Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men.

You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (vertical evolution).

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

LINK

So, your theory is that the original pair possesed several times the genetic material of ordinary humans?

Can you say jacked up mutations?

They were our first Mother and Father created by God to populate the Earth.

What I found interesting is this statement which I totally agree with:

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

Originally posted by outfctrl

They were our first Mother and Father created by God to populate the Earth.

There is no evidence to support that.

According to a study in 1991, Less than 5% of the scientific community in the United States believe in Creationism. If we only include scientists who are working in earth and life science, that number drops to 0.15%.

This is just the United States, which has more creationists an any other industrialized country.

If we include other nations, that number drops to one tenth of 1%.

Science supports evolution, not creationism.

Originally posted by outfctrl

What I found interesting is this statement which I totally agree with:

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

Does that mean we should include the creation stories of ALL religions?

Originally posted by outfctrl

What I found interesting is this statement which I totally agree with:

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

that is a terrible idea.

Do you know what is required before a scientific theory gets into school books? Years of analyze, mountains of evidence, every coin will be turned and only then will a scientific theory be added to science books and taught in class.

Creationism obviously hasn't survived this test, so why should creationism be excused from having to go through this test, just because it's religion?

Can you imagine how silly it would be to have creationism in science class?

If you think that is fair, you have a very flawed idea of what fair is.

But this statement is true:

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

Originally posted by outfctrl

But this statement is true:

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

You're wrong. I can explain it here to you, but instead i'm going to show you a small video which shows the difference between your religious faith and science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI&feature=channel_page

It's a short video of about 9 minutes, so it won't take long.

Also, you need to brush up on your basics if you think evolution says we're here by mere chance, i suggest you start here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8&feature=channel

Originally posted by ryman

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by outfctrl

They were our first Mother and Father created by God to populate the Earth.

 

There is no evidence to support that.

According to a study in 1991, Less than 5% of the scientific community in the United States believe in Creationism. If we only include scientists who are working in earth and life science, that number drops to 0.15%.

This is just the United States, which has more creationists an any other industrialized country.

If we include other nations, that number drops to one tenth of 1%.

Science supports evolution, not creationism.

 

<Mod Edit>

This thread is about science, how about you actually read the thread first before you open your mouth?

/facepalm

Originally posted by outfctrl

They were our first Mother and Father created by God to populate the Earth.

Who says they were the first? Even the Bible contradicts this. In the book of Genesis when Cain killed Abel and God passed his judgment of banishment Cain replies, "But my lord, the people I meet will kill me!". The Bible does not tell us who these other people are or where they came from but Evolution does. Maybe Adam and Eve were not the first two humans after all... Maybe they were just "the chosen ones" that God chose to start the first monotheistic religion. Think about it.

Bren

Originally posted by outfctrl

What I found interesting is this statement which I totally agree with:

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools which receive funding from taxpayers who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state.

If they are going to present intelligent design(Christianity) then why not include the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dianetics, Islam, Satanism, and all other religions as scientific fact? I'm sure they have their own theories that their believers have faith based evidence to back up their evolutionary stories.

Religious propaganda trying to force its way into mainstream science and public schools.

Simply put...we are not from just two people. Adam and Eve are a myth, a story made up from a time when people didn't fully understand or have the science to explain how the world and humans evolved.

Think about it...Adam banging his daughter, daughter doin the brother, mother doin the son... and goes on. The population would keep getting dumber, weaker and eventually breed itself out.

Just to make sure, because I can already see it coming;

A 'theory' in science is very different from one in common speach. A scientific theory is a model of facts that has underwent a lot of scrutiny and peer review and are accurate and predictive, to keep it short and simple. It concerns itself only with facts. Also, the 'theory of evolution' does not concern itself with 'abiogensis', the origin of life on earth. Very different.

My stance on this is the following; normally, lesson material in books went through the proper 'scientific mill', and, if it passed through that after hundreds of scientists and non-scientists alike have tried everything to disprove it, it only then appears in books to be taught to children. Creationists here in the Netherlands however, claim to have a non-justifiable right to skip that entire process and are prepared to stomp their dogma into the minds of children with full-force. I feel this simply cannot be allowed. I do, however, feel there could definitely be a seperate class that could teach pupils all about areas such as philosophy and different (old and new) religions and faiths in a non-biased fashion. But in no circumstance, however, could and should they ever be taught as fact or alongside science lessons. Also, never should one religion or faith be biased in front of others in a state that claims to be secular, especially in public schools or any school, in whole or in part, funded by tax payers money.

Originally posted by talismen351

Simply put...we are not from just two people. Adam and Eve are a myth, a story made up from a time when people didn't fully understand or have the science to explain how the world and humans evolved.

Think about it...Adam banging his daughter, daughter doin the brother, mother doin the son... and goes on. The population would keep getting dumber, weaker and eventually breed itself out.

I suggest reading Genesis to the part where it talks about OTHER humans being created. Cain married a woman who did not come from Adam and Eve. God created more people after the initial creation of Adam and Eve.

Originally posted by Praetoriani

Just to make sure, because I can already see it coming;

 

A 'theory' in science is very different from one in common speach. A scientific theory is a model of facts that has underwent a lot of scrutiny and peer review and are accurate and predictive, to keep it short and simple. It concerns itself only with facts. Also, the 'theory of evolution' does not concern itself with 'abiogensis', the origin of life on earth. Very different.

 

My stance on this is the following; normally, lesson material in books went through the proper 'scientific mill', and, if it passed through that after hundreds of scientists and non-scientists alike have tried everything to disprove it, it only then appears in books to be taught to children. Creationists here in the Netherlands however, claim to have a non-justifiable right to skip that entire process and are prepared to stomp their dogma into the minds of children with full-force. I feel this simply cannot be allowed. I do, however, feel there could definitely be a separate class that could teach pupils all about areas such as philosophy and different (old and new) religions and faiths in a non-biased fashion. But in no circumstance, however, could and should they ever be taught as fact or alongside science lessons. Also, never should one religion or faith be biased in front of others in a state that claims to be secular, especially in public schools or any school, in whole or in part, funded by tax payers money.

As a Christian, I think this is definitely a good compromise. It's always good to have information on every side of the issue because it helps you understand where other people are coming from and also gives you good material to have a healthy debate :D

Nobody is going to change anyone's mind here so maybe we need a new theory that incorporates both creation and evolution.

God created Adam and Eve and all of God's children are decended from them.

However, evolution also brought about a human species very similar to God's children.  We can assume that God's will somehow keeps his true children from interbreeding with this other species.

There you go fellers, you creationists can now believe that YOU were created by God and the rest of us crawled up out of the slime over billions of years.  Good enough?

Creationists are made of sugar and spice and everything nice.  Evolutionists are made of snips and snails and puppy dog tails.

God created your ancestors in HIS image.  Perfect and wonderful and complete from the begining.  My ancestors fought it out to determine which image would prevail.

Your ancestors were placed on the Earth in a state of grace.  My ancestors struggled through a Mad Max Thunderdome process; many proto-humans enter, one proto-human leaves.

You have the divine spark, divine destiny, and are the chosen of God.  I am scum decended from murderous ape-like creatures who somehow manage to survive down through the eons despite the fact that God disaproved of them.

There, now we can all be happy.

Originally posted by Capn23

Originally posted by Praetoriani

Just to make sure, because I can already see it coming;

 

A 'theory' in science is very different from one in common speach. A scientific theory is a model of facts that has underwent a lot of scrutiny and peer review and are accurate and predictive, to keep it short and simple. It concerns itself only with facts. Also, the 'theory of evolution' does not concern itself with 'abiogensis', the origin of life on earth. Very different.

 

My stance on this is the following; normally, lesson material in books went through the proper 'scientific mill', and, if it passed through that after hundreds of scientists and non-scientists alike have tried everything to disprove it, it only then appears in books to be taught to children. Creationists here in the Netherlands however, claim to have a non-justifiable right to skip that entire process and are prepared to stomp their dogma into the minds of children with full-force. I feel this simply cannot be allowed. I do, however, feel there could definitely be a separate class that could teach pupils all about areas such as philosophy and different (old and new) religions and faiths in a non-biased fashion. But in no circumstance, however, could and should they ever be taught as fact or alongside science lessons. Also, never should one religion or faith be biased in front of others in a state that claims to be secular, especially in public schools or any school, in whole or in part, funded by tax payers money.

 

As a Christian, I think this is definitely a good compromise. It's always good to have information on every side of the issue because it helps you understand where other people are coming from and also gives you good material to have a healthy debate :D

Definitely! Education should never really avoid religion, seeing as it has had (and still has) such a large influence on society and culture. Also, I definitely understand that some people need religion or faith in their lives for varying, usually very noble, reasons. I'm agnostic leaning heavily towards atheism, and my girlfriend who has been with me for three years now is a devout Christian. We're both aspiring scientists, currently studying at the same university (I study biological (and neuro)psychology with a minor in evolutionary biology, and she studies kinesiology and ergotherapy). So I'm definitely not one of the people that believes religious people per definition are 'simple' or 'put their heads in the sand', although I admit I used to think that in my teenage years, but obviously, I've grown up since then.

So, indeed - it's always a good idea to show people alternatives, especially when it comes to something as important as faith. I'm just not a big fan of a rather small minority of the Christians here in the Netherlands that advocate teaching creationism as if it were, in fact, a scientific theory. That said, the Netherlands is very different from the United States, so I'm not sure to what extent whatever I have said here is applicable there.

I'm going to ignore the whole insanity that is the Adam and Eve story and just ask the O.P. one question.

Would you feel alright with schools teaching islamic creationist ideas in your children's schools?  Because if we let Christianity in, we have to let them all in.  You can't show preference to one religion.  No matter how much I'm sure you want Christianity to be mandatory.