"SCIENTIFIC" Evidence of Adam & Eve's Existence (Neanderthal, mass, quote)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
rationally I do not have to even address Adam and eve as literally true. fancy words and statements will not rationally address the emotional need of a literalist. They haven't yet.
They have to tell us why they feel so strongly for this literal story. Then we can start helping them learn how to properly base a belief. There is always the a base set of statements as to why. always. We need less than five of them.
“Religion doesn't just cloud our minds. It asks us to deliberately deceive ourselves-- to replace reason with its opposite, faith. And when men operate on faith, they can no longer be reasoned with, which makes them more dangerous than any sane man, good or evil.”
the problem with that quote "It asks us to deliberately deceive ourselves", is that is a sound method to overcome some real mental issues. There has to be another logical way to teach people how to believe. we have to in effect deliberately deceive ourselves that logic and common sense work.
The thing that the study isn't asserting is that this female was he first ever homo sapien. Or that she was the only one of that time. Also the "adam" may have lived contemporaneously, but they may have been separated by thousands of years as well. They may never have met. Other offspring may have been produced before and after, but if they were male the lineage may have died off as the females only carry on the mtDNA.
the problem with that quote "It asks us to deliberately deceive ourselves", is that is a sound method to overcome some real mental issues. There has to be another logical way to teach people how to believe. we have to in effect deliberately deceive ourselves that logic and common sense work.
We actually do. I did. And all the other former theists I know did.
Yes, Like the Big Bang and the 'God particle' the name was a bit unfortunate.
As I said, the Eden scenario dismisses any humans before mitochondrial Eve (unless as you say AIG doesn't make her Adam's wife, which is a surprise to me) but then that was always the position - Ape men fossils were just Ape fossils. I suspect that they would have dubbed her 'Eve' in any case.
Also 'homo' covers five recent distinct mutations of bipedal primates the earliest one being rather more like an ape. Four being extinct, one being homo sapiens, or present day man. The mtDNA could have been from any of these, or from an earlier contributing species, not even being a hominid.
Last edited by willingsniper; 05-09-2015 at 01:35 PM..
Also 'homo' covers five recent distinct mutations of bipedal primates the earliest one being rather more like an ape. Four being extinct, one being homo sapiens, or present day man. The mtDNA could have been from any of these, or from an earlier contributing species, not even being a hominid.
I did check to see which species these forebears or foreapes were and for that time scale it would all fall within Homo sapiens, after the appearance of Homo Habilis. The earlier subspecies or ancestral lines of humans were - earlier.
May there always be mysteries to solve and curiousity to drive us to find, and solve them.
Yes. And may we always have the Internet and information to correct the frequent misunderstandings that arise.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-10-2015 at 03:40 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.