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

His name was Fred, not Adam. duh :P

The first human did not have a name.

</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"...

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.

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

</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.

"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.

The first man was Lucy:
http://68.49.86.102/Lucy.jpg

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

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.

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!

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.

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!

</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.

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

</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.

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

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