What human species was Adam and Eve?

[Brightmoon]

You think the Spirit of God who leads into all truth is ignorance?

when I hear people tell others that long refuted silly stories are a real history then that’s being ignorant. Scientists only report what God Creation is saying about itself . We don’t make up stupid stories and threaten people with hell and punishments if they don’t believe us. We do insist that science deniers come up with evidence for their claims . Not a single creationist has ever been able to do that . They only twist words to cover up the fact that they don’t have any evidence for creationist claims

 

[Brightmoon]

wrong.
DNA disproves evolution instead.

how ?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I never realised that the missing link had been discovered. As far I know humans are still fully human. And monkeys,chimpanzees are still fully ape.

The term "missing link" isn't a term that's been in use among serious scientists in a very long time. Originally the term was meaningful because it was coined at a time when the hypothesis of humans and the non-human apes sharing a common ancestor was hypothesized, but not yet evidenced--but it was assumed that "the missing link" would be discovered.

In the last 150 years we've uncovered hundreds of transitional fossils belonging to a variety of hominin species.

As such the term "missing link" isn't meaningful, because the links between the transition from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans and modern Homo sapiens are multitude.

Here's a sampling:

Saying "has the missing link been found?" at this point is a bit like asking if there's any evidence that the earth is a globe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

You think the Spirit of God who leads into all truth is ignorance?

The Holy Spirit isn't responsible for human ignorance.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Alithis]

when I hear people tell others that long refuted silly stories are a real history then that’s being ignorant. Scientists only report what God Creation is saying about itself . We don’t make up stupid stories and threaten people with hell and punishments if they don’t believe us. We do insist that science deniers come up with evidence for their claims . Not a single creationist has ever been able to do that . They only twist words to cover up the fact that they don’t have any evidence for creationist claims

Thats the theory you choose to believe.

 

[Alithis]

The Holy Spirit isn't responsible for human ignorance.

-CryptoLutheran

And human ignorance and foolishness is based upon denial of God.

 

[Cis.jd]

when I hear people tell others that long refuted silly stories are a real history then that’s being ignorant. Scientists only report what God Creation is saying about itself . We don’t make up stupid stories and threaten people with hell and punishments if they don’t believe us. We do insist that science deniers come up with evidence for their claims . Not a single creationist has ever been able to do that . They only twist words to cover up the fact that they don’t have any evidence for creationist claims

Where were you (and everyone else here) during that horrible "Did Eve come from Adam" thread?

 

[Cis.jd]

All we know for sure is that Adam and Eve (whether they were actually two people or symbolic of a larger population) were the first physical beings to have an immortal soul and a spiritual nature, and were therefore the first fully human beings.

There was a book I read before trying to pitch an idea that Adam and Eve originally where spiritual in nature, however after sin they not only fell but devolved. Which means they physically became the "ape-looking/first man" and all of man's time from Adam to now is evolving back to what we once where during the garden. I forgot most of the details about, it is an interesting idea but lacks evidence to be considered a theory.

 

[rjs330]

And this has devolved into creation vs evolution. Bottom line neither can be proven. Taxonomy is a human construct based upon belief. Humans see similarities between creatures and try and show how they have evolved. But they have never ever observed or been able to reporoduce or test the process where whatever it was in the beginning evolved into what was next. Nor have they been able to test, observe or reproduce a creature evolving into the next taxonomy or philogyny or whatever word would indicate the evolution of one branch into another.

Creationists certainly cannot show that God created the original man exactly how the Bible says it happened. The Bible directly contradicts evolution when it states that birds and fish we're created the same day. Evolution says fish evolved into land dwellers then the land dwellers evolved into birds. BUT the Biblical story CANNOT be tested observed or reproduced.

So in reality we are left with a belief system of some sort. And since science can at least show an evolutionary concept where creatures do adapt to their environment they have something they can actually show occurring. So, it makes it easier to believe in that than a story in the Bible that no one can actually observe in any fashion.

Neither belief makes one a Christian or not. Jesus didn't say he and the belief in creationism was the way to salvation. It simply is the belief that we are all sinners and acknowledge we need Christ for our salvation. Believing in him is the only way.

Now we may have a debate on whether or not creationism or evolution is supported by scripture, but that's a different topic all together.

Myself, I simply trust what the scriptures have to say. I've never found them to be wrong.

So in answer to the OP. I believe Adam and Eve we're fully formed human beings at their creation. As to what they exactly looked like I have no idea. But they didn't evolve from a fish. At least that's not what the Bible teaches.

 

[rjs330]

There was a book I read before trying to pitch an idea that Adam and Eve originally where spiritual in nature, however after sin they not only fell but devolved. Which means they physically became the "ape-looking/first man" and all of man's time from Adam to now is evolving back to what we once where during the garden. I forgot most of the details about, it is an interesting idea but lacks evidence to be considered a theory.

That is an interesting thought. Like you said it's not supported by anything including scripture, but it's still an interesting idea.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

This topic doesn't make much sense to me. There are only humans and there are only apes. There is no connection. God created apes and humans. One on one day, the other on the other day. Unless one believes in evolution. Which then defeats the purpose of Gensis since it would mean humans magically evolved from apes. Which would go against what God said. Not to mention there could be no "evolved" version of apes close to humans. That would make it sound like God kept trying to evolve apes into us.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

View attachment 257750 Bilaterian- animals with a head and an anus and a left and right side. Everything from worms to humans in other words. Here’s how we’re related to other animals. The genetic info of common descent matches this developmental info

Sarcopterygian literally means fleshy fins

I heard people say we have that thing in our eyes that cats have to shield their eyes from sandstorms, but for us it is inactive. Where did that come from?

 

[Kate30]

The term "missing link" isn't a term that's been in use among serious scientists in a very long time. Originally the term was meaningful because it was coined at a time when the hypothesis of humans and the non-human apes sharing a common ancestor was hypothesized, but not yet evidenced--but it was assumed that "the missing link" would be discovered.

In the last 150 years we've uncovered hundreds of transitional fossils belonging to a variety of hominin species.

As such the term "missing link" isn't meaningful, because the links between the transition from the last common ancestor of chimps and humans and modern Homo sapiens are multitude.

Here's a sampling:

Saying "has the missing link been found?" at this point is a bit like asking if there's any evidence that the earth is a globe.
ViaCrucis your referring to the so called manlike-hominid ancestor the precursor to both hominid and pongids-apes. As you said that link was never discovered. But that does not matter simply because you say we have the transitional fossils of both. Then the Holy Church does have a major theological problem to contend with. That being that both humans and apes must be in need of baptism and redemption as well. For the ape must have a soul too especially if the hominid ancestor is real and is related to Adam and the human race. But I do read that you do like the long time very much too. That being of many millions of years of which we have no evidence for except with bones and and fossils and what our unpredictable dating methods claim they be. And that does pose another problem too. For sin and death did enter the world firstly by Adam and Eve. Saying that the missing link doesn’t really matter be like saying we live on a flat earth : )
-CryptoLutheran

 

[Kate30]

Taxonomists (biologists who classify all organisms) have rules for determining this stuff. For humans, this starts with animals, than later branches off in completely different categories from fish. It does not take a long time to see this separation. When it comes to determining what a human is based on their anatomy, start at the top: we are mammals and only mammals have hair.

Christianforcats I do see your point. But as to us being mammals. Yes if you take the secular view than we would be classed as mammals or mere animals. I hold to the Christian viewpoint. And that being that we were created in the image God and given a soul. Adam and Eve were never categorised as mammals or animals but as fully human.

 

[Cis.jd]

This topic doesn't make much sense to me. There are only humans and there are only apes. There is no connection. God created apes and humans. One on one day, the other on the other day. Unless one believes in evolution. Which then defeats the purpose of Gensis since it would mean humans magically evolved from apes. Which would go against what God said. Not to mention there could be no "evolved" version of apes close to humans. That would make it sound like God kept trying to evolve apes into us.

Evolution makes it harder to believe that this was all an accident.

 

[dcalling]

Whatever perspective you choose to accept, be it young or old earth, Adam and Eve are the first to have knowledge of sin and the first to need salvation. I understand the early Genesis accounts to have different roles than a literal exposition but I tend to be agnostic as to what really happened.

In a literal vacuum, there are some odd things in the text that can't be reconciled, like why does Cain need to be marked if children of Adam and Eve are the only ones that populate the earth?

If we are to put all pre-Abrahamic accounts on the table the genealogies of Genesis establish a redeemed somewhat royal line from Adam. Perhaps this establishes superior species co-existing with inferior and in need of some sort of species cleansing (the flood event) to ensure the best ones were preserved.

But I think it gets dangerous interpreting these accounts like this as it can create odd ideas about the nature and character of God unsupported in scripture. Perhaps the early accounts of stories are used to point to God and are not literal but I think hyper-analyzing them in a literal vacuum or an evolution vacuum is going to point to something the text is never meant to reveal.

There can be many many explanations why Cain needs to be marked, i.e. Adam/Eve's other kids hates him and want to avenge for Able, or that the angles wants to.

 

[dcalling]

when I hear people tell others that long refuted silly stories are a real history then that’s being ignorant. Scientists only report what God Creation is saying about itself . We don’t make up stupid stories and threaten people with hell and punishments if they don’t believe us. We do insist that science deniers come up with evidence for their claims . Not a single creationist has ever been able to do that . They only twist words to cover up the fact that they don’t have any evidence for creationist claims

Just curious, which 'silly stories' you think are definitely not real and been long refuted?

 

[Brightmoon]

I heard people say we have that thing in our eyes that cats have to shield their eyes from sandstorms, but for us it is inactive. Where did that come from?

we do have that third eyelid but in humans it’s vestigial and barely visible in the corner of your eye .

 

[Brightmoon]

Just curious, which 'silly stories' you think are definitely not real and been long refuted?

the Adam and Eve story is silly only if taken as an actual history because it’s not possible for just 2 individuals to be the ancestors of everyone. You’d get severe problems with inbreeding including sterility and high rates of genetic diseases after a while . We have this problem with cheetahs and there’s certainly more than just 2 . Some Orthodox Jews are having a problem with Tay Sachs disease because of low population numbers. And that’s just for that story. Noah’s Flood and the earth being less than 10,000 years old are another problem as there is no verifiable evidence for either one

 

[GodLovesCats]

Christianforcats I do see your point. But as to us being mammals. Yes if you take the secular view than we would be classed as mammals or mere animals. I hold to the Christian viewpoint. And that being that we were created in the image God and given a soul. Adam and Eve were never categorised as mammals or animals but as fully human.

What you have to understand is "fully human" does not take away the fact that we are also fullly animals, mammals, etc. The Christian viewpoint is humans control the world - not chimps, gorllias, etc. Adam and Eve are not called animals in the Bible for a reason: that would devalue their status as the only creatures made in the image of God.