Will Creationists Admit They Are Wrong and Apologise?

[ROBE]

Even evolutionists accept all humans have the same single male ancester and single female ancester.
They don't agree that they met but they wouldn't.

[Proinsias]

Even evolutionists accept all humans have the same single male ancester and single female ancester.
They don't agree that they met but they wouldn't.

Do they?

The Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam shed some light on the subject but it's not quite "all humans having the same single male and female ancestor".

[ROBE]

If all males didn't have the same Y chromosome and we all had different Mitochondrial DNA this would be used as evidence that Adam and Eve were a myth.
The only way to explain more than one Adam or Eve is if they were twins or triplets.

[Philip]

Does the text actually say that no other humans existed? Or does the text just say there were no other humans in the garden, where Adam lived?

First of all, no others are mentioned. And Adam was formed from the dust of the earth - he was NOT born of a woman. Why would there be a special creation of Adam if that were unnecessary, if women already existed and he could have been born of one of them? Also, from Adam, this man from the dust, also springs the rest of humanity - because it is described as through him that we inherited our sin nature. 1 Corinthians 15:45 says, "Thus it is written, “The FIRST man Adam became a living being”; Genesis 3:20 tells us, "The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of ALL living.

In Genesis 2 we read that before God had "caused it to rain on the land, and there was NO man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—THEN the Lord God formed THE man (only refers to one, Adam) of dust from the ground... and THE man became a living creature. Next, note the immediate and subsequent sequence: "And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed (appears to suggest Adam was created before the garden).

These should be sufficient to show the Bible teaches Adam was the VERY first man, and Eve, the first woman.

[Murray]

Oh, it's even better when someone starts a thread, then doesn't respond to it's criticism. That's like getting in a fender bender, totaling your car, and then running away into the woods.

[Proinsias]

If all males didn't have the same Y chromosome and we all had different Mitochondrial DNA this would be used as evidence that Adam and Eve were a myth.
The only way to explain more than one Adam or Eve is if they were twins or triplets.

Men don't have all the same Y chromosome and we all have different mitochondrial dna. The differences vs the similarities are how we try to determine relationship. The evidence we have available suggest the mitochondrial eve lived long before the y-chromosomal adam.

The evolutionary story paints a picture of humanlike characteristics becoming stronger in populations of non-humans over time. The idea of a first human, or first human couple, seems a little strange from an evolutionary perspective. Whilst many evolutionist may as you claim believe that we share a common ancestor in the mitochondrial eve they don't hold to the idea that she was the only human at that time, population bottlenecks and selective pressure meant that at some point her line was the one that dominated.

[ROBE]

The differences you are talking about are some minor mutation that has cropped up in what is clearly the same Y chromosome etc.
Even if you take 6 thousand years as the youngest age of humanity that is still 6 thousand years of mutation.

[RickD]

First of all, no others are mentioned. And Adam was formed from the dust of the earth - he was NOT born of a woman. Why would there be a special creation of Adam if that were unnecessary, if women already existed and he could have been born of one of them?

If Genesis is a story about the lineage of Jesus Christ, and not about the beginning of all humanity, then a special creation may have been the way God began that lineage, through Adam.

"The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of ALL living.

Could that mean that Eve was the mother of all who are made spiritually alive, through Christ? Not all the physically living humans?

In Genesis 2 we read that before God had "caused it to rain on the land, and there was NO man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground—THEN the Lord God formed THE man (only refers to one, Adam) of dust from the ground

That "land" and "ground" can also mean only that specific area. Not necessarily the entire world.

"And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed (appears to suggest Adam was created before the garden).

I can't see that saying the garden was planted after God created Adam. You're reading that into the text.

These should be sufficient to show the Bible teaches Adam was the VERY first man, and Eve, the first woman.

I don't think your interpretation is sufficient to show that. I'm not saying I don't believe Adam and Eve were the first two humans that ever existed. I'm just saying that I think there's more than one interpretation that's possible, from what the text says. I just have too many questions about things in Genesis, to make a dogmatic statement, that Adam and Eve, were absolutely the first two humans, that ever existed.

[ROBE]

So God allowed Adam and Eve to sinners to produce imperfect children when he had other humans available?
Don't think so.

[RickD]

So God allowed Adam and Eve to sinners to produce imperfect children when he had other humans available?
Don't think so.

I'm not sure I understand this, ROBE. Could you please reword it?

[ROBE]

Nope.
I think I and the previous person were clear.
Adam and Eve were the last people you would want as ancestors unless there was no other choice.

[RickD]

So God allowed Adam and Eve to sinners to produce imperfect children when he had other humans available?
Don't think so.

ROBE, your statement doesn't make any sense, the way it's worded."God allowed Adam and Eve to sinners to..." makes no sense. Please rephrase what you meant, in legible English.

[Murray]

maybe "why did god allow adam and eve to sin" which I guess would be easy to answer... Free will.....

Just my interpretation of his question...

[Philip]

"The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of ALL living."

Could that mean that Eve was the mother of all who are made spiritually alive, through Christ? Not all the physically living humans?

But that is not what the text says. Plus, no Christian has a spiritual MOTHER, only a spiritual FATHER.

But my points of bringing out verses in Genesis were more to the point out that Scripture teaches that Adam and Eve absolutely were NOT the end of some evolutionary processes in which they themselves were born of mothers of their own species.

And, lest we forget, God says that those who remained upon Noah's boat were those from whom all of today's humanity springs from: "two and two of ALL flesh in which there was the breath of life. And those that entered, male and female of ALL flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in (God closed the door!)".

"He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. ONLY Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark."

[RickD]

And, lest we forget, God says that those who remained upon Noah's boat were those from whom all of today's humanity springs from: "two and two of ALL flesh in which there was the breath of life. And those that entered, male and female of ALL flesh, went in as God had commanded him. And the LORD shut him in (God closed the door!)".

"He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. ONLY Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark."

So, your interpretation of this, is that the Noahic flood killed all animals on the entire face of the planet?