News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > General discussions > Non mobile discussion > The first man on earth? Bookmark topic

the first mans name may or may not have been adam. as to historical texts being accurate- doubtful as they dont always contain the entire truth. they show the view of the winning side at the time and change over time with retelling.
--
Posted: 2007-09-17 03:01:42
Edit : Quote



I reckon the first man was called Bob.
--
Posted: 2007-09-17 04:52:54
Edit : Quote


@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?

_________________
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 2007-09-17 10:37 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-17 09:54:37
Edit : Quote


[quote]
On 2007-09-16 18:22:00, Superluminova wrote:


Eh!!! how's that then?


How would you even know the name Adam lol if you have no religion.

_________________
I think Bush is The Antichrist
The First Man On Earth

[ This Message was edited by: twometre on 2008-08-25 15:31 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-17 12:38:55
Edit : Quote




I reckon the first woman was called Barbara
--
Posted: 2007-09-17 19:02:18
Edit : Quote




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.
--
Posted: 2007-09-17 22:56:37
Edit : Quote


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 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-18 08:51:54
Edit : Quote


@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 ]
--
Posted: 2007-09-18 10:26:02
Edit : Quote


@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
--
Posted: 2007-09-18 12:03:36
Edit : Quote




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?
--
Posted: 2007-09-18 14:48:45
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index