Adam, the first man on Earth?

What do you say?

I just said it

tradition says, ok bible says, ok what do you say? i mean, if the bible is read differently what is your opinion here as oppose to tradition

Erm, no. 'Points of disbelief' seems be a rather arrogant way of responding to a debate. But nevertheless, point 1 That Adam was the First (and only) Man? Well justify your own question then. Point 2: Eve was his only consort. Are you implying others? Are you implying, what I am saying that more people were there? Point 3: 'kind of Logic' and 'condradict the scripture' - but you have just contradicted it by implying more consorts to Adam if Adam and Eve were the only beings Point 4: The bible relate to 900 years, his Law, not his life. What you fail to debate on is the common sense approach that it is possible that religion and evolution can indeed sit side by side without condradicting each other. If one becomes as dismissive in debate then there is little understanding of how humans 'evolved' their religions.

Marko, I thought so- that my first sentnce will come up as sounding "arrogant". But I was trying to be brief, in my statements, and definitely not arrogant if you had even glanced at some of my posts in the religion section.You are right we must try to use the common sense approach- in the sense,if I get you right that is, give the thought that there might not be anything superhuman about the Scriptural pronouncements, and may be they are somewhat historical realities perhaps written by not-so-accurate scribes! Further the perceptual acuity also improves when more knowledge becomes available to people to sift the data into information if we choose to use contemporary terms. I will tell you why I put those points as short questions. The plausible inference of having had many people to have been available besides Adam and Eve would eliminate the possibility of incest, as species multiplication strategy. The idea of everything proceeding from one couple essentially makes furtherance of species only through incest.Or you must accept the yet unproven phenomenon of parthenogenesis. Being a Hindu the idea of incest is anathema to me. The problem you are trying to address interestingly is the same we seem to face in the Puranic View of how humanity spread. The Vedas speak of simultaneous appearance of the human species, which is not in agreement with paeleontological evidence(which in my opinion is not that accurate as the archaeological) After some point on of course there wouldn't be a problem as genetic spread is available. But to have the same at that remote point in time, your presentation is very welcome: That Adam might not have been the First of homosapiens, but the most evolved of them that peopled the world, in a sense a Prophet. Being a believer I would prefer an approach that contradicts Scripture as little as possible.

Marko, now come to think of it I should have used 'questioning' instead of disbelief. I am sorry.

I would always say, stories are great for children, but they must snap out and grow up. To assume biblical accounts as mere stories, I am afraid baffles me as how people can somehow get to that conclusion. The only explanation, I believe, is that we as children, like to listen to fairy stories and happy untruths. But children need to also be told the difference between untruths and truths as we would between right and wrong. Howeever, children grow quickly and are intelligent, they become we, and we should not try to find an easy way out by converting accounts into mere stories. This dismisses the facts and value of the historical accounts.

But you could tell the story in such a manner that it could only be a story now for him or her to undestand and remember; but at a very later date when s/he is grown up, may be when you are not even there, he/she thinks about the story and then understands the intended meaniing, in terms that are appropriate. This perhaps would be the best way to teach the greatest science without burdening the minds of the young while keeping their imaginations engaged at the same time giveing them the necessary education. Why don't you think all religious books are just such story telling?