Origins of man: Which path?

soylentgreen said:

All the living what? All the living of the chosen race or all the living gentiles as well. One thing you can say about that book is that it was so badly written that anyone can give it any interpretation.

Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:

Denier of the science you are. I did not go outside the premise i gave some historical and scientific support to an idea of an adam and eve. Nothing i said can be used to deny that a god created a passage through a bottleneck in human population by creating a woman of whom the present population carries the mitochondrial DNA.

You simply assume that adam and eve were the start of the human race. But it can also be argued that adam and eve were merely the start of the chosen race of god and that other races existed but do not share gods special favour of those descended of the first two.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

You do realize unless there is a law against the act, it is not considered incest...


https://www.google.com/search?q=inc.....69i57j0l5.2034j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

I am going to start this in the religious section since it I simply dealing specifically with religious beliefs, however, Mods, if there is a section that is better suited, please feel free to move it there.

Now for the purposes of this particular discussion we are assuming a spontaneously created Adam with Eve having been made from his rib, per the Bible account. Anyone who cannot provide arguments within that context will be given nasty emojis and call a spoilsport and a party pooper.


After we assume our premise, we are left with the quandary of where the rest of us come from. Many people will say we are all descended of Adam and Eve, but few ever think of what that implied.


The first and immediate implication is that we are all distant products of incest. If Adam and Eve were the only people created, then their children would have been forced to have other children with their siblings, and maybe even with their parents. In this case, I use forced as in no other choice not as in against their will.


Our second option is that Adam and Eve were the prototypes and God then later spontaneously created other humans for their children to go out and have children with. The mentioning of other people first occurs when Cain is cursed for killing his brother, and he is worried that others will exact revenge beyond God's punishment, hence the mark from God to prevent that. Yet, after that passage, it is then revealed that Adam and Eve had Seth, noting specifically that they had himafter the loss of Able, and then had many more sons and daughters after Seth. So then where did the others whom Cain was afraid of come from. Eventually Cain found a village and married some one from it, but due to the lack of described time passing, and their multi centuries of life back then, there could have been a population build from any of the methods listed here.


Our final option also stems from the accounting that there were people for Cain to be afraid of and later marry. And that is simply that they evolved and form the main stock of humanity.


So which do you believe is the origin of man after Adam and Eve were created or if you don't believe in the spontaneously created Adam and Eve, which do you feel is the more likely under the assumptions of the thread? If you reject all three, and still remain under the assumptions, what is your theory?

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

Are you saying that unless there is a law about it, the act of taking something that is not yours is not stealing or theft? Like many things, the legal definition of something doesn't always match the actual act that originated the word. Incest is sexual relations with a closely blood related individual. Laws sometimes expands that definition to marriage and/or to no blood related individuals. Incest existed before it was an issue, at least according to biblical history.

Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:

Denier of the science you are. I did not go outside the premise i gave some historical and scientific support to an idea of an adam and eve. Nothing i said can be used to deny that a god created a passage through a bottleneck in human population by creating a woman of whom the present population carries the mitochondrial DNA.

You simply assume that adam and eve were the start of the human race. But it can also be argued that adam and eve were merely the start of the chosen race of god and that other races existed but do not share gods special favour of those descended of the first two.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

You do realize unless there is a law against the act, it is not considered incest...


https://www.google.com/search?q=inc.....69i57j0l5.2034j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Click to expand...

"Everyone living" means just what it says...

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

I am not denying anything. I have not said that the reality is one way or the other. I am taking one of the assertions and saying that this is the premise we re working under for the purposes of the discussion. If you want to use a different premise by all means start that thread. The premise is, as I stated that Adam and Ever were created, not begotten via manipulated genetic structure. I am not even assuming that Adam and Eve were the beginnings of the human race, save simply as the premise of the discussion. The whole point is to simply start at possibility #64 of 126 possibilities (numbers made up for the point) and extrapolate from there. I mean I could have started from a premise that the Greek gods were real and that the current human race is the result of Zeus not being able to keep it in his pants, and bopping a monkey or two. I don't believe or assume that is true, but would from that assumption or premise, extrapolate upon the subject of the discussion.

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

I am going to start this in the religious section since it I simply dealing specifically with religious beliefs, however, Mods, if there is a section that is better suited, please feel free to move it there.

Now for the purposes of this particular discussion we are assuming a spontaneously created Adam with Eve having been made from his rib, per the Bible account. Anyone who cannot provide arguments within that context will be given nasty emojis and call a spoilsport and a party pooper.


After we assume our premise, we are left with the quandary of where the rest of us come from. Many people will say we are all descended of Adam and Eve, but few ever think of what that implied.


The first and immediate implication is that we are all distant products of incest. If Adam and Eve were the only people created, then their children would have been forced to have other children with their siblings, and maybe even with their parents. In this case, I use forced as in no other choice not as in against their will.


Our second option is that Adam and Eve were the prototypes and God then later spontaneously created other humans for their children to go out and have children with. The mentioning of other people first occurs when Cain is cursed for killing his brother, and he is worried that others will exact revenge beyond God's punishment, hence the mark from God to prevent that. Yet, after that passage, it is then revealed that Adam and Eve had Seth, noting specifically that they had himafter the loss of Able, and then had many more sons and daughters after Seth. So then where did the others whom Cain was afraid of come from. Eventually Cain found a village and married some one from it, but due to the lack of described time passing, and their multi centuries of life back then, there could have been a population build from any of the methods listed here.


Our final option also stems from the accounting that there were people for Cain to be afraid of and later marry. And that is simply that they evolved and form the main stock of humanity.


So which do you believe is the origin of man after Adam and Eve were created or if you don't believe in the spontaneously created Adam and Eve, which do you feel is the more likely under the assumptions of the thread? If you reject all three, and still remain under the assumptions, what is your theory?

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

Mitochondrial Eve lived over 50,000 years later than Y-Chromosomal Adam. The two are not the origins of man, but rather two individuals we all share a genetic lineage with. The only reason why they are called Adam and Eve in science is just a cultural artifact of the influence of Genesis on Western societies.

Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:

Not quite as the names of adam and eve used in this labeling are a reference only to the latest example of each. There is the the idea that such events that narrowed humanity down to a small number happened a few times. So there could have been an original Y-MRCA and mt-MRCA who were around at the same time. They just do not happen to be the latest batch of them.

And while i agree with you that the story of adam and eve is in fact nothing more than a story. The game being played in this thread is to see if we can make a sensible argument out of that story. You're not helping by sensibly pointing out the flaws in the reasoning.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

That is your belief, not mine...

Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:

Its not my beleif. I am just playing a game here. While you do nothing more than accept and reguritate what the bible says without showing any reasoning having been used on your part. I am trying to give some thought as to the hows and whys rather than just acceptance of what is written. Admittedly i am doing a bad job of it, but as the old computer cliche goes, **** goes in, **** comes out.

Click to expand...

faithful_servant said:

A little common sense and reading of the Bible indicate that Adam was the FIRST man, not the only one. If he was the first, then it stands to reason that there was at least a second...

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

I am saying that at the time Adam and Eve were created, history was a blank slate..they had only the laws God gave them at that time...it was not until 2,500 years later, that God told man not re pro-create with a close relative...therefore before that law, it was not wrong nor was there a law against it...Lev. 18:6-17

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

Cain's wife was one of his sisters but it was not incest because there was no law against incest until some time later...

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

There was obviously a second and a third and a fourth. Cain, Able and Seth are mentioned by name. However, nothing is said about how other men came into being. In the case of the three listed, they are sons of Adam by Eve. BAsically, we are asking what came afterwards, for further generations?

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

Correct, but that didn't mean incest didn't exist. It only meant that the act of incest was not against any rule or law. That was the point. Your initial claim that since there was not law against it, incest didn't exist was incorrect.

Click to expand...

soylentgreen said:

So where in the scenario i created from your supposition is there actual conflict then? What reasoning or evidence do you have that no genetic materiial was possesed by or passed down by eve?

Click to expand...

calamity said:

Other...probably something along the lines of people who were not part of God's chosen tribe. A&E are specifically the first of the Hebrews Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

Are you running on the premise of a created, not evolved, Adam and Eve? It is hard to tell from your response.

Click to expand...

An Actual Personage. That Eve actually lived and was not a fictional character is testified to by Christ Jesus himself. In being questioned by the Pharisees concerning divorce, Jesus directed attention to the Genesis account with reference to the creation of male and female. (Mt 19:3-6) Additionally, there are Paul’s words to the Corinthians, expressing fear that their minds might be corrupted somehow, “as the serpent seduced Eve by its cunning.” (2Co 11:3) Then, in discussing woman’s proper place in the Christian congregation, Paul presents as a reason for not permitting “a woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man,” the fact that Adam was formed first, and he was not deceived, “but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression.”—1Ti 2:12-14.

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

We have no way of knowing how many children Adam and Eve had...it could have been many, considering Adam lived to be 930...with the birth of Seth the Genesis record concerning Eve comes to a close...Genesis 4:25; 5:3, 4

Click to expand...

Elvira said:

Um that is not what I said...I said there was no law against incest, so at that time it was not a sin, so it was not considered incest...

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

Agreed. Any males after Seth would have been the fifth man and the sixth man....etc. There are some other records it seems that indicate that Adam's final son count was in the low 30's and daughter count a little higher, I think. The numbers were consistently close as I looked over articles. And here is the other thing. If incest wasn't a taboo or unlawful act back then, could Adam have had any children by his daughters as well?

Click to expand...