Which is true Human evolution coming from primates or the BIble and Adam and Eve..??

Question

like how does science and the bible prove which one is right??
because im very confused about evolution and how humans came from early primates.. but in the bible it dosent say anything about the early primates all it say was that adam and eve were the first man and woman on earth.. like where does the cavemen and dinosaurs come in to the bible.??

if im naive excuse me i just dont know very much about this situation

Answer 1

My answer to you is to read more than the Christian Bible. It is only part of the story and is biased because of it's original intent. It is edited by man from ancient writings with many things left out because the editors didn't agree with them.

Read the Jewish texts, the Grecian texts, all of the pre-Christian pagan religious stories and watch for the similarities.

These will help you form a more conclusive and real idea of what religion is.

Answer 2

Human evolution from a common ancestor shared with modern primates is true and the bible is also true, but probably not in the way you have been told. The majority of the worlds Christians accept that evolution is correct. What the bible is NOT is an accurate scientific or historical document when it comes to describing pre-history. Genesis is mostly metaphorical (which is how Judaism has always interpreted it, and after all they wrote it) not literal. A literal reading of Genesis is falsified by a mountain of physical evidence against (radiometric dating, dendrochronolgy, varves, geologic layers, astrophysics to mention a few) and no evidence for. The opening parts of the bible won't say anything about a lot of science because the people at the birth of Judaism were bronze age semi-nomadic tribesmen who had no concept of these things and no use for them if they were told about them.

Answer 3

The Bible is true. There is no fossil evidence to support the theory that humans and apes are of the same family tree. Most of those which have been claimed as links have proved to be false, either deliberate hoaxes or improperly assembled skeletons, or skeletons/skulls which are in the normal range of humans today. One was based on a partial jaw and a couple of teeth found in a river, which later was proven to be that of a modern pig. rofl.



All creatures were created after their own kind. This means that those in the dog family always have been and always will be, whether wolf or poodle. There is no scientific proof of speciation, that is, evidence that one species turned into a completely different species.



Thus, Adam and Eve were created as humans, not descended from the same ancestor as apes and other primates.



Cavemen. There are still primitive people who live in caves in some areas, so what is the big deal? Cavemen were just men who lived in caves.



Dinosaurs: there is quite a bit of anthropological and fossil evidence suggesting that dinosaurs lived at the same time as mankind. Evolutionary sites and books will ignore this evidence because of their preconceived determination that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, long before humans. Below is a list of several links which show this evidence, including picture evidence. Dinosaurs are seen in many popular ancient "myths". There is the Chinese dragons, the firebird or thunderbird (I forget which it is called) of a western Native American tribe. Many other cultures and ancient writing speak of them. Alexander the Great and Pliny, the Roman historian, wrote of the dragons in India fighting with elephants and wrapping their wings around them. They are even in the Bible in the book of Job (behemoth and leviathan).



If interested in some of the scientific evidence for creationism, check out http://www.icr.org and http://answersingenesis.org

Answer 4

The bible was written by men. It's full of contradiction and at best is loosly inspired by god. There are gaps in evolution but it's still a pretty sound theory. Keep in mind everythings a theory except immutable laws like gravity... witch actually can be manipulated under the right circumstances. Read the bible again, there are two separate creation stories, the first is shorter than the second but the recount the creation order differently. It's not an accurate book. Neither fully explains everything to tell the truth, but at least science has some facts on its side.

Answer 5

I believe the Biblical view of a Creator, a God, who created me in His image. In the first sentence of Genesis, the first time we see the word created, the hebrew word there means "creation from nothing"- there was nothing there to use to create with. But God created the heavens and earth from nothing. The next time we see the word created, in verse 21, this word in hebrew means creation from that which you have. For instance, making a bowl from clay.



There is a similarity in our genes with primates but just because we have similarities does not mean we should extrapolate that we are kin to them. If that were so, then we should be seeing the primates becoming more like us, but they aren't. Oh I know you will say that the conditions are different now then in the past. Well, why wasn't there a continuation of evolution from primate to us?



And please explain the Cambrian explosion? How do we go from simple celled organisms to very complex organisms in an evolutionarily short span of time? If you or any evolutioist can do that I would appreciate it. I like Dr. Law's new book about turning his back on atheism and at least believing in intelligent design. He said it was based on Genetics and DNA. He was being told that if several monkeys were placed in a room with computers and they were left to bang away on the keyboards, that plays like Shakespeares would be created randomly. Well, after several months to couple years, NOTHING not even several strings of a's showed up. That sealed the fate that we evolved from pond scum to primates to us presently.

Answer 6

personally i believe in both (sort of) its important to remember that adam and eve is a creation STORY to show that God created everything but like many things in the Bible you cant take it word for word. evolution on the other hand is a theory (which i believe to be true) but you have to make that judgement for yourself- so yes we may have come from primates but those primates and the humans that evolved from them were created by God

Answer 7

May I ask how much science you took in school?



Evolutionary biology provides a mechanism for the transformation of species: it is called natural selection. There is overwhelming evidence for Evolution. It comes from scientific fields as diverse as paleontology, genetics, embryology, comparative anatomy, etc. etc. It is far too copious to give a detailed account here.



Creationism (or its recent incantation: intelligent design) largely consists of attacking Evolution with bogus arguments long ago refuted. or ripping quotes out of their context and twisting them in order to deceive the unsuspecting reader into believing that a prominent scientists said something he didn't actually say.



The information is out there and I invite you to find out for yourself. I am quite confident that if you are a smart and open minded person and if you take the time to exam the evidence, the veracity of Evolution will become self-evident.



You can begin your journey by following the links in my sources.

Answer 8

The Bible teaches us the spiritual reality of things and science teaches us the physical reality. Adam and Eve represent all primitive humans and when it says that God "molded man from the earth and blew life into him" it means He evolved us from lower animals and gave us a soul. We look to science to explain the HOW but only the Bible can explain the WHY.

Answer 9

Was the Bible written by biologists? Cos, if I want to know about biology, call me a weirdo if you will, but I always go for a book on biology written by a biologist.



If I want to learn about the mythology of an ancient culture, then I might have a gander at the old Bible.

Answer 10

Evolution proved the impossibility of Humans, to be around for 6000 years

Bible fails.

Humans are here around 140 000 years, give or take

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

Answer 11

Do you know that Humans are Primates? It is not evident in your question.

Answer 12

the bible and adam and eve do you really believe you came froma an ape thats ridicoulous read the bible don't burn it its the answer to everything!!! if you came from an ape why aren't you an animal!!!! so read the bible!!!

Answer 13

Do a little reading:



http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/start.shtml

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Answer 14

Human beings and modern apes came from a common ape-like ancestor. That **** you read in the Bible is moronic idiocy - burn it at once.

x

Answer 15

Enjoy....again

Answer 16

OK, my credentials (or shortcomings, as you may prefer to think of them)

Bach Sci in Physics

Fundamentalist Christian (which means that I believe what the bible says)



SO, which is true?



First, let's be specific and limit this to the very specific area of species evolution (not any old evolution) of humans from monkey-like animal ancestors.



Now, the bible *does* mention that animals existed before humans. This is important, no matter what "side" you choose, because in this aspect both the bible and the theory of human species evolution agree.



Human species evolution, in a nutshell, is a scientific theory (yes, it is most definitely *still* a theory, not a fact as some would love to mislead you to believe). This theory claims that human species "evolved" from earlier, non-human species. By evolution, they mean that the genetic makeup of humans is so significantly different from that of the previous species that, in fact, the earlier species was a type of animal that would be considered by modern standards to be an entirely different species of animal from humans. This "evolving" of a new species from a previous species is known as speciation.



To date, no verified example of speciation has been witnessed and recorded (for any living organism), though *some* scientists claim that speciation has occurred. Most so-called "examples" of speciation include such things as breeding for specific traits, cross-breeding, and intentional (human-caused) genetic mutation, which are *not* examples of speciation as described by the theory of species evolution. In other words, these are not natural and, in the case of breeding and cross-breeding, do not actually lead to the creation of what most zoologists consider a new species.



However, I wandered. The important point is: no scientist has ever witnessed speciation to, or from, human. Understand that

1) To *prove* that humans evolved from other species, a human must be recorded evolving from another species.

2) To *prove* that humans are evolving into more evolved species, a human must be recorded evolving into a new species.

As long as this evidence is lacking, human species evolution *cannot* be proven.



That being said, there is a **LOT** of circumstantial supporting evidence for human species evolution. The example with fossils: *if* our dating of fossils is accurate (and this, also, has not been proven), then fossil records overwhelmingly (but not universally) tend to show that humans first existed several thousands of years ago, and that before that time animals similar to, but a different species from, humans existed. The *general* (but *not* universal) trend of the fossil record is that more "primitive" animals existed first, and that these more "primitive" animals were replaced by later animals that had advantages in size, brain case size or other physical features that **might have allowed them** to replace (eradicate) the similar animals that existed prior to the more recent species.



In other words, the general trend in the fossil record is

1) early, monkey-like animals

2) later, more human-like animals with the abilities of erect walking, opposable thumb and large brain cases that the earlier similar animals did not have. No more fossils of the earlier animals.

3) even later, humans, larger in size, larger in brain case size and more erect (and thus more adept at long distance running and reaching high) than earlier similar species in the fossil record. Again, the earlier species are no longer present in this later fossil record.



The fact that the fossil record **tends** to show that the later, "more evolved" species replaced the earlier, "more primitive" species over time lends considerable support to the theory of human species evolution.



Now, the bible. As mentioned, it *does* say that animals existed prior to man. This is important because it answers your question about dinosaurs and "cavemen" (which, by the way, were also homo sapiens for the most part): the bible does **not** suggest, or even hint, that they did not exist.



However, what the bible *does* say is that all of life was created in 4 "days."

http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_php.php3?do=jump_to_chapter&refstr=Gen%201&trans=NASB

Note:

plants (verses 11-12)

then sea creatures and flying creatures (verses 20-22)

then land animals (verses 24-25)

then man (verses 26-27)



Note that this is the same order that the theory of species evolution suggests (flying creatures instead of birds - referring to flying insects. I won't go into why here, but flying insects is an accurate translation in place of birds.)



The problem is this: the bible says that this occurred over a period of 4 "days".



I won't go into this issue at length. I will give the most basic evidence: the sun was created on the 4th day of creation. As we all know, the *length* of a day is determined **entirely** by the rotation of the earth with respect to the sun. Since the sun was created on the 4th "day" of creation, we can be pretty certain that these days were **not** days of 24 hours duration! There is much more to this, and I feel the argument is *very* sound that the bible creation "day" is much, much longer than 24 hours.



SO, there are two problems which cause *some* to think that species evolution disagrees with the bible

1) the most well-supported theory of human species evolution claims that the evolution of man took place over millions of years - not 4 days

2) the bible claims that man was formed by God from dust of the ground, without any mention of previous species



*if* you believe that the bible means a creation day is a 24-hour day, you can only believe in human species evolution if you believe such a thing could occur within a four-day period and that the theory behind our fossil dating is faulty.



*if* you believe that the bible means that God literally formed humans, like a pot, manually from dust of the ground on the moment (i.e. without any intervening steps), then you cannot believe in human species evolution.



*if* you believe that God formed man from the dust - and all of the *rest* of animal and plant life as well, from "dirt" or (to use the common term) "primordial ooze" (soil and water), and that there *were* intervening steps, then you *can* believe in human species evolution. In other words, you can believe that God formed man from the dust **by means of** species evolution.



*if* you believe that the biblical creation "days" are much longer than 24 hours each, then you can believe that the dating that scientists use for fossils is also reasonably accurate.



SO, it *is* reasonable to believe that *both* the bible *and* the theory of species evolution are accurate.





MY belief is that the creation days *are* much longer than 24 hours. However, knowing something of scientific theories, I only believe that species evolution is *most likely* the mechanism by which God created man. In other words, that species evolution (IF it has occurred) is under his guidance. I know that by far more scientific theories are proven false (and discarded) than are proven accurate. I know better than to put my faith in a scientific theory - even one as well-supported (but NOT proven!) by the evidence as species evolution.



HOWEVER, the bible account can *only* be accepted on faith. That is the primary support. It is true, there are facts which discredit the theory of species evolution, but by far the bulk of evidence supports that theory, which is why it seems so likely.



SO

1) it *is* reasonable to accept the theory of species evolution as the most likely mechanism by which humanity has developed

2) it is *not* reasonable to put your *faith* in the theory of species evolution, as scientific theories neither require nor are improved by faith

3) it is not *unreasonable* to put your faith in the bible, as the bible contradicts **no known (proven) fact**

4) however, there is far more evidence supporting the theory of species evolution than there is supporting a creation in seven 24-hour days by God, "creationism", in which all species are claimed to have been created within days of each other.



SO, it is quite reasonable to consider species evolution a likely theory, it is *not* unreasonable to also believe the biblical account, and it is *not* *unreasonable* (just unlikely) to claim that species evolution has not occurred.



IF you believe in the bible, *literally*, this does not need to stop you from supporting such scientific theories as species evolution.



Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/

Answer 17

It is easily understood at:



http://GapTheories.com



It is an eye opener.

Answer 18

adam and eve are a myth...