Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exclusivity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A racist element? Where?

You do realize the use of the term ''primitive'' in the context of being first, and not in the context of savagery. Of course you do, because I made sure the context was visible.
So I'm kind of confused as to why you would go there.

Jan

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah! That's so cute.
You're trying to give the impression that the Bible, and God, are so insignificant in your life, you can hardly remember anything about them. Don't worry, your secret obsession with God, and scripture, will remain just between us.

jan.

 

What do you think that means?

jan

 

Are you purposely being obtuse.

Adam was formed before Eve.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Why would a snake be any different then, than it is now?

The serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan, sometimes referred to as the Great Dragon.
“Serpent” is also regarded as venomous, not only poisonous from a snake, but the character of a person.

Actually, no. It really is that simple.
Then again if you ever were a theist, you wouldn’t have to ask.

I know you’re not big on truth, but that’s all there is to it. You’ve asked me many times, and I have responded in the same way many times.
Maybe it’s time for you to start accepting truth, instead

I don’t have a vague shifting belief in God.
So there is nothing to discuss.

That’s unfortunate for you.

I have nothing against evolution.
Fido magically turning into Freewilly, is not evolution. Why do you still believe in that stuff?

What wildly excepted facts are you referring to?

I always get to this point when reading your post James you now are, as usual becoming tedious.

To me names of religious institutes, are just that, names of institutes. If Christians want to believe an undocumented version of the bible, they are free to do so. I’m not knocking them.

Why don’t you ask them, or find out for yourself.

Oh! Thanks for altering the title for me.

Got to go now. I will respond to the rest later.

Jan.

 

"And some have remained pure."

?? Clearly I know far more than you do about the Bible. Comes from four years of study.

You mean Genesis 1:1-2? That in the beginning there was nothing. The Earth had no form or reality; there was no sky or sea. God created all of that in the latter parts of Genesis.

Yes he was! Glad to see you are coming around. Let's hope this ability to read the Bible as written continues.

 

It's all he's got.

To the other, though, it's a lot harder to explain the "ruddy" aspect in the history of Middle Eastern monotheism. It's kind of notorious. For instance, a legend holds that a reddish man with blue eyes helped destroy a semitic people. To this day, some Muslims throw stones at one of his gravesites.

And one of the fun talking points about science and Genesis is that Neanderthal was ruddy. Something about primitive goes here, of course, but in that sense you're also getting closer.

Also avoid questions of purity when discussing ethnicity; most people won't take a pass on that, especially if they're already disputing.

Honestly, that last I would have thought you could figure for yourself.

 

I believe so, but it is a boxhe has placed himself to in

I think the red man was of the sixth day creation.
Blood is clearly shown in the face of white people, or fair (biblical).

I understand.
Here is the translation of the word, and it is used in the literal sense of the word. It has nothing to do with any form or of ethnic supremacy, prejudice, or racism. Now if someone can show that I am mistaken, I will gladly apologise, and ask for all references to be removed. Outside of that, it is

Pure - not mixed or adulterated with any other substance or material.

[QUOTE="Tiassa, post: 3567614, member: 1031"]Honestly, that last I would have thought you could figure for yourself.[/QUOTE]

It’s not offensive in any sense of the word, so I have no problem using.

I assume that the people who frequent this sub forum are smart enough to work out what the word means, and how it is being used.

Jan.

 

If Adam and Eve are the forebearers of all of humanity, how could the human race become "impure"?
Is there some other race of humans that are secretly assimilating and introducing an impurity into the "white ones".

Was Adam black and Eve white?
Was Adam white and Eve black?

Where they both white?
If so, where did black people come from?

Adam and Eve where both black?
If so, where did white people come from?

Is it just possible that human skin builds (evolves) defenses against the environment? Those different natural physical defenses against sunlight can be seen in the skintone of the people living in different global climates and local extremes.

How do we identify races, how do we identify humans?

Adam and Eve humans?
Not Adam and Eve humans......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I believe so, but it is a boxhe has placed himself to in

I think the red man was of the sixth day creation.
Blood is clearly shown in the face of white people, or fair (biblical).

I understand. But

Are you saying there are no individuals who aren’t genetically mixed?

I never mentioned anything about s pure white race.

Jan.

 

Write4U

A+E aren’t the forbears of the human race, and there is no reason to think it is true.

Jan.

 

Correct. There is no such thing as pure. We all evolved from the same messy mix of genes. At best if you isolate a population for long enough you can get some homogeneity, but at the genetic level there is still a lot of difference there.

For example - Ashkenazi Jews. An insular group that largely kept from having children with outsiders. It happened, but not frequently (until the last few generations.)

So are they all "pure" in a way? Nope, although they do look like each other. Indeed, they carry a lot of genetic diversity. The place this is most apparent is in recessive genetic diseases. As a group they often carry genes for favism, bloom syndrome, Canavan disease, cystic fibrosis, familial dysautonomia, Gaucher disease, torsion dystonia etc. The reason these aren't more of a problem for this group is that they are still diverse enough that it's relatively rare for two carriers to have a child; they are still fairly diverse genetically.

 

I found it remarkable that sickle cell anemia is actually a natural defense against malaria. This is why it is prevalent and relatively benign in the tropics but becomes a genetic problem in colder climates with other cellular requirements.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/25/science/la-sci-sickle-cell-malaria-20111126

A perfect example of a mutation which survived locally (later regionally) because it had a secondary beneficial defense against a greater viral enemy, malaria.

 

More importantly, being a carrier for sickle cell anemia protects you from malaria AND doesn't cause sickle cell anemia to begin with.

 

No we didn’t.

Jan.

 

Really?
So how is it we can trace various, distinctive, genetic traits in a single individual?

Jan.