Were Adam & Eve The First Ever Humans?

[James R]

It is scientifically understood that the white race came on the scene a lot later than say, the African, and other primitive (as in the first) races.
I think Adam was the origin of the white race. This makes sense as another meaning of the term “Adam” describes a person of ruddy (red) complexion, through showing blood, in the face.
Obviously there has been mixing with the darker races, producing a kind of olive to dark complexion of people in those regions. And some have remained pure.

Oh my.

Now we start to see a racist element in Jan's interpretation of the bible.

Let's all quietly cringe at the "primitive races" and the "white race" and the "pure" race.

Is this what your religion teaches, Jan? Racism?

 

[Write4U]

Is this what your religion teaches, Jan? Racism?

Exclusivity.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Oh my.

Now we start to see a racist element in Jan's interpretation of the bible.

Let's all quietly cringe at the "primitive races" and the "white race" and the "pure" race.

Is this what your religion teaches, Jan? Racism?

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doesn't matter. Even if one takes your magical "God created a whole lot of other people secretly" thing seriously,

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.

What do you think that means?

jan

 

[Jan Ardena]

You recently stated "There is no reason to conclude that A+E were the first ever humans." I guess now you conclude that you were wrong.

Are you purposely being obtuse.

Adam was formed before Eve.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The bible doesn't say that they didn't talk back in the Garden of Eden days.

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

Perhaps now would be a good time for you to explain to all of us the difference between a "serpent" and a snake, as well as what the "serpent" in the Genesis story was, exactly. That serpent, by the way, definitely talked, as is clear from the bible.

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.

A silly and failed attempt to obfuscate once again, Jan.

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

It's really easy to repeat the mantra of "I believe in God" over and over, and maybe to convince yourself that means something. But what do you really believe? What's the content of your belief system?

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

Can you understand that I'm interested in probing behind that shield you erect, with your vague and shifting belief "in God"? In particular, I'm interested in discovering the empirical beliefs that follow from your metaphysical beliefs.

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

Your God belief is not that interesting to me in and of itself.

That’s unfortunate for you.

When it leads you to rationalise facts like evolution away,

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

I'm also interested in the lengths you are willing to go to in order to try to defend your beliefs in the face of common sense and widely accepted facts.

What wildly excepted facts are you referring to?

In this particular case, we have opened up another can of worms to discover that you actually need to fight mainstream Christian beliefs in order to prop up your own peculiar interpretation of the bible.

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.

I don't know much about the Hari Krishnas, but do they all believe as you do?

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.

 

[billvon]

A racist element? Where?

"And some have remained pure."

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.

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

What do you think that means?

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.

Adam was formed before Eve.

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

 

[Tiassa]

So I'm kind of confused as to why you would go there.

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.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's all he's got.

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

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.

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

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

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.

 

[James R]

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.

There is no human "race" whose genetics are not hopelessly intermixed with all the other supposed "races". There are no "pure" races. Interesting that you double down with the term "unadulterated", too, as if ruddiness would adulterate the "purity" of the "white race".

If you're actually blind to this stuff, now might be a good time to start raising your level of consciousness. Even Tiassa grudgingly agrees with me on the point about "pure", although it no doubt irks him no end to have to agree with me about something.

 

[Write4U]

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......

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's all he's got.

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

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.

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

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

I understand. But

There is no human "race" whose genetics are not hopelessly intermixed with all the other supposed "races". There are no "pure" races.

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

Interesting that you double down with the term "unadulterated", too, as if ruddiness would adulterate the "purity" of the "white race".

I never mentioned anything about s pure white race.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Write4U

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

Jan.

 

[billvon]

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

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.

 

[Write4U]

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.

Sickle cell anemia causes pain, fatigue and delayed growth, all because of a lack of enough healthy red blood cells. And yet genetic mutations that cause it — recessive genes for the oxygen-carrying hemoglobin protein — have survived natural selection because they also seem to provide a natural defense against malaria. Scientists have long known this, and they have long wondered how it worked.

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.

 

[billvon]

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

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

 

[Jan Ardena]

There is no such thing as pure. We all evolved from the same messy mix of genes.

No we didn’t.

Jan.

 

[James R]

No we didn’t.

Genetic studies prove you wrong.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Genetic studies prove you wrong.

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

Jan.