Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution.is that a long winded way of saying that you aren't smart enough to see the obvious?.....if something is a new species, no thing was ever that species before....if its parent was not of a different species, then its parent would have been the first of that new species instead.......This is the unfortunate result of YEC'ists getting their science from fundamentalist Christian madrassah's.well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.
Unlike in the fundamentalist worldview where magic and supernaturalism are the source of instant humans, talking snakes and other such absurdities, biology works differently. New species don't happen instantly, or by magic, or by the birth of a new species. BTW fundie boy, you can't even correctly spell "spieces" let alone define what that is.
For the science illiterate / YEC'ists, evolution is defined as change in populations over time. The time frames are typically geologic, not magically overnight. In spite of your revulsion for science and in spite of attempts to define biological science as some grand, worldwide conspiracy, evolution remains incontestably the basis for any credible explanation for the diversity in living species.
The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always found it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism.
New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.
and its a whole lot dishonest of you to claim I hold a literalist view......It seems a bit dishonest on your part to hold a literalist view of supernatural gardens, magical Arks, talking snakes, etc., and deny you're a YEC'ist.no, dumbfuck.....it does not......the fact you've been pretending I am a young earther for the last four months makes me nothing other than the target of your lies.......You have difficulty with a consistent argument so it's not surprising that you're perpetually befuddled that literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables such as supernatural creations of man and women and magical Arks certainly identified you as a YEC'ist.I certainly won't be asking someone who thinks being a Christian hinges on believing in a 6000 year old earth....by that standard, even Hollie would be a Christian.......I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against a god.aw shucks......you tell me I'm not a real Christian and you're worried about a little name calling?.......atheists are supposed to be rational......obviously you're then, not a real atheist......
It must be hard for you to get stumped on these bible related questions. Maybe you should go ask someone...
again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution.is that a long winded way of saying that you aren't smart enough to see the obvious?.....if something is a new species, no thing was ever that species before....if its parent was not of a different species, then its parent would have been the first of that new species instead.......This is the unfortunate result of YEC'ists getting their science from fundamentalist Christian madrassah's.well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......
Unlike in the fundamentalist worldview where magic and supernaturalism are the source of instant humans, talking snakes and other such absurdities, biology works differently. New species don't happen instantly, or by magic, or by the birth of a new species. BTW fundie boy, you can't even correctly spell "spieces" let alone define what that is.
For the science illiterate / YEC'ists, evolution is defined as change in populations over time. The time frames are typically geologic, not magically overnight. In spite of your revulsion for science and in spite of attempts to define biological science as some grand, worldwide conspiracy, evolution remains incontestably the basis for any credible explanation for the diversity in living species.
The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always found it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism.
New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.
In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed.
You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.
At least you know you're a coward.dude......look at the title of the thread......we are not talking about the garden of eden.....get back on track.......So there was no garden of eden and no adam and eve made by god and who got thrown out of eden? I thought we were discussing bible related stuff. Not evolution.no, my link said there were other people alive during the genetic-Adam and the genetic-Eve's time.......that has nothing at all to do with the biblical Adam and the biblical Eve.......you're a bit slow on this, aren't you.....Your link said that there were other people alive during Adam and Eve's time. Like, aside from their children, how is that possible? Stumped again?1) this may be difficult for you to comprehend, even though we're in a thread about Noah......they may call them the genetic Adam and Eve in the Scientific American article, but in the context of this discussion it should be obvious we are discussing Noah and his wife, not the biblical Adam and Eve......I asked: From your link: "this Adam was by no means the only man alive at his time." How do you explain this?
And you said "drowning". What I'm asking is when god kicked adam and eve out of eden, were there already people on earth when they got there?
2) so when I said drowning I was referring to the folks who weren't with Noah and his family...
3) thus, you question was nonsensical......
It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution.is that a long winded way of saying that you aren't smart enough to see the obvious?.....if something is a new species, no thing was ever that species before....if its parent was not of a different species, then its parent would have been the first of that new species instead.......This is the unfortunate result of YEC'ists getting their science from fundamentalist Christian madrassah's.
Unlike in the fundamentalist worldview where magic and supernaturalism are the source of instant humans, talking snakes and other such absurdities, biology works differently. New species don't happen instantly, or by magic, or by the birth of a new species. BTW fundie boy, you can't even correctly spell "spieces" let alone define what that is.
For the science illiterate / YEC'ists, evolution is defined as change in populations over time. The time frames are typically geologic, not magically overnight. In spite of your revulsion for science and in spite of attempts to define biological science as some grand, worldwide conspiracy, evolution remains incontestably the basis for any credible explanation for the diversity in living species.
The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always found it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism.
New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.
In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed.
You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.
When you hold a literalist view, you can be identified as a literalist.and its a whole lot dishonest of you to claim I hold a literalist view......It seems a bit dishonest on your part to hold a literalist view of supernatural gardens, magical Arks, talking snakes, etc., and deny you're a YEC'ist.no, dumbfuck.....it does not......the fact you've been pretending I am a young earther for the last four months makes me nothing other than the target of your lies.......You have difficulty with a consistent argument so it's not surprising that you're perpetually befuddled that literal interpretations of biblical tales and fables such as supernatural creations of man and women and magical Arks certainly identified you as a YEC'ist.I certainly won't be asking someone who thinks being a Christian hinges on believing in a 6000 year old earth....by that standard, even Hollie would be a Christian.......I'm agnostic, I see no proof either way for or against a god.
It must be hard for you to get stumped on these bible related questions. Maybe you should go ask someone...
Speaking of simple, why have we never been able to produce the strands of nucleotides that form a DNA molecule in primordial soup? We have never been able to recreate spontaneous generation. For one thing, in order for it to happen the earth had to be an oxygen free environment. It's abundant in oxygen. No matter how science tries to replicate primordial soup spontaneous life, all they get is tar.
Who designed the genetic code that "writes" the information the nucleotides program into DNA and RNA? The information that they can't deny is there. There is a cause attached to it. It performs with a cause, it has an agenda. Darwin didn't know that. He believed that life was un-caused. An accident, random chance. We know better now, but what is crushing to science is they know, because of thermal-dynamics, if there is a cause there is a causer. Like you, they would rather that not be the case. Science says that is the case.
It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution.is that a long winded way of saying that you aren't smart enough to see the obvious?.....if something is a new species, no thing was ever that species before....if its parent was not of a different species, then its parent would have been the first of that new species instead.......
New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.
In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed.
You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.
I'd have thought that you might attempt to actually understand some pretty basic terms before arguing against what you don't understand. Had you done so, you might have noticed that "transitional" precedes the noun "species" in the term transitional species.
A.... wait for it.... here it comes... Transitional Species Is one that shares characteristics common to different lineages.
That's why it's called transitional.
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
Unless you're forgetting what you just wrote, it was you assigning human attributes to DNA, just as you do to your three gods.Science assigns human based attributes to DNA. There is no hierarchy of Gods in which you speak.
Only one, with a cause.
It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution.
New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.
In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed.
You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.
I'd have thought that you might attempt to actually understand some pretty basic terms before arguing against what you don't understand. Had you done so, you might have noticed that "transitional" precedes the noun "species" in the term transitional species.
A.... wait for it.... here it comes... Transitional Species Is one that shares characteristics common to different lineages.
That's why it's called transitional.
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
And they still have not found actual links.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase
It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....
In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed.
You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.
I'd have thought that you might attempt to actually understand some pretty basic terms before arguing against what you don't understand. Had you done so, you might have noticed that "transitional" precedes the noun "species" in the term transitional species.
A.... wait for it.... here it comes... Transitional Species Is one that shares characteristics common to different lineages.
That's why it's called transitional.
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
And they still have not found actual links.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase
Who was the author of your wiki article? Too difficult to find a science journal for information on science?
So yes. You agree there are transitional species.It's remarkable that you would choose to promote your ignorance of science with such aplomb in a public discussion forum.again....there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....You're appalling lack of a science vocabulary causes you to make these kinds of errors. Such training at your fundie madrassah would also be an issue.
In the realm of the relevant sciences, such as paleontology, there are transitional species which don't conform to your naive and ignorant view of new species springing forth, fully formed.
You should attempt to understand something about evolutionary processes before promoting your science-loathing agenda.
I'd have thought that you might attempt to actually understand some pretty basic terms before arguing against what you don't understand. Had you done so, you might have noticed that "transitional" precedes the noun "species" in the term transitional species.
A.... wait for it.... here it comes... Transitional Species Is one that shares characteristics common to different lineages.
That's why it's called transitional.
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.
And they still have not found actual links.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor. They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase
Who was the author of your wiki article? Too difficult to find a science journal for information on science?
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 1A
Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)
Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?
Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.
Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.
Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.
Here is a list of many to look up.
Transitional fossils bibliography
I will mark this down as you not understanding the premise of evolution.well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.
Actually watch all 17 videos. Every single question about Evolution and the story of Noah will be answered for you.I would like the human being and any other creationist to see this series of videos.
I have links to all 17 videos.
Is this how the evolutionizer wins the debate. With bad video?
Watch these. They may help you.there's either a first of a new species or there's no new species.....make your choice.....well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.Actually, the definition I gave you is the accurate description of evolution.is that a long winded way of saying that you aren't smart enough to see the obvious?.....if something is a new species, no thing was ever that species before....if its parent was not of a different species, then its parent would have been the first of that new species instead.......This is the unfortunate result of YEC'ists getting their science from fundamentalist Christian madrassah's.well somebody has to give birth to the first that qualifies as a new species......and logically, the mother of the first of a new species has to be a different species......If you are trying to be funny, it's not working. Some creationists actually believe the argument for evolution is that one spieces will give birth to another spieces.
Unlike in the fundamentalist worldview where magic and supernaturalism are the source of instant humans, talking snakes and other such absurdities, biology works differently. New species don't happen instantly, or by magic, or by the birth of a new species. BTW fundie boy, you can't even correctly spell "spieces" let alone define what that is.
For the science illiterate / YEC'ists, evolution is defined as change in populations over time. The time frames are typically geologic, not magically overnight. In spite of your revulsion for science and in spite of attempts to define biological science as some grand, worldwide conspiracy, evolution remains incontestably the basis for any credible explanation for the diversity in living species.
The fact is, it doesn’t make any difference what the personal beliefs of thumpers is regarding evolutionary science. It’s the strength of the theory that extremist Christian nut-bars take issue with. The theory of evolution has only been better supported and confirmed as the methods of scientific testing have become more exacting. I’ve always found it laughable that creationist spend such enormous amounts of time and energy attacking Charles Darwin as a cover for their wholly inadequate appeals to gawds and supernaturalism.
New species don't appear "like magic' which is your only reference as a YEC'ist. Speciation is a long transitional process with both successes and utter dead ends. The problem you have understanding this are the geologic time frames for speciation to occur, where your bible tales are in timescales of a few thousand years.
???....I'm a coward because you're confused?......At least you know you're a coward.dude......look at the title of the thread......we are not talking about the garden of eden.....get back on track.......So there was no garden of eden and no adam and eve made by god and who got thrown out of eden? I thought we were discussing bible related stuff. Not evolution.no, my link said there were other people alive during the genetic-Adam and the genetic-Eve's time.......that has nothing at all to do with the biblical Adam and the biblical Eve.......you're a bit slow on this, aren't you.....Your link said that there were other people alive during Adam and Eve's time. Like, aside from their children, how is that possible? Stumped again?1) this may be difficult for you to comprehend, even though we're in a thread about Noah......they may call them the genetic Adam and Eve in the Scientific American article, but in the context of this discussion it should be obvious we are discussing Noah and his wife, not the biblical Adam and Eve......
2) so when I said drowning I was referring to the folks who weren't with Noah and his family...
3) thus, you question was nonsensical......
