Wacky new hypothesis on evolution and creationism

[girgamer]

So, I was just sitting here contemplating "it all" and I thought about the real disconnect between the theory of evolution and the theory of a supreme being creating everything. Now, I am not one that necessarily believes in an all powerful being but if there was one I don't see why both couldn't exist. It is pretty hard to dispute that evolution takes place. In the western culture which I was raised most people believe that God created Adam and Eve...you know the drill...but many now must have conflicting thoughts because evolution is a fact (a fact that it happens, not that humans evolved from apes which is still a theory and IMO the main conflict between evolutionists and creationists).

Alright, here's my crazy thought: As far as I know, there is no personal account from either Adam or Eve or any of their immediate descendants. It is a story divined to us. What if after God sent them from the garden they were the first humanoids to walk the earth? Since it has been many millenia, might it be possible the Adam and Eve that left the Garden of Eden were far different than how we are today and that we evolved from them and the stories that have been handed down have been romanticized, as we humans tend to do?

Just trying for a little healthy philosophical debate, try not to hate.

[polskifootballer]

ive often tought the same thing i think it makes sense but some peoplle mayargue

[Elegiac]

Because two people does not provide a broad enough genetic pool to create a viable species. The lowest the human population has ever been is two hundred breeding pairs, representing the species barely hanging on during the population bottleneck after the Toba eruption.

[schwarzkopf]

Evolution is a mechanism for creation of life.

Problem solved.

Believing or not believing in a supreme creator is now an independent decision to knowing that evolution is a pretty solid theory.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I can see this thread going bad places...

[Elegiac]

Evolution is a mechanism for creation of life.

Problem solved.

No. Just, no.

[Longview]

still a theory

Stop. You are confusing the word "theory" with "hypothesis". A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.

[Sunseeker]

The problem is less one of reconciliation, and more a matter of conflict of ideology.

The foundation of science, and by extension, is asking questions and seeking answers, or conversely, seeking answers to unasked questions. "Hmmm, red+green goes boom, now why does it do that?" as opposed to "I wonder what will happen when I combine red and green!?"

The foundation of creationism and it's baby-brother Intelligent Design, is that it neither asks questions nor seeks answers. It just tells you things, and for all the holes in it, the answer is always the same "A wizard did it." and the answer is the same because there is no desire to ask questions, to seek answers.

These two ideologies are fundamentally contradictory.

[Kalyyn]

Consider this: The story of Adam and Eve details the beginning of life.

In Genesis, if I recall correctly, there is first Adam. Then, through divine power, he takes a part of himself and with it creates Eve, the second life form.

It could be logically theorized that the first life form was a single-cell organism, which then split into two organisms.

Adam and Eve were amoebas.

[xChurch]

Consider this: The story of Adam and Eve details the beginning of life.

In Genesis, if I recall correctly, there is first Adam. Then, through divine power, he takes a part of himself and with it creates Eve, the second life form.

It could be logically theorized that the first life form was a single-cell organism, which then split into two organisms.

Adam and Eve were amoebas.

I laughed.

Because two people does not provide a broad enough genetic pool to create a viable species. The lowest the human population has ever been is two hundred breeding pairs, representing the species barely hanging on during the population bottleneck after the Toba eruption.

Pretty much this though. It is as close to impossible as it can be that Adam and Eve didn't exsist. To even try to rationalize a way that creationism can work is to hamstring real theories about how we came to be. Also it is essentially a fact that we came from apes. As someone pointed out the OP is mistaking Theories for Hypothesis', we just don't know every step along the way.

[Dhurn]

I agree that science and religion likely converge far more than we realize. Learning about molecular biology currently and it seems unlikely that there is no form of supernatural force behind all the processes that take place at a molecular level. My personal belief is that water as an element has a sort of divine consciousness, given all the unique properties it has and its vital role in the creation and sustaining of life.

One of the most interesting books I've read recently was called "Messages from Water" by Masaru Emoto where he discusses various experiments he's done exposing water to written words or sounds and recording the crystal formations that manifest based on negative/positive words. Word like "honor" and "gratitude" formed gorgeous complex formations, whereas "hate" would form a broken muddled crystal. Water being God just makes a lot more sense to me than any other religion.

[Dacien]

I'm going to have to shut this down (before one of the other mods does). We don't allow religious topics, which this clearly is. Sorry.