Adam & Eve had tails? Someone answer these:

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


I wonder why when they find people frozen in the ice, or egyptians, why they all have the same proportions we still do...I mean in theory then shouldn't our pinky toes and fingers supposedly be "getting smaller every generation (?)" due to lack of use?? We don't see ancient peoples with long pinkies....I mean, they are pretty much the exact same physically, it's the technology that has changed...

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


but did any of them live long enough to breed? and did they pass on those mutations?

is the other evidence that precursors to these had 8 limbs or 2 faces?

there is plenty of evidence that our ancestors had tails, were mammals and all mammals have tails, we may not have them now but our ancestors did(im talking speciat ancestors here not your uncle george and great grand pa fred)

reply to post by scrubsnstuffkim


the lines are Gen:1:26-27 and Gen:2:7. Enjoy

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

 

but did any of them live long enough to breed? and did they pass on those mutations?

is the other evidence that precursors to these had 8 limbs or 2 faces?

there is plenty of evidence that our ancestors had tails, were mammals and all mammals have tails, we may not have them now but our ancestors did(im talking speciat ancestors here not your uncle george and great grand pa fred)

Right on!

Perfect example: look at a photograph of any early stage human embryo and what do you see? A TAIL!!! In almost all cases, the Tail (i.e., the spine) is "absorbed" into the body as the fetus matures; however, this sometimes is not the case and the embryo produces a "throwback" human with a tail at birth. Many times the tails are tiny and are cut off upon birth...sometimes they are not, particularly 3rd world countries.

reply to post by dashen



Hey, the life's good for this godless heathen, since i'm not constantly wondering whether or not i'm pissing off some intangible father figure shaking a fist at me from thousands of years ago, thanks.

Gen 1:26-27:
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Gen 2:7;
7Then the LORD God formed man of (H)dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and (I)man became a living being.

so, even according to the scriptures that you've paraphrased, if read literally, man was born into god's image, and life was breathed into him at that exact moment.

I honestly don't get how modern minds still find it so hard to grasp the fact that they no longer need to resort to stupid bedtime stories to explain the world around them. I can't wait until the rest of the species wakes up.





[edit on 13-11-2008 by whiterabbit85]

reply to post by whiterabbit85


well, some of my best friends are g-dless heathens. Be that as it may, the fact is one line states the creation, and only later does it say that he had a soul breathed into him. In traditional fashion, the considerable gap between these statments indicates a considerable gap in time between the events. G-d doesn't shake his fist at us from a thousand or twelve billion years ago. He holds all atoms and time together, now, and always, if you believe that sort of thing. Belief in G-d and his scriptures is purely that, a belief. If it were to ever be conclusively proven, itr wouldn't fall into the realm of belief. I manage to reconcile science and scripture wherever and whenever possible, and the fact is that there are scientific facts presented in the old scriptures that science has yet to catch up with. So all you rabid and angry heathens, answer this, why are you so angry at something that doesnt exist?

gen 1 is "the creation" and gen 2 is "the creation of man and woman" it's simply a more detailed explanation of the previous 2 verses.

gen 2:7 clearly shows the creation and breathing of life in the same moment.

I'm not angry at "God" i'm angry at the inability of some people to accept science. Too many atrocities have been carried out in the name of religion for me to value it at all.

How a religion can preach love thy neighbour and thenit's followers can bomb the hell out of the country next to them I have no idea.

reply to post by whiterabbit85


To be a little more specific, there are old traditions that "mankind" was created first, and only, at a later time was Adam created with a soul. Furthermore, how many atrocities have been commited in the name of science? Irradiating unsupecting pregnant women by the AEC in the 50's to see what will happen, chemically castrating mental defectives in the US in the 30's, in the name of science. And we can all remember ol' Dr. Mengele. The fact is, it's not religion or science that motivates people to kill or dismember, it's a lack of morality, and a lack of consideration for others' rights. And the old testament states itself, to paraphrase, treat G-d as your G-d, and he will be a G-d to you, treat him like he doesn't exist, and he won't, (to you anyway).

reply to post by dashen


hah quite funny that one.. religion tells you what to do, how to live.. science doesnt.

What do you wanna do.. ban science? "SCIENCE" is illegal people.

strictly on a technical and genetic sense, the chemical castration of the mentally defective is for the betterment of the human race.

Medical advancements are in some sense weakening the gene pool, but that's for a completely different time and discussion.

Those examples you gave from science were experimental, people did things, because they wanted to, to test scientific theory.

The crusades, the holocaust, the inquisition, these were atrocities carried out by the "will of God" etc. people did something because thier religion told them to, not because they wanted to.

reply to post by whiterabbit85


yepp just look at hitler

he killed million in the name of god

he used scripture to justify his lunacy (thanks paul and jesus for all that anti jewish crap you dumped in the NT) and got the churches to back him which the majority did, he firmly beleived god wanted him to and it was his duty as a christian to carry out gods/jesus's will and it was written right in plain sight in the bible (just ask Martin Luther one of hitlers favorite authors)

faith+lunacy = bad stuff

with said lunatic and religeon firmly tagging along and converting the masses to the greatness of gods war on the jews ....... we know the rest

60 million dead

6 million jews 6 million russains and poles dead in concentration camps,

mass ugenics to make a better stronger more godly man(at least the church spoke out on this and it was cut back and hidden from plain view)

religeon doesnt make war, but it sure is easy to get it to justify it and draw in the masses of followers for the holy casue. and if its gods enemy your fighting the need for mercy goes right out the window satan and his crew dont deserve godly mercy

there are some pretty hotly contested arguments between scientists but i have yet to see them start wars and torture and kill each each other for beleiving string theory over the electric universe, or thet t-rex was a scavanger not a predator


p.s.

Josef Mengele was born on March 16, 1911. Brought up as a Catholic, the popular and talented boy grew into a promising, ambitious student.

www.answers.com...

[edit on 13/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by whiterabbit85


Hi Whiterabbit85,

We have fossil records of countless primates, showcasing exactly when bipedalism took hold, early tool use, differentiation between species in terms of brain cavity size, etc coming from early robust australopithecine all the way to early homo species(erectus/habilis). Anyone arguing that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with modern apes clearly hasn't even opened a book on the subject of anthro.

I do not suggest our bodies do not have a common ancestor of the the modern apes because we do. I have suggested that there was an intervention that took place on earth by a greater intelligence that made man what we are today. Your theory of 100% no questions asked we evolved from apes naturally with no intervention has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many things missing and unknown/unanswered questions for science.

I have been down your path and studied the same data and believe me done a lot of thinking about it but from my standpoint I have also been a contactee of extraterrestrials and I realize that most people out there cannot accept such a thing just yet but I have been told by them because I asked, my answer was that our DNA was genetically altered by them and they created us at a point in time making us what we are today. Since that time we have not evolved or changed at all as far as physical features go.

We did not come from the same primates we know today but by another species I was told that was taken from earth after they created us, a species that was much further evolved then what our modern science has studied/researched today. A species that was and is related to what we know as Sasquatch/Bigfoot. I won't go into that much further so will stop right there.

Ultimately it's each and everyone's decision and learning experience in this life to decide and choose for themselves. Whatever it is people believe in out there is ok and all leads back to the same place if we live our lifes without hate, envy, greed. Choosing the positive over negative, making the right decisions.

Peace, Love and Light.









[edit on 13-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Originally posted by noobfun
your using the silly creationist misnomer version of macro evolution,

I'm not a creationist and the phrases aren't solely 'creationist'

I'm just passing on the truth. And the truth is that Macro and Micro are two totally different animals (pardon the pun).

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

 

Ummm, In this case, YES. I have a MS in Biology and the human tail is what we call a vestigial structure. I have done research on this and have been given the knowledge of MANY professors on this topic. It is what I state it is and not a mutation.

Nice pictures of mutations you have presented to argue your case though. They just don't apply to what I said.

We definitely were partly created from a species that once did have tails no question/argument about that. But we as humans since we have been created when intervention was made have never had tails. We are an upgraded version with part of a species in us that used to have tails.

Oh the picture display was mostly for fun.








[edit on 13-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

reply to post by Daniem

religion tells you what to do, how to live.. science doesnt.

Ummmm, Global Warming? Taxation for producing CO2 (as in breathing?

That's just the first example to come to mind...

TheRedneck

reply to post by FlyersFan

speciation is the foundation of macroevolution

have we seen that .. yes many times

speciation + microevolution + speciation repeat recycle new animals

the fossil records shows plenty of macroevolution

have we seen it with our own eyes in its fullest form? no it takes to long and we have only been aware of it for a short period of time

we didnt see the formation of the himalayas but we know to a fairly good certanty how they got there

they are different animals in the sense oldage and infancy are

infancy leads to oldage (well unless you die in the middle which would be extinction of the species)

micro evolution leads to macroevolution its just a matter of time and not dying out midflow


[edit on 13/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by TheRedneck


thats politics not science

science didnt say tax CO2 emissions

it just explained breathing produces it

Originally posted by Malevolent_Aliens

Originally posted by Aggie Man
reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens

 

Ummm, In this case, YES. I have a MS in Biology and the human tail is what we call a vestigial structure. I have done research on this and have been given the knowledge of MANY professors on this topic. It is what I state it is and not a mutation.

Nice pictures of mutations you have presented to argue your case though. They just don't apply to what I said.

We definitely were partly created from a species that did have tails no question/argument about that. But we as humans since we have been created when intervention was made have never had tails. We are an upgraded version with part of a species in us that used to have tails.

Oh the picture display was mostly for fun.

I'm glad you partly agree... AND, if you look back at the first post I made in here, the one you originally responded to, I never said humans ever had tails. I said it showed our evolutionary past in relation to having a COMMON ANCESTOR with other primates. Just so we are clear.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Yes I caught on to that, it's an interesting topic for me.

Good thread. S & F from me.

This thread's title refers to what some people would call "fictional characters" having tails. All mammals decend from creatures with tails. All MAMMALS, humans are mammals. There is no way to possibly know if Adam and Eve had tails.