If Adam and Eve were the first to people on this earth and make the first kids wouldn't the kids have to have it with each other? Because it couldn't be that another Adam and Eve making more kids it wouldn't techicaly be possible without one day that the kids when they grew up that they would have to do it with each other.
The fact is, like many things in the bible, Adam and Eve make no sense when taken literally. While we're on them, what about the talking snake? Or the flood?
Besides, Adam and Eve are completely anglo/european/at-the-least-Hebrew names. Science tells us that the first humans lived in Africa. Houston, we have a problem.
Science tells us that the first humans lived in Africa
That data is widely debatable though. I don't mean to assume but guess you are talking about looking at mitochondrial DNA. One analogy of this study is picking a random road in London and following it to John O'Groats, then stating all roads in the world lead to John O'Groats.
Looking at the evidence of Acheulean tools, which early humans seemed to be obsessed with as they were with many tools. These tools are found everywhere ancient man went, throughout Europe and Africa but there are none in the Far East only older forms of tools that were not as good. Did they just down tools and use older ones.
Lake Mungo in Australia contains remains of humans that are 60 thousand years old. Therefore early humans sailed 100 km over turbulent southern seas then walked 3,000 km through the Australian outback. There is no evidemce we could speak let alone undertake such a voyage. So how did we get there?
Natives of Papa New Guinea have been farming Sweet Potatoes for hundreds of years. Sweet Potatoes are native to south America so how did they cross the pacific in the first place.
No neanderthal bones have ever been found in Africa but there tools are everywhere. Acheulean tools existed in the Middle East for 700 hundred thousand years before they appear in the Europe despite being able to make the tools no one did. Why? Homo Sapiens only entered Europe at the start of a small Ice Age there, why wait until then?
Any way that was fun. just so you know I personally (and I suppose ironically) suport the out of Africa theory especially as I haven't heard a sound alternative that isn't racist and insinuates certain races od people are "less" human than others.
Yes, very true. During the reign of Constantine, he, and other religious leaders decided on which books to keep, and which ones were insignificant. He wasn't the only one who did this. The Catholics and Russian Orthodox were the only christian religions for a long time. During that time, books were lost in translation.
There isn't enough water in the world to create a flood like the one Noah dealt with. Even if the ice caps melt and all the rain falls in the world. The sea would only raise 6 feet.
maybe they were in a hurge valley that flooded, and the boat never moved. They just stayed still for 40 days/nights, and started over fresh at the land they new. No one said that adam & eve were great geographers....
There isn't enough water in the world to create a flood like the one Noah dealt with. Even if the ice caps melt and all the rain falls in the world. The sea would only raise 6 feet.
Sure there is, think of the ground water, besides this was when the world was Panangea (The super continent.)
They probably couldn't tell time either, claiming to be 700 years old
Pure air, great genetic structure, very few if any viruses, perfect condition to live for a looooong time.
Sure there is, think of the ground water, besides this was when the world was Panangea (The super continent.)
Well, first off, there probably is NOT enough water to cover the entire world except for it's highest peak. As someone else said, even if the ice caps melted, the water level would only raise six feet. It's not possible to do.
Secondly, don't give me the "evolution is not compatible with creationism" if you're going to believe in Pangea. Tectonic plates move at most 1 centimeter a year. There's no way that the world could have developed into the complex geographical mess that it currently is in just over 6,000 years.
In addition to this, the climate would need as much time to change as possible when these lands reached certain areas. The part of Pangea that is now the Sahara Desert wasn't magically a desert, and the part that was the Amazon Rain forest wasn't always a rain forest.
Also, it's interesting. The world is spinning like a top. The north and south poles are slowly changing. Meaning the ice caps are not were they use to be.
On a side note. I have combined a few facts to create a theory of my own.
- The moon has been found to be made of almost the same combination of elements the Earth.
- The Earth was in a stage of molten liquid, at some point, during it's creation
- Pangaea looks to be fairly round.
So to paint a picture I have come up with a series of events that are practical and reasonable. For some reason, a liquid planet had extream high and low points. For some reason, we have the only planet with water in our system. Comets are usually made of frozen water along with other things. During the liquid state of our planet, a comet made up of mostly ice slammed into it. And what occurred was no great leap of faith. A part of the earth was ejected out the other side. Being both liquid, they reformed back into spheres. But the Earth just got hit by something as big as the moon, so you have a huge dent on one side and an imprint on the other.... Pangaea. The Earth still trying to become a sphere again, brakes up into plates and moves back to the dent let by the moon.
