Creationism AND Evolution can BOTH be correct (possibly)

[Mytical]

Ok, so here is the possibly insane thought that entered my head. By the way, this is only from MY understanding of the bible. As I am human, my understanding is inherently flawed, because humans are flawed.

So you have the whole universe, and the garden of eden. Now the universe goes on regardless what happens inside the Garden of Eden. Even the earth goes on regardless what happens in the Garden of Eden.

The bible specifies, that until Adam eats from the tree of knowledge he was immortal. After all he was told "The day you eat from the tree of knowledge you will know death." Now I believe that an immortal being would not keep track of time. Especially since each day would be almost be identical why would they keep track?

Now Eve was not immediately made as a companion for Adam. Could it possibly have been billions of years after Adam was made? I have found no mention of how long Adam was in existence be for Eve was made.

Next step.. Even is made, but again, she like Adam is immortal. So how long could it have been before she was tempted to bite the apple?

So, then they knew death, and was kicked out of Eden. They start keeping track of the days etc. (and thus how long everybody lived),

Next step. We pretty much have some idea of what happens when people who are too closely related have children. Mutations are much more likely.

Now I know the bible does not keep track of females, so it is possible that Cain had relations with female relation. But, now here is a though.

If I know my history correctly there were the neanderthals first, with homo sapiens coming after. Cain was said to travel to the land of Nod.. which was never mentioned before that. So lets assume that he found a female from somewhere else, and they were not related to him. AKA a neanderthal bride.
Since after all Adam's people would have superior intellect, and that is why the neanderthals (besides the brides taken by Homosapiens) eventually died out.

So.. the Neanderthals evolved..and the ancient Homo Sapiens were made by god (if you believe in the bible that is).. wouldn't this seem a very logical way to explain things?

[s_stabeler]

leaving aside the religion question (and IIRC, Adam and Eve were originally intended to be the ancestors of the ancient Israelites, not humanity as a whole. Cains' wife was simply from one of the other groups of humans), you are correct about one point . The Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did, in fact, interbreed. ( there's something like 5% of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans)

ultimately, though, it isn't unreasonable, as ideas go, but it runs into similar issues to creationism- it can't really be considered scientific fact.

[Kelmon]

Well, first of all, the Neanderthal didn't exists before Homo Sapiens, they both evolved from the same ancestor (Homo Heidelbergensis), at *roughly* the same time (~750.000 years ago).

As to your question... of course, that's a possibility. It's about as likely that we're the descendants of the Battlestar Galactica crew. Or have been willed into existence by god/satan/aliens 6000 years ago, with carefully planted evidence of evolution in the appropriate geological layers of the earth.

You can invent any sort of story that has internal consistency (to some degree) and adheres to our current scientific understanding of the origin of humanity (to some degree) - but what's the point?

Saying humans, who appear to have evolved from earlier species, are just made to look evolved by god...that's like watching a glass drop from a table and shatter on the floor, and then guessing invisible elves first negated gravity, and then used magic to move the glass downwards. It's unprovable and unneccessarily complicated.

[Andara Bledin]

It's unprovable and unneccessarily complicated.

It's worth noting that something being more complex is not, by definition, unnecessary. With regards to religion and spirituality, until and unless you know how the person in question functions (which will be pretty much never), you have no basis by which to declare that their belief structure (where belief is not null) is not necessary.

Occam's Razor is where you start, but not necessarily where you end.

As to the OP: For as long as I can recall thinking on the matter, I've always thought that the idea that God's days are equal to the time the planet upon which we reside rotates to be not only preposterous, but smacking of some serious hubris. The same sort that once declared that the sun moved around the earth.

The universe is massive on a scale that most minds are not capable of even conceiving, much less pondering. The idea that the creator of the universe chose to time his schedule with the rotation of a tiny planet in a an outer solar system in a backwater galaxy, when it started off with that planet not even existing... Yeah, I sincerely doubt we're on the same timetable.

[Gravekeeper]

As to your question... of course, that's a possibility. It's about as likely that we're the descendants of the Battlestar Galactica crew.

^ That. They're both equally historical. >.>

There were also a number of concurrent homonid species alongside us ( and sleeping around with us ), not just Neanderthals. We also interbred with Denisovans for example. Neanderthals were also of comparable intelligence to us. They didn't go extinct because they were morons. They went extinct because they could not physically adapt to rapidly changing climate conditions. Plus we may or may not have murdered a bunch of them and/or humped the rest out of exsistence.

We did coexist for some odd 5000 years though. But the extinction of Neanderthals coincided with a major climate shift. We were able to adapt to it, they weren't.

So yeah, you're kinda off base on both fronts here, sorry to say.

[HYHYBT]

This sounds more than a little like the second half of "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe," though with God added.

[TheHuckster]

We have scientific evidence that supports humankind as we know it (e.g. homo sapiens) dating back about 200,000 years. So, the notion that Adam and Eve (assuming they are homo sapiens) were around for billions of years already conflicts with this. That said, if there is a point in the DNA we can say "this is homo sapiens" and everything before that isn't, then your theory might have at least some consistency with science.

The idea of a species from a scientific standpoint is tricky, because as has been discussed before, evolution is a very, very granular and gradual process. Indeed, by way of definition homo sapiens started 200,000 years ago, but if you take a human from that time and contrast it with the humans of today, you'll very quickly see some major differences right away. They'd still be orders of magnitude different from, say, a chimpanzee, but they'd have certain characteristics more similar to a neanderthal or Homo Heidelbergensis than modern day humans.

As someone who is spiritual, and has faith, I believe the concepts of Adam and Eve are more about a human soul than a human body. Because the concept of a soul is supernatural and not at all scientific, the date upon which the souls of Adam and Eve came to be is arbitrary and, IMO, irrelevant. Whether it happened 5,000 years ago, 10,000 or millions of years ago doesn't matter. All that matters to one's faith is that an event like this happened in the past in one form or another, and scientific principles are irrelevant to that faith. Certainly, faith and science must not contradict one another, which is why I don't believe any sort of young earth creationism.

[Kheldarson]

Overall, the theory that allows for both is Intelligent Design. Which simply says that God created all things and then let the rules of nature do their thing.

Adam and Eve's story is therefore slightly inconsequential except as a way to show how the Hebrews have always been the chosen people.

[Mytical]

We have scientific evidence that supports humankind as we know it (e.g. homo sapiens) dating back about 200,000 years. So, the notion that Adam and Eve (assuming they are homo sapiens) were around for billions of years already conflicts with this. That said, if there is a point in the DNA we can say "this is homo sapiens" and everything before that isn't, then your theory might have at least some consistency with science.

The billions of years was a example. Just to note. I said it was possible they could have existed billions, but since they kept no time records..it could have been 12 hours.

[Mytical]

Also. I had my species mixed up. I confused Neanderthal and Homo Erectus, my bad.

Also, seems people think I think Neanderthals were stupid.. for.. reasons?? No. And while I think Homo Sapiens did attack neanderthals, and vice versa, I know this was not the SOLE reason the neanderthal faded. Anyhow, some interesting discussions going on here. Please proceed, I learn something new every day.

[wolfie]

The Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did, in fact, interbreed. ( there's something like 5% of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans)

How is it possible to interbreed with something that you have 5% of your DNA in common with? Various articles I've read say we have roughly 97% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees, and I've never heard of a human/chimp crossbreed. Heck, we probably have more than 5% of our DNA in common with household pets.

[Mytical]

How is it possible to interbreed with something that you have 5% of your DNA in common with? Various articles I've read say we have roughly 97% of our DNA in common with chimpanzees, and I've never heard of a human/chimp crossbreed. Heck, we probably have more than 5% of our DNA in common with household pets.

I believe they are saying that today we have 5%. When they first started interbreeding this was not the case. So at the time there would have enough of a percent that the neanderthal could breed with us. Eventually, however, the Neanderthals died out. The DNA of the rest of the offspring would become less and less Neanderthal. Eventually leading to today where it is believed that 5% of our DNA is Neanderthal. If I am not correct, I am sure they will let me know

[Gravekeeper]

You're both confusing DNA itself with genes. Yes, we share a very large amount of DNA with all other mammals because we all have a common ancestor. We're all mammals after all. But genes are a different story. Humans and Neanderthals are different species but the same genus thus with genes close enough to each other to be compadible as hybrids but with offspring fertility issues. Human x Neanderthal is basically the human equivilent of a mule.

The low % in our genome of neanderthal DNA could likely be partially due to infertility issues. There's no mitochondrial neanderthal DNA in us for example. ( Thats only passed down from the mother ). So offspring of female Neanderthals and male Humans were likely sterile.

A chimp on the other hand is more like wondering why you've never heard of a cat/dog crossbreed.

[s_stabeler]

You're both confusing DNA itself with genes. Yes, we share a very large amount of DNA with all other mammals because we all have a common ancestor. We're all mammals after all. But genes are a different story. Humans and Neanderthals are different species but the same genus thus with genes close enough to each other to be compadible as hybrids but with offspring fertility issues. Human x Neanderthal is basically the human equivilent of a mule.

The low % in our genome of neanderthal DNA could likely be partially due to infertility issues. There's no mitochondrial neanderthal DNA in us for example. ( Thats only passed down from the mother ). So offspring of female Neanderthals and male Humans were likely sterile.

A chimp on the other hand is more like wondering why you've never heard of a cat/dog crossbreed.

yes and no. there IS some DNA that has come more-r-less directly from Neanderthals, but it's male descent. ( I.e. it's almost certainly from male Neanderthal and female Homo Sapiens) The DNA we inherited from them? conferred, mainly, tougher skin, and various adaptations for living in a cold climate. Had interbreeding not occurred, Homo Sapiens might not have been as adaptable as it turned out to be.

[Gravekeeper]

yes and no. there IS some DNA that has come more-r-less directly from Neanderthals, but it's male descent. ( I.e. it's almost certainly from male Neanderthal and female Homo Sapiens)

That is pretty much what I just said. >.>

The DNA we inherited from them? conferred, mainly, tougher skin, and various adaptations for living in a cold climate. Had interbreeding not occurred, Homo Sapiens might not have been as adaptable as it turned out to be.

Physical adaptions like that would not propogate through the species fast enough to be of any use during rapid climate change ( The shifts were occuring within one lifetime ). Plus neanderthals had more fundemental anatomical problems that would not be saved by a couple of generations of boning. They were beefy and powerful, but less agile. Once the enviroment shifted to more open hunting grounds they'd become increasingly screwed without the ability to ambush hunt or rely on difficult terrain to hamper prey.

One of the reasons we're such an apex predator ( aside from intelligence ) is effeciency of movement. We may not be as fast as other animals but we can outlast them over a distance. Most animals are built for burst speed. While we're energy effecient and highly effective at heat dissipation. Over a distance we can outrun any other animal on Earth ( Seriously ). We can run them literally to death and in fact people do continue to use this method of hunting in areas of Africa. Simply chasing an animal until it collapses and dies from heat and exhaustion via the use of our horrifically sweaty and relentless death jog.

A changing enviroment, especially one with a shift from dense forest to open plains as was occurring at the time, would not pose a problem to us for hunting. Quite the opposite. Neanderthals on the other hand were not built for distance or endurance. Compounding that was they were also comparatively poor throwers so utilizing projectile weapons didn't help them much either.