rather than metaphorical, would probably be the first member of the species Homo Sapiens Spaiens to demonstrate full self-awareness and the ability to reason on a moral basis. I kind of doubt that something like the following would make the cut in this regard.

View attachment 67146118

The really interesting question here is what to make of human sub species like the Neanderthals. Could they have been said to have souls?

I think this is long, long after the time described in the myth of Adam and Eve.

Dragonfly said:

Two million-year-old creature had mix of ape, human traits





2 million years ago. Was the before Adam & Eve?

Or was Adam something more like this guy, and less like Homo Erectus?

Click to expand...

That all depends on whether you think Genesis tells everything there is to tell about the Earth. I personally do not believe this. The creation of the Earth could hardly be summarized in a single book. This is where I think the fallacy of the age of the Earth and many other things comes from, the notion that the Book of Genesis was primarily written to teach us about science and the Earth. I don't believe it was written for that purpose, but to teach about salvation. To me information about the Earth's age is irrelevant to the topic of salvation. So is it pre-Adam or Post-Adam, probably pre-Adam if that matters to you.

Obviously, people who take the bible literally will, or at least should have an answer.

Some will say not every part of the bible is meant to be taken literally.

Some say the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Hmmmmmmm...but this "guy" is 2 million years old.

Regardless of all that....Adam & Eve are always pictured as "modern humans" with fig leaves and a lush garden around.

I'm just wondering what discoveries like the one in the OP do for people who strongly defend the bible and what's written in it.

Dragonfly said:

Obviously, people who take the bible literally will, or at least should have an answer.

Some will say not every part of the bible is meant to be taken literally.

Some say the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Hmmmmmmm...but this "guy" is 2 million years old.

Regardless of all that....Adam & Eve are always pictured as "modern humans" with fig leaves and a lush garden around.

I'm just wondering what discoveries like the one in the OP do for people who strongly defend the bible and what's written in it.

Click to expand...

I'd think that those who take the Bible as literally as you seem to describe would want to deny that these findings were even "human" at all. They would also probably want to dispute the fossils' apparent age.

Your question is a bit like asking an atheist to come up with a justification for favoring the New Testament Bible over the Old. Most are simply going to tell you that they think both are nonsense and leave it at that.

Gathomas88 said:

I'd think that those who take the Bible as literally as you seem to describe would want to deny that these findings were even "human" at all. They would also probably want to dispute the fossils' apparent age.

Click to expand...

The best claim I read the other day: "God created all these fossils and traces 6000 years ago, in order to mislead the disbelievers!"

Dragonfly said:

Obviously, people who take the bible literally will, or at least should have an answer.

Some will say not every part of the bible is meant to be taken literally.

Some say the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Hmmmmmmm...but this "guy" is 2 million years old.

Regardless of all that....Adam & Eve are always pictured as "modern humans" with fig leaves and a lush garden around.

I'm just wondering what discoveries like the one in the OP do for people who strongly defend the bible and what's written in it.

Click to expand...

Hm. Well, I am somewhat of a literalist... that is to say, I tend to take a lot of the Bible literally, except those portions that are obviously metaphorical or allegorical teachings.

There has long been debate among Christians as to whether Genesis provides a complete and literal account of all of Creation, or whether it is partly or wholly metaphorical, or whether it was a case of "this is as much of the truth as the people to whom this teaching was given could comprehend", as some put it.

Me personally? I dunno. I take it on faith that whatever the details, Earth's creation unfolded according to God's will. I don't get worried and sweaty over neanderthals or pitho-whatsis.

Dragonfly said:

Two million-year-old creature had mix of ape, human traits






2 million years ago. Was the before Adam & Eve?

Or was Adam something more like this guy, and less like Homo Erectus?

Click to expand...

I'm just guessing of course, but judging by the size of the creatures jaw and teeth...it doesn't appear he ate cooked food. Which suggests that he hadn't discovered how to use fire. He was probably a scavenger and ate mostly raw vegetation due to his flat teeth, but his canines suggest he may have also eaten raw meat and/or bone marrow. If he ate bone marrow then he was definitely a scavenger and may have walked upright long distances in the savanna to scavenge for remains of other animals.

But I doubt he migrated from somewhere far away since he was discovered in a fossil rich area known as the Cradle of Man where they've found fossils much closer to modern humans. Therefore, I think he is definitely pre-Adam...if and whenever that was. It's interesting that they also found a female creature of his species with him. Almost Adam and Eve, but not quite since the Bible says man was made in God's image. Which then begs the question, what does God look like? Somehow I don't think this ape-man creature is what the authors of the Bible had in mind.

Humanity's Closest Ancestor Was Pigeon-Toed, Research Reveals

Moot said:

Which then begs the question, what does God look like? Somehow I don't think this ape-man creature is what the authors of the Bible had in mind.

Click to expand...

That's easy. He's white. Old. Long beard. Kinda like Gandalf.

But definitely WHITE.

Dragonfly said:

That's easy. He's white. Old. Long beard. Kinda like Gandalf.

But definitely WHITE.

Click to expand...

I sense you are being sarcastic. If so, it is not a particular intelligent brand of sarcasm.

White is also the color of purity. If God is to be pure, the best color we can give him is White. As opposed to the devil who will be a mixture of red and black. More black... because that means darkness.