| Author |
The first man on earth? |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-09-17 09:54:37, carkitter wrote:
@scotsboyuk
So according to evolution, at some point a homosapien/genus etc must have become Man as we are now. And Mankind being social creatures, names would be required. What then does evolution say is the first instance of a named person?
I think it important to point out that the process of evolution would have developed homo sapiens over a period of time, it would not have been 'at some point' as if there were an arbitrary point before which homo sapiens didn't exist and after which homo sapiens did exist. It would have been a gradual process over a very long time, which would have seen the emergence of qualities and traits that we now regard as being human.
On your second point I think you are confusing anthropology and/or sociology with biology. Evolution is not an anthropological or sociological theory, it does not set out to explain or answer questions relating to anthropological or sociological matters. It may have something to say about the biological processes behind certain social interactions, but it is not, and never has been, a theory to explain how humans interact with one another in a social setting. In that respect evolution has nothing to say about what the first name ever given to a person was. For that you would need to ask a a historian, but I doubt they could give you a definitive answer since homo sapiens have existed for around 200,000 years, whereas recorded history begins in the 4th millennium BC when writing was invented, which means there is more than 194,000 years of unrecorded human history, which in percentage terms means that 97.75% or greater of human history is unrecorded.
It's also worth pointing out that whatever names were used before recorded history stand a good chance of bearing no resemblance to modern names the further back one goes.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC | |
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Bob and Barbara, I like it! 
I think blackspot is on to something with his theory about whether the chicken came first or the egg. Adam probably came to earth from delta quadrant through an abnormal intergalactic rift, which would explain why he is the first man on Earth. In a quite unlikely and unrelated event, a fertile chicken appeared out of nowhere as a consequence of using the Infinite Improbability Drive. This settles once and for all that the chicken came first.
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750 K750 Tricks
K800 Tips and Themes
Max's K800 Page
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2007-09-18 08:01 ] |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
@scotsboyuk
While you are right that evolution does not deal with sociology and anthropology, it becomes obvious that it actually has more holes in it and less explanations for things than creation doctrine does. You see, by saying that 97.75% of history is unrecorded, one leaves plenty of room for supposition and speculation, which if you look back over the 9 pages of this discussion you''ll see that both are rife among supporters of evolution. It also means one can avoid having to be too specific on things.
By contrast, as a Bible believer I can say with confidence, Adam was the first man, and IMO Jesus has the most complete genealogy; his being able to be traced exactly back to Adam thanks to 1Chronicles chapter 1 and Matthew chapter 1.
If one believes in creation, one believes that history began approx 4000 BC. The fact this aligns with recorded history is not mere coincidence.
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-09-18 09:40 ] |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
@carkitter its true. Jesus bloodline can be traced back to Adam on earth. Its because he was simply a Jew. I suppose that Adam was the first Jew on earth. I like the idea of Pre-Adammites and Iam sure that those were non Jews. Mostly reffered to as Gentiles or Outsiders. Correct me if Iam wrong
|
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
On 2007-09-18 10:26:02, carkitter wrote:
If one believes in creation, one believes that history began approx 4000 BC. The fact this aligns with recorded history is not mere coincidence.
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-09-18 09:40 ]
So you believe the earth was created approx 60000 years ago or just humans? If yes to either of them... Don’t we know as a fact that to be false? |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-09-18 10:26:02, carkitter wrote:
You see, by saying that 97.75% of history is unrecorded, one leaves plenty of room for supposition and speculation, which if you look back over the 9 pages of this discussion you''ll see that both are rife among supporters of evolution. It also means one can avoid having to be too specific on things.
that's only unrecorded Human history, there are still archeological and geological natural records that tell us the story of the development of life on the planet.
By contrast, as a Bible believer I can say with confidence, Adam was the first man, and IMO Jesus has the most complete genealogy; his being able to be traced exactly back to Adam thanks to 1Chronicles chapter 1 and Matthew chapter 1.
If one believes in creation, one believes that history began approx 4000 BC. The fact this aligns with recorded history is not mere coincidence.
that proves nothing. It could simply be that people who wrote the bible assumed that the world began just before human records started to be kept. There are also cave paintings and other reasonably advanced forms of recordings, not to mention tools, going back many thousands of years more, indicating that intelligent humans have been around for a lot longer than 6000 years.
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-09-18 10:26:02, carkitter wrote:
@scotsboyuk
While you are right that evolution does not deal with sociology and anthropology, it becomes obvious that it actually has more holes in it and less explanations for things than creation doctrine does. You see, by saying that 97.75% of history is unrecorded, one leaves plenty of room for supposition and speculation, which if you look back over the 9 pages of this discussion you''ll see that both are rife among supporters of evolution. It also means one can avoid having to be too specific on things.
By contrast, as a Bible believer I can say with confidence, Adam was the first man, and IMO Jesus has the most complete genealogy; his being able to be traced exactly back to Adam thanks to 1Chronicles chapter 1 and Matthew chapter 1.
If one believes in creation, one believes that history began approx 4000 BC. The fact this aligns with recorded history is not mere coincidence.
There are a number of points here so please bear with me if this post is rather long.
First of all it is important to point out that 'unrecorded' history is not the same as saying that we don't have any information on what was happening during that time period. Recorded and unrecorded history are terms used to describe different fields of study. Recorded history is studied by historians and involves the examination of documents in various forms. Unrecorded history is the domain of archaeologists, palaeontologists, etc who study fossils and artefacts left behind by early humans and animals.
Whilst we have no textual evidence for events prior to the invention of writing we can glean information from examining tools, artwork, climactic data and remains. Such evidence helps us to paint a picture of what life was like for our ancient ancestors and how they organised themselves and conducted their lives as well as how they progressed in the evolutionary sense.
Concerning evolution there are two points that need to be made here I feel. The first is that there is a wealth of evidence to support evolution, evidence that can be studied and examined and which is added to as time goes on. The second point is that evolution is a scientific theory, not religious doctrine. Why is that important? Let me explain.
Scientific theories can and do undergo revision and change, they are not based on doctrine, but rather evidence. If the evidence upon which a theory is based changes then the theory either has to change or be discarded and a new theory developed. Theories can be modified if and when new evidence becomes available, thus disproving one particular part of a theory is not the same as disproving the entire theory and pointing out 'holes' in a scientific theory is not the same as discrediting the entire theory.
Compare this with a religious text like the Bible. The Bible is said to be the word of God, which means that if even one part of it is successfully challenged the word of God is challenged and the authority and existence of God is thus brought into question. One need only disprove one thing in the Bible to unravel the entire text. Thus we see why religious fundamentalists oppose theories like evolution so fiercely because if even one part of what they believe to be the word of a perfect being is disproved then the word of that perfect being is no longer perfect and absolute.
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish, if you believe that Adam was the first man then that is your prerogative. However, I would ask you to show the evidence for Adam being the first man. Is there any evidence for the first human being being the Biblical Adam that does not come from a religious source? If your only source for believing that Adam is the first human being is the Bible I might equally point to any book I decide to accord a religious status to and say that the contents of that book are literally true.
You are correct that it is not mere coincidence that the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years or so old coincides with the dawn of recorded history. The reason this isn't a coincidence is because the texts that those who believe in a young Earth use to support their beliefs can't obviously come from the period before writing was invented. If writing had been invented a thousand or ten thousand years earlier I imagine those who believe in a young Earth would believe that the Earth was 7,000 or 16,000 years old rather than 6,000 years old.
The only 'evidence' those who believe in a young Earth have to go on are religious texts. The overwhelming geological evidence points to the Earth being more than 4 billion years old. We know that homo sapiens themselves have existed for around 200,000 years.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-09-18 21:48 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Compare this with a religious text like the Bible. The Bible is said to be the word of God, which means that if even one part of it is successfully challenged the word of God is challenged and the authority and existence of God is thus brought into question. One need only disprove one thing in the Bible to unravel the entire text. Thus we see why religious fundamentalists oppose theories like evolution so fiercely because if even one part of what they believe to be the word of a perfect being is disproved then the word of that perfect being is no longer perfect and absolute.
Great post scots, the whole thing, but this part is the kicker
Well said. Although I'm sure many will retain their head in the sand approach to truth.
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750 K750 Tricks
K800 Tips and Themes
Max's K800 Page
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2007-09-19 01:32 ] |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
I am a Catholic/Christian by RELIGION . . . but I don't 100% AGREE with what is ALL WRITTEN in the Bible . . .
There are REALLY aliens before us here on planet Earth . . .
Have you seen the flick: Alien vs Predator  That could be TRUE for all we know !
[addsig] |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
@scotsboyuk
While I am not expert in the evidence behind the young earth claims, I am aware that much of the Bible can be supported other non religious texts and archealogical discoveries. The Dead Sea Scrolls is an example of an archealogical discovery which supports statements in the Bible that were previously unsupported.
Relying on carbon-dating to set dates for items as millions of years old is dubioius so I am told.
Have you heard of the Gap theory? There is some discussion in Christian circles that Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 and 2 may not have happened at the same time and that something else may have happened between these two verses, like dinosaurs for instance. As dinosaurs have no relevance to Man's Salvation (the purpose of the Bible) there'd be no reason to include them anyway. Who knows (or cares) even?
From the bibleonline website, Genesis Ch 1, NIV version:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Edit: Oh and BTW, which part of the Bible has been successfully challenged? None, to my knowledge.
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-09-19 10:28 ]
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-09-20 00:49 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I am not expert in the evidence behind the young earth claims
There isn't any evidence. All evidence always in some way comes back to interpretations of the Bible. There is no evidence outside the Bible for a young earth.
Unless one can also consider other such theories as Flat Earth, the flying spaghetti monster or Mel Gibson's verson of Catholicism to have scientifically valid evidentiary support, then I can't see any evidence to support a young earth theology.
The Theory of Evolution on the other hand has STACKLOADS of evidence.
Relying on carbon-dating to set dates for items as millions of years old is dubioius so I am told.
there are other methods of dating that don't rely on carbon dating (for example layered rock formations). Much more reliable methods exist for shorter time spans, but still accurate in the hundreds of thousands of years, easily enough to decimate the believability of a 6000 year old Earth.
Edit: Oh and BTW, which part of the Bible has been successfully challenged? None, to my knowledge.
Star Wars hasn't been successfully challenged either. For all we know Adam is Luke's distant great-grandson. You are using lack of provability as proof in itself.
|
KingBooker5
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: London, England
PM |
Its a fact
Bob and Barbara were the first people, you are all idiots for thinking anything else!
humbug! |
gola
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: South Africa
PM |
@Kingbooker:you are not just dizzy,but you are also confuzled... 
"Getting wisdom is the wisest thing you can do!"
Proverbs 4: 7 |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-09-19 16:58:38, max_wedge wrote:
For all we know Adam is Luke's distant great-grandson. You are using lack of provability as proof in itself.
. . . are we TALKIN' about : Luke The Magic Man here . . .
[addsig] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
No, LUKE SKYWALKER, the famous Jedi and palpatine butt kicking hero of Star Wars
| |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-09-17 22:56
