Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

NotScientific · Feb 17, 2004, 05:07 am

I'll be very interested in getting your views about this. Thanks.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 17, 2004, 06:09 am

His name was Fred, not Adam. duh

shunyadragon · Feb 18, 2004, 09:01 am

The first human did not have a name.

Meatros · Feb 18, 2004, 10:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
The first human did not have a name.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yeah he/she did, it was "uuuuggggghhhhh"...

somehackerpunkette · Feb 18, 2004, 02:10 pm

meh. I believe that we got here via evolution. We weren't "created." And there was no language when Adam was supposedly made, so he couldn't have a name. Let alone a name like Adam. That's kind of the same as thinking Jesus was white.

Impenitent · Feb 18, 2004, 02:37 pm

the first man did have a name... langauge is what distinguishes us from animals

shunyadragon · Feb 18, 2004, 05:55 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
the first man did have a name... langauge is what distinguishes us from animals<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The word 'Adam' means first man and I don't think the first man knew of himself as the first man. Language evolved and didn't suddenly appear. women were the first to develop and use language with children. The question as to the first names used are very hypothetical and it is not likely that Adam or the other names of the bible were the first names.

Many languages of the word share the simple terms of baby talk still used for family names like mama, dada, baba and gege. These are likely the first terms used to describe different people in families.

PeterAngelo · Feb 18, 2004, 06:49 pm

"2001 A Space Odyssey."

The first human was the first humanoid that "flashed" a conscious awareness of cause and effect - including language.

Even a grunt means something to another ape. It is the simultaneous conscous thought about it that seperates us and makes us take the time to investigate further possibilities of "acting" deliberately.

lying must have been one of the first tricks that spurred on the evolution of thought. It is the most purvasive and usefull tool in the arsenal of weapons we use to get what we want.

That is what it is to be human. I want to know who will be the first DECENT human.

Major Billy · Feb 18, 2004, 09:40 pm

The first man was Lucy:

NotScientific · Feb 19, 2004, 08:01 am

He got name when recent historians gave him one. How would we refer to him if he doesn't have a name.

shunyadragon · Feb 22, 2004, 09:20 am

Linguistics do know something about how names evolve.

The first names were names within the family, as I mentioned before, and then the extended family with became the clan and the tribe. Animal attributes and early occupation like Hunter and Archer. There are examples of primative Stone Age tribes with primative languages that we have for examples.

ruiner · Feb 22, 2004, 10:41 am

There was no "first man". You all assume that humans shared a common ancestor millions of years ago and evolved into the variety we see today. Well that is just an assumption, a belief, an atheist religion, you cannot prove it scientifically.

DNA men might see matches between asian and european genomes in the lab but that is just evidence of common design, not common ancestory!

WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL SKELETONS BETWEEN EASTERN AND WESTERN MAN????

In fact my theory is that all races of humans came from original created pairs. There was a chinese created pair, a european created pair, an african created pair, etc.

Kids are taught atheist propaganda in schools that all humans came from an single pair of humans. But there is absolutely no evidence for this!

**Pooeypants** · Feb 22, 2004, 01:16 pm

Completely unjustified argument. What on earth are DNA men? You mean geneticists? And what atheist religion? Many biologists believe in deities. And why should there be a transitional skeleton between eastern and western humans? We're same species except for some minor changes in skin and eye colour etc...

Please, elaborate on your claims and give some sources.

ruiner · Feb 22, 2004, 02:08 pm

No it is you who are wrong.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists falsely assume that all humans originated from a single pair long ago. But there is absolutely NO evidence for this!
In fact what we see are distinct races of humans that only have similarities due to common design by an intelligent designer.
Also two people alone could not give rise to all the variation we see in humanity today. To do that would require an increase in information and that's impossible by micro-evolution! Even the Creationists say so, so they are hipocrites to believe all of humanity could have evolved from adam and eve. It's impossible!
Equally evolutionists haven't even found any transitional skeletons between distinct race kinds to back their theory up. It's all speculation and conjecture with no facts!

**Pooeypants** · Feb 22, 2004, 04:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
No it is you who are wrong.
Both Evolutionists and Creationists falsely assume that all humans originated from a single pair long ago. But there is absolutely NO evidence for this!
In fact what we see are distinct races of humans that only have similarities due to common design by an intelligent designer.
Also two people alone could not give rise to all the variation we see in humanity today. To do that would require an increase in information and that's impossible by micro-evolution! Even the Creationists say so, so they are hipocrites to believe all of humanity could have evolved from adam and eve. It's impossible!
Equally evolutionists haven't even found any transitional skeletons between distinct race kinds to back their theory up. It's all speculation and conjecture with no facts!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
More crud, the evolution theory requires that there be a population of humanoids from which Homo sapiens evolved from, a single pair is not enough, there is not enough genetic variation as you said yourself.
And seeing as now we know the lack of knowledge you have, I suggest you read up before you post again unless you prefer looking like an idiot.

PS. Take a look at this family tree.

ruiner · Feb 23, 2004, 04:49 pm

Then Creationism has been proven wrong

How can the variety on earth seen today come from 2 individuals? That would require an increase in information and we all know that is impossible

Also noone has ever observed a european person evolve into a native american person. It's all just creationist speculation. They should really get to grips with real science

People only reproduce after their kind. A european person and an african person will produce a european-african person. This is mixing of existing races or microevolution. Evolution of entirely new races is macro-evolution and is impossible.

The creationists should know better

**Pooeypants** · Feb 23, 2004, 05:45 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
Then Creationism has been proven wrong

How can the variety on earth seen today come from 2 individuals? That would require an increase in information and we all know that is impossible

Also noone has ever observed a european person evolve into a native american person. It's all just creationist speculation. They should really get to grips with real science

People only reproduce after their kind. A european person and an african person will produce a european-african person. This is mixing of existing races or microevolution. Evolution of entirely new races is macro-evolution and is impossible.

The creationists should know better<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You've got some concepts mixed up, evolution requires isolation of genepools, crossbreeding between same species doesn't really allow that. A new race of human, if you want to say, isn't even a subspecies hence it is not macroevolution. And nor does it require interbreeding as thats contrary to what is required. Speciation HAS been observed.

NotScientific · Feb 24, 2004, 10:03 am

Let's just say that this subject has no reason to exist. It's a stupid topic (I started it).

ruiner · Feb 24, 2004, 06:08 pm

I am interested on some Creationist views on the issue

Surely if you are a Creationist you must deny there is any scientific evidence that all humans share a common ancestor

View Poll Results: Do you think that Adam was the first man on Earth?
Yes	4	15.38%
No	19	73.08%
Not sure	0	0%
Why bother?	3	11.54%
Voters: 26. You may not vote

Feb 17, 2004, 05:07 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
NotScientific Molten Ash Location: Mauritius Posts: 35	I'll be very interested in getting your views about this. Thanks. I'm Columnist here at Volconvo.com and also at BackWash.com. Check my columns in the Science forum then.

Feb 17, 2004, 06:09 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,541	His name was Fred, not Adam. duh War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 18, 2004, 09:01 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	The first human did not have a name. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 18, 2004, 10:11 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) The first human did not have a name.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeah he/she did, it was "uuuuggggghhhhh"...

Feb 18, 2004, 02:10 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
somehackerpunkette Sedimentary Rock Posts: 16	meh. I believe that we got here via evolution. We weren't "created." And there was no language when Adam was supposedly made, so he couldn't have a name. Let alone a name like Adam. That's kind of the same as thinking Jesus was white.

Feb 18, 2004, 02:37 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	the first man did have a name... langauge is what distinguishes us from animals "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 18, 2004, 05:55 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) the first man did have a name... langauge is what distinguishes us from animals<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The word 'Adam' means first man and I don't think the first man knew of himself as the first man. Language evolved and didn't suddenly appear. women were the first to develop and use language with children. The question as to the first names used are very hypothetical and it is not likely that Adam or the other names of the bible were the first names. Many languages of the word share the simple terms of baby talk still used for family names like mama, dada, baba and gege. These are likely the first terms used to describe different people in families. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 18, 2004, 06:49 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	"2001 A Space Odyssey." The first human was the first humanoid that "flashed" a conscious awareness of cause and effect - including language. Even a grunt means something to another ape. It is the simultaneous conscous thought about it that seperates us and makes us take the time to investigate further possibilities of "acting" deliberately. lying must have been one of the first tricks that spurred on the evolution of thought. It is the most purvasive and usefull tool in the arsenal of weapons we use to get what we want. That is what it is to be human. I want to know who will be the first DECENT human.

Feb 18, 2004, 09:40 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Major Billy Molten Ash Posts: 90	The first man was Lucy: >>>--~(ô¿ô)~--->

Feb 19, 2004, 08:01 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
NotScientific Molten Ash Location: Mauritius Posts: 35	He got name when recent historians gave him one. How would we refer to him if he doesn't have a name. I'm Columnist here at Volconvo.com and also at BackWash.com. Check my columns in the Science forum then.

Feb 22, 2004, 09:20 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	Linguistics do know something about how names evolve. The first names were names within the family, as I mentioned before, and then the extended family with became the clan and the tribe. Animal attributes and early occupation like Hunter and Archer. There are examples of primative Stone Age tribes with primative languages that we have for examples. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 22, 2004, 10:41 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	There was no "first man". You all assume that humans shared a common ancestor millions of years ago and evolved into the variety we see today. Well that is just an assumption, a belief, an atheist religion, you cannot prove it scientifically. DNA men might see matches between asian and european genomes in the lab but that is just evidence of common design, not common ancestory! WHERE ARE THE TRANSITIONAL SKELETONS BETWEEN EASTERN AND WESTERN MAN???? In fact my theory is that all races of humans came from original created pairs. There was a chinese created pair, a european created pair, an african created pair, etc. Kids are taught atheist propaganda in schools that all humans came from an single pair of humans. But there is absolutely no evidence for this!

Feb 22, 2004, 01:16 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,541	Completely unjustified argument. What on earth are DNA men? You mean geneticists? And what atheist religion? Many biologists believe in deities. And why should there be a transitional skeleton between eastern and western humans? We're same species except for some minor changes in skin and eye colour etc... Please, elaborate on your claims and give some sources. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 22, 2004, 02:08 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	No it is you who are wrong. Both Evolutionists and Creationists falsely assume that all humans originated from a single pair long ago. But there is absolutely NO evidence for this! In fact what we see are distinct races of humans that only have similarities due to common design by an intelligent designer. Also two people alone could not give rise to all the variation we see in humanity today. To do that would require an increase in information and that's impossible by micro-evolution! Even the Creationists say so, so they are hipocrites to believe all of humanity could have evolved from adam and eve. It's impossible! Equally evolutionists haven't even found any transitional skeletons between distinct race kinds to back their theory up. It's all speculation and conjecture with no facts!

Feb 22, 2004, 04:11 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,541	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) No it is you who are wrong. Both Evolutionists and Creationists falsely assume that all humans originated from a single pair long ago. But there is absolutely NO evidence for this! In fact what we see are distinct races of humans that only have similarities due to common design by an intelligent designer. Also two people alone could not give rise to all the variation we see in humanity today. To do that would require an increase in information and that's impossible by micro-evolution! Even the Creationists say so, so they are hipocrites to believe all of humanity could have evolved from adam and eve. It's impossible! Equally evolutionists haven't even found any transitional skeletons between distinct race kinds to back their theory up. It's all speculation and conjecture with no facts!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> More crud, the evolution theory requires that there be a population of humanoids from which Homo sapiens evolved from, a single pair is not enough, there is not enough genetic variation as you said yourself. And seeing as now we know the lack of knowledge you have, I suggest you read up before you post again unless you prefer looking like an idiot. PS. Take a look at this family tree. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 23, 2004, 04:49 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	Then Creationism has been proven wrong How can the variety on earth seen today come from 2 individuals? That would require an increase in information and we all know that is impossible Also noone has ever observed a european person evolve into a native american person. It's all just creationist speculation. They should really get to grips with real science People only reproduce after their kind. A european person and an african person will produce a european-african person. This is mixing of existing races or microevolution. Evolution of entirely new races is macro-evolution and is impossible. The creationists should know better

Feb 23, 2004, 05:45 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,541	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) Then Creationism has been proven wrong How can the variety on earth seen today come from 2 individuals? That would require an increase in information and we all know that is impossible Also noone has ever observed a european person evolve into a native american person. It's all just creationist speculation. They should really get to grips with real science People only reproduce after their kind. A european person and an african person will produce a european-african person. This is mixing of existing races or microevolution. Evolution of entirely new races is macro-evolution and is impossible. The creationists should know better<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You've got some concepts mixed up, evolution requires isolation of genepools, crossbreeding between same species doesn't really allow that. A new race of human, if you want to say, isn't even a subspecies hence it is not macroevolution. And nor does it require interbreeding as thats contrary to what is required. Speciation HAS been observed. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 24, 2004, 10:03 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
NotScientific Molten Ash Location: Mauritius Posts: 35	Let's just say that this subject has no reason to exist. It's a stupid topic (I started it). I'm Columnist here at Volconvo.com and also at BackWash.com. Check my columns in the Science forum then.

Feb 24, 2004, 06:08 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	I am interested on some Creationist views on the issue Surely if you are a Creationist you must deny there is any scientific evidence that all humans share a common ancestor