Now you have a very legitamate question that has been the cause of many wars.
How and who did this all start from. Let me toss in a curve ball to fuel this question.
OK, there is this one book that covers one very large family of a certain religious group, out of all the other groups of people on this world. Now this book was formulated by one kingdom of man in order to bring a balance into the confussion of Pagon and Christian organizations during his reign. Many smaller books were left out of this combination of writings, mostly due to their own controversal accounts of what took place during this time frame of mankind. This book has been pushed down many a persons' throat and many a person and great civilizations destroyed because of this book and those who valued this book as being The WORDs of the CREATOR.
Everyone that has a formal education have been taught from verious version of this book during some point in the early years of life. Now, you know which book I am discussing with out nameing it.
OK, here is the curve ball for everyone to ponder before you actually start the roar.
This book I spoke about is history book of one family and the happenings of that family in the age of modern man as we know mankind. It is of the tribe of "David", he bing the most promonant and the turn of mankind was during his reign. So, thus it is devided at his time in mans' history. This book covered several thousand years.
Now, just think of this period as another time frame in the existance of mankind. Modern man being able to actually think logically and not being driven by instict as the rest of the animals are driven on this earth, all in the name of survival.
There are several accounts of mankind on this earth dating back before this book referes as the first man or "Father of All Mankind". We have evidence to proove otherwise with earlier forms of mankind. Now there has been seperation of these periods over the past 400 years which has put many Religious Sects into an uproar over these findings and the reasoning behind the science of man. Modern man as we know of today, actually was the final version of mankind in his growth with the creation of this world. There is a higher being with great powers, that not all man have come to know and even gathered a glimps of his existance.
This higher order of existance has caused all kinds of hate and discontent over the ages of mankind. Due to the fact of its' counter part and the balance of good and evil as we know in this life. Now all these other findings are the seperation of another period of the growth of mankind. Only that this higher power had brought an extinction to this period of creation. Due to only one fault, his last experiament did not evolve as a cognitive thinking being. It worked and evolved only to a certain point in its' existance and then was missing a key element in his time here on earth.
The ability to gain a higher level above just existing, it lacked the power of scientific growth. It evolved as far as it was able to evolve, then stopped. So, now we come to the next phase of the days of creation. As pointed out and written in this one book of mankind, on the sixth day he created man in his own image, and man was good. Thus he gave man dominance over the lands, sea, air, and all creatures on this earth. Plus, we do not know what the time frame of each day in this first known time frame of existance.
One day could have been a billion years as we know in our understanding of time. Light travels at a given and calculated speed, which is an understanding of time, from one point to another point. In this book of mankind, it is written that this firstman, only lived ~986 years, in our time frame, before he died. Yet it was not even in one days' time of the creator. So, to say the earth was created in six days, and then placing a time of 1000 years to eaqual a day is ludacryst.
It could have been a billion years between the first day and the second day of creation. Then maybe a million years between the second and the third, and so forth.
It only states that in a sequence of six days, not cronologically one day after another, as we count time today. Now, back to this book of man, like I stated earlier, it had books that were not included in the final version as we have today, due to the fact that these books had information of other groups and nations of people outside of this one families existance.
Now comes the most controversial history book in the world. It has a geneological history leading back to the "Father of Mankind", known as the first man, it has records of being a record of one of the original twelve tribes listed in the big book. Only problem is that this big book, after being compiled by man in a mishap order, that states in one chapter of adding to that section only, and it has been misconstrude over the periods of mankind, that no other records would be excepted as the word of the creator. And many have paid the ultimate price with their own lives, only because they believed in the creator and the son of man.
This book is the only, cronologically dated history book known in the world, and there are several so called followers of the Son of Man, who can not except that there is other books and writtings of the history of man. Sad state of mind for those who have this tunnel vision and constantly walk around with blinders strapped to their heads and only hear what they want to hear in this time-line of man. Plus, there are more and more ancient writtings being brought forth in concerns of other nations and existance of man.
I know for a fact, over the past 400 years, man has murdered man simply due to the fact of these two books. First is the Big Book, known as the Bible. It too is a controversal history book that has been put carfully compiled in an effort to mislead the world in the name of God. Don't take this statement in a wrong manor. The first section of the book is as close as we know today as the history of mankinf for this one family, the history of the tribe of David, of the Jewish religious sect. The second section is a compilation of script written on the accounts of the Son of David, only covering the last few years of his life. And then the some writings of his fellow friends who traveled with him in his last days and the final days of their existance in their own time-line. This second section was compiled and many writtings were left out, mainly due to their controversal contents. In which we may never know in our existance.
This second book is a history book of the tribe of Benjiman, of the twelve tribes of Isreal, which was the second son of Abram, whos' wife was Saria, who concieved at an age of 99. This history book covers ~1000 years, 600 BC to 400 AD, and has many scripts one family that was during the time before and after the coming of the Son of MAN. Only to be hardlined by those who could not understand nor except anything else, because they had all been brainwashed by man himself in the name of such a book. Now, no one in this so called followers of Christ from days gone by, have ever dismembered other religious beliefs because they had writtings other then the Big Book.
Anyway to answer your question about who was the original parents of this so called first of modern man, it is written in the big history book fo the creator of man. If the creator wanted us to know who his wife was, do you think he would have told us by now. In the New Testemant of Man, the words of the Son of Man, Christ, given to Mosses of old, the second set of The Commandments of Man, in which all laws have been birthed from, "Thou shalt not take the Lords Name in Vein"!
Well, if he does not tollorate his name being used in a disrespectfull manor, how do you think he would take it when someone was to slam his wife? I konw for experience that not one person is ever comfortable when someone takes their mothers name in vien or their wifes name in a a derogatory contnce. So why would he want to have his wife paced in such a situation.
Except this fact of live, there is more to this than anyone once to believe in the history and creation of man as we are today. We know when a male and female of our species comes together, we get more after the action is done. This is the rule of the earth with all living organisms on this planet. Reproduce and make plenty.
The creator, or should it be known as the creators? Because we know it takes a Rooster and Hen to make the egg. So, now you know how it works, the creators got together and planted man and woman on this earth in their own image. There is no other way and all who exist must one day come to except this basic knowledge of the existance of our species. Only until all except this common knowledge before mankind can even think about the next level of existance.
Food for thaught.
It does make sence in the evolution of mankind. And for those who do not believe in evelution, then why dowe have cars, planes, ships, submarines, electricity, and even the ability to crudely travel in outer reaches of our planet.
Evolution! Change and Growth in one's time-line.
Now is that enough fuel for your mind to ponder.
And in this conception of child with Abram and Saria, her hand maid was excilled with the first born of Abram, who was Ishmael, otherwise known as the father of the Muslium religious sect. And now our world is termoil due to this ousting.
For LM: You have made many statements in your comments but none carry the usual scientific proof or reference to a proven non-controversial document.
Further, your statement about these books having caused wars is again a comment uncalled for and without proof.
Please note that I am an intese believer, perhaps far more that you, but in this scientific forum, and indeed anywhere else, a discussion must be logical, and for the purpose of reaching "the correct opinon"; not for convincing or converting others.
May I suggest that we stick to those principles.
I like to hear your fresh views, and of course of other friends, filtered through the above principle.
Reading your question, and observing your wish for a scientific discourse on this subject, I assume when you say "Was Adam the first human" you mean to ask:
"Was the first human named Adam?"
The answer is, there is no way of knowing scientifically what the first human was named (or if he or she even had a name). If we had to look at it from a statistical standpoint, I'd say no, the first human wasn't named Adam. Since Homo Sapien has been around at least 100,000 years in the current form and there is no evidence of writing earlier than 10,000 years ago, that means that there would have to be 90,000 years of oral tradition to preserve the name of the first man or woman. It's also worth noting that in all likelyhood, other human species before Homo Sapien probably had names as well which makes the question even more confusing, since how do we categorize "Human".
The problem is the difference between the first Homo Sapien and his or her parents, I would say was probably very small. Evolution tends to make small steps, species is an invention of humans to categorize these changes in meaningful ways. There isn't sudden species change, usually just small gradual ones that add up eventually to a new species.
Thank you for the correction / clarification. I believe sincere criticism and correction are favours one does to a fellow seeker of knowledge.
Some questions that arise from your reply are:
How reliable is the estimated figure of 90000 years 'of oral tradition'. Could it be less or more? How much?
How unreliable is "oral tradition"? And how reliable is written a document?
What factors (like consistency, frequecny) can ever make an oral report more reliable? How much 'more reliable' will it have to be to become scientifically "acceptable"?
Should we refuse to believe pre-historic reports reaching us through word of mouth even though those are consistent across the continents and down the centuries?
And finally, is it " scientific" to ignore a huge mass of consistent data just because it is 'oral'?
You asked "How reliable is the estimated figure of 90000 years 'of oral tradition'. Could it be less or more? How much?"
Good question. I'd say from a biological standpoint, Humans were capable of talk 100,000 years ago, but that doesn't mean they were talking. At the very least, I'm very confident saying that 40,000 years ago people were talking. I say that because there have been burials that were found that had beads and other items or "value" with the person who had passed on. This is evidence of a belief in an afterlife and a culture, which would be hard to develop without the ability to talk.
So that's 35,000 years of existence without writing. Assuming 5 generations every 200 years, or 25 generations every 1000 years, that would be 875 generations.
Now here's my question for you, what was your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfathers name? Do you know?
Look, I'm not saying there isn't a God. In fact, that's the point, by definition Science is unable to prove or disprove the existence of God (or Gods). That's a good thing. Does science sometimes contradict religous texts? Of course, but religous texts contradict themselves, so why worry if science does?
You have assumed that I believe in God. I have not said so, and I have not given any proof of his existance. We are not even talking about him right now.
We are discussing whether "science" should wash "its" hand off any knowlege that has come down the generations through word of mouth. Verbal is not inherently unreliable. As for the name of Adam, people of all continents agree with minor difference only in the pronunciation. Will it be scientific to ignore a large mass of data even if it is consistent across ther globe? The only reason it is not in black and white is because writing was not known at that time.
The same is true about Eve.
I insist that in ignoring this information about our great ancestor our scientific community is killing its own traditions of depending on data and rejecting conjecture.
I invite an intense and sincere discussion from all in the scientific field.
By the way, Roger, your estimate of number of genterations intervening may need a revision. In those times, aand even now in some areas, people marry early. 15 to 18 years is perhaps a better estimate of a genration gap for those people. So much for our scientific estimates!
I didn't assume anything. I never said whether you believed in God or not. I simply said it was impossible to prove Gods existence one way or the other with science. I don't think I was way off topic here since your asking about a first human named "Adam". Since the Bible is the only written source that indicates the first man was named Adam.
You wrote: "By the way, Roger, your estimate of number of genterations intervening may need a revision. In those times, aand even now in some areas, people marry early. 15 to 18 years is perhaps a better estimate of a genration gap for those people. So much for our scientific estimates!"
You're right. I agree. So lets say 1,500 generations have passed since then. You never answered my question:
What was the name of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather?
I think this is relevent because the whole basis of your argument is that oral tradition could pass down a name with no error through 1500 generations. I don't see how that's possible. The question above merely asks for 10 generations back. If oral tradition is as reliable as you say, you should be able to answer my question.
That is fair. You will also kindly note that I suggested a correction to the estimate of a generation gap knowing very well it would fortify "your" argument. But for me it is immaterial. We want to derive a truth or the truth.
As for not remembering the name of a great ancestor, it is because now there is no need. There are too many more important things to occupy memory. And other means of recording are conveniently available. Memorization of multiplication tables does not receive the same stress at school these days as before. But certainly, in old days some people knew their lineage right up to Adam! Can you believe it?
Ther may still be people around who will relate to you chapters of the testaments (one of the many versions of their choice) verbatum. And it is a confirmed fact, not known to many, that the Muslim Koran, (without admitting anything about its origin), is preserved in the memory of millions of humans across the globe. All of them, whether knowing the Arabic language or not, will recite exactly the same. And it will be interesting to find out how huge a document it will make on a word processor!
With these facts in mind let us now come to a question. How many links (narrators) at most in the oral chain will leave an evidence scientifically acceptable? One? Two? Why not three? Four? Where do we put a limit? And why?
I await you opinon.
For Record: Comment #6 by guset was mine. I failed to log in then.
Let me address a couple of your statements and then I'll try to answer your question.
Your Wrote: "Memorization of multiplication tables does not receive the same stress at school these days as before. But certainly, in old days some people knew their lineage right up to Adam! Can you believe it?"
I think memorization and oral tradition are two different things. Time is the enemy of memory, not length or scope of that which is being memorized. So I don't think its valid to compare 1500 generations of oral tradition to memorizing multiplication tables or chapters of the Bible or Koran.
And yes, I can believe that people could trace their lineage back to Adam, just as the Romans, 1000 years later, suddenly could trace their lineage back to Hector and the heros of Troy. People can say anything they want.
Yes, I did note the correction for the generation gap, its good we get that correct.
You Wrote: "As for not remembering the name of a great ancestor, it is because now there is no need. There are too many more important things to occupy memory. And other means of recording are conveniently available."
Yes, but here is the thing, I only asked for ten generations back. Your suggesting a man knew with perfect accuracy the name of another man 1500 generations back. That seems extremely unlikely. Especially when they were much less well equipped to handle cold, hunger, disease, wild animals, war, etc.
You Wrote: "With these facts in mind let us now come to a question. How many links (narrators) at most in the oral chain will leave an evidence scientifically acceptable? One? Two? Why not three? Four? Where do we put a limit? And why?"
I can't, of course, I don't have to. You are the one stating the fact, you have the burden of proof. Prove to me how its possible that a name was passed 1500 generations scientifically.
For instance, I could say that Brahma, who was created by Vishnu, created the world. This is a Hindu belief, and was written long before the bible was written. 1,000,000,000 people believe this. Are they wrong? Prove scientifically they are wrong.
You Wrote:"Time is the enemy of memory, not length or scope of that which is being memorized. So I don't think its valid to compare 1500 generations of oral tradition to memorizing multiplication tables or chapters of the Bible or Koran."
I believe human memory fades with a certain time constant. The time constant is different for different people, and under differnt circumstances. The probability of an error, or confusion, due to fade is greater if the information content ( equivalent no of bits) is greater. Hence in a given time, time will affect the accuracy of a bigger "record" more than it will a smaller one.
However, human memory has the ability to be "refreshed" A refreshed content is as good as new, (somewhat like digital refreshable memories) and may be even better entrenched after every refresh (repetition helps memorizing!). Hence time matters to human memory only if it is not refreshed. 1500 genrations, or 15000, no matter. Kindly reconsider.
You wrote:" I can't, of course, I don't have to. You are the one stating the fact, you have the burden of proof. Prove to me how its possible that a name was passed 1500 generations scientifically."
Please note again: "a discussion is not to prove ones opinion, but to arrive at or closer to the truth. I will hesitate to participate in any personalized debate.
However I have given you a mechanism which shows it is possible to.....
To all friends: The probability of error in any matter is less if more people participate in the discussion, with open mind, of course. Please do express your views. You are not joining one of two warring parties!
That was not an attack. The point of science is you have to prove something if you say it. This logic that if something you cannot prove something to be false it must be true doesn't hold up.
What about the Hindu example I gave? In Hinduism the world was created differently and the first people had Hindi names. Are they wrong? Can you prove it? Of course you can't, neither can I. Does that make it true?
I suppose you could say Adam (and Eve) were the first people of "that" tribe of people, those people belonging to that tribe or believing in it sure want everyone to think it was. But, the first "human" for/of the world? Not for me.
I see too much scientific evidence that "man" has been here for 100's of thousands if not millions of years.
What I find strange is the fact that we (here in the USA) have an amendment to our constitution that gives us the right to keep and bear arms. It SHOULD be pretty clear what the amendment says/means. It was/is written in English and only a couple hundred years ago. But it seems it is in the news continuously, this group or that group saying: This is what it means. This is what they meant when they wrote it. Many from the USA, and other parts of the world who follow us "Americans" know what I mean when I say it seems no one can say exactly what was meant. Strange to say the least. It IS written in English, and recently too.
What I find hard to believe is how people, millions of people, wonder what the real meaning of our "right to keep and bear arms" means... but...
can drag out a story book (many times called The Bible) which was written in languages centuries ago that from what I can see/read about, no one is sure exactly what some of the words mean, or how they are supposed to be translated and say: This IS EXACTLY what was meant, what it means. This is EXACTLY what happened back then. How can people put blinders on and say that about translations that are just a guess? I do not know.
No, it was an individuals view or opinion on what they thought happened back then. Some of it is interesting reading, but there are many contradictions in it, mostly because what happened was looked at thorough different sets of eyes.
I think "man's" ancestors are probably related to the monkeys somewhere back there in time.
How about Ug and Og for first man and woman a few million years ago?
Evolution
Re: Evolution
