A question that has been bothering me for a really long time:
i am a person that believes in both religion and science, i don't try
to differentiate between them because i feel as if they only
accentuate upon the other and help each other once studied critically.
Literally, i believe they can fit together peacefully. OKay, i really
want to know how the story of Adam and Eve, which i believe in, and
the story of creation, and all of us being brothers and sisters in the
past, how all of it fits into the geologic time scale with dinosaurs,
neanderthals, australopithicines, and all the evolving bones and
archaeological finds we keep unearthing. I mean, did Adam and Eve or
their children live with neanderthals, did they look like us, did they
intermarry for all i know. I really have no idea. Did they live with
dinosaurs or did they come after all of this. Please help, i'd really
appreciate it. Thanks!

How do Adam and Eve and the story of creation and that we are all
children from them, fit into the geologic time scale?

could you also give any websites that may help me look further into
this or allow me to study it myself, thanks!

Many people believe in evolution within the context of their own
religion.  Some might, for example, choose to believe that the first
modern humans in the fossil record  (about 2 million years ago) were
"Adam and Eve."  This might be placed in context of creation of the
universe ("big bang"), which is theorized to have been about 15
billion years ago, and the origin of life, which goes back several
billion years.

For a time diagram of life on Earth, see
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5025_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp
(click on "geologic time chart")

See http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml
and click on"Voices for Evolution" to see links to religious
organizations and their individual statements on evolution.

Indeed, some of the foremost researchers in evolutionary theory are
also devout Christians (such as Professor Simon Conway Morris). They
typically take the creation story to be non-literal given the wealth
of evidence that humans have been around for at least 500 000 years.

Interestingly, Charles Darwin's father was a church leader, and Darwin
avoided conflict with the church by omitting controversial elements of
his theories from "The origin of the species" wherever possible.
Unfortunately Darwin's publisher was a money-grabbing sensationalist,
and quickly released a book which ridiculed the Christian church and
brought lots of publicity for his and Darwin's books. The Church of
England (Anglican Church) still supported Darwin's theory of
evolution, and Charles Darwin was buried with great ceremony within
Westminster Abbey -- the most illustrious church burial possible
within the Anglican Church.

This is the best text that I found for you:
"Adam, Eve, and Evolution" from Catholic Answers:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Regards.
livioflores-ga

rnt20 makes an important point that you should bear in mind all
throughout comparing religious history with scientific history. In
that if you are to believe both you must not take the bible literally,
or at the very least dispute its popular interpretation, as many
points insoluable conflict on literal interpretation.

 For example, biblically, the Earth was created approximately 5000
years ago (My bible-bashing friend is not around at the moment so
cannot confirm that but im pretty sure thats what he said recently).
this is obviously a problem as it would mean the Ancient Egyptians,
Dinosaurs etc simply didnt exist, unless you disbelieve the scientific
evidence/interpratation as to their period of living. Hence the
problem.

Take a look at http://www.answersingenesis.org/.  They're an excellent
site with a lot of information on both creation and evolution.  Enjoy.

Adam and Eve are false creations.  That's it. Period.  The
Judeo-Christian creation story is a lot of hot air.  Move on with your
life and stop beleiving in a fantasy world created to keep ignorant,
pre-modern societies in check through fear and intimidation.

bbc1981, you are ignorant and foolish!

There is a difference between a bone and a bone fossil. If we find a
bone we assume that it once belonged to a living animal. If we find a
fossil bone we assume that it belonged to an animal which lived much,
much earlier than in the previous case. Bones can survive for
thousands of years; fossil bones must therefore be many, many
thousands of years older still. According to the generations of
Israelites mentioned in the stories of the bible, Adam and Eve lived
just a few thousand years ago - not long enough for their bones to
have become fossilised. Therefore some animals must have existed long,
long before Adam and Eve. However, the fact that we have stories about
Adam and Eve means only that someone once first wrote their story, it
does not neccessarily mean that they were real people. How can we know
for sure? Is it reasonable to just assume that they were? Is it not
equally reasonable to assume that they were one of the many attempts
made by people who lived long before very much was known about
anything to explain where humans and indeed the whole world came from?
In other words they were myths.
What makes a belief reasonable? How can we test and check our beliefs?
Religion ultimately relies on faith, something beyond reason or
physical evidence - but upon which science relies absolutely! It does
happen that many scientists are religious, but there is a certain
tension - to say the least - between them.

Just a thought to keep in mind: I read somewhere (and no, I can't
recall now exactly where that was) that the dates derived from the
radiocarbon method of dating used by scientists might be in error. 
That is, for example, if the Biblical (also found in the myths of
other religions) story of the Great Flood were true, the great weight
of all that water could so affect the composition of the rock and
earth and all beneath it as to cause them to appear/test much older
than they actually were by our adnittedly inconclusive methods.  So
the 'millions' of years quoted by science with such authority may in
actuality only be thousands.  Of course, we don't know for sure.  The
Theory of Evolution is just a theory, after all, still unproven. The
story of creation may indeed be myth rather than literal truth. The
reality is that, whether you believe the Bible accounts of creation,
or modern science accounts of creation, ultimately both - or either - 
must be taken on faith.  For myself, I keep an open mind.  I'm a
Christian; and I'm inclined to a favorable opinion of science.  I
don't believe that understanding how God works cancels him out.  Nor
do I believe we fully understand all his methods yet and have nothing
left to learn.  Great question.  Keep asking!

Byrd-ga
Google Answers Researcher

Re: Byrd. Radioactive halflives are independedent of temperature,
physical and chemical states. They are determined totally by states
within the nucleus of individual atoms. Thus the pressure of an ocean
of water from here to the moon would not have the slightest effect on
radioactive dating. See:
www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html  for a religious scientist's
criticism of  creationists' criticism of radioactive dating. Also:
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Faith requires neither evidence nor reason. Science cannot exist without either.

Keep in mind, that for the first three "days" there was no sun. We
measure a day (24 hours) by the time it takes for the "Sun to circle
the Earth" (really a revolution of the Earth itself). So, how was time
measured without the Sun? An interesting point to ponder. :-)


- Nate

People forget that Evolution Scientists and Creation Scientists work
with exactly the same evidence, it?s only their perception of that
evidence that is the difference. Another thing is if Christians
believe that there were thousands and millions of years before Adam
and that at that time there were Dinosaurs, Neanderthals, Cavemen etc
then death (sin) entered the world long before Adam. According the
Bible it was only until they ate the fruit that sin entered the world
(death, decay etc.) So it was at that point that the world and
everything in it began to decay and die. Before sin, it was perfect.
?God saw that it was good?. To believe there was any form of life
before Adam where there was death, decay and everything else that
comes with it, contradicts what the Bible says about the history of
the world. And ultimately it goes against Jesus? teachings in the New
Testament too as he referred to the creation record in the old
testament. The entire universe is only around 6000 years old. This is
according to scripture which I believe is the word of God. I have read
an parcipated in many debates on Evolution vs Creation with a totally
open and accepting mind and I cannot help but believe in Creation
rather than Evolution. The evidence for a creator and a young earth is
far greater than any evolutionary theory I've heard so far; and I've
heard quite a few. There is no compromise between the two either. As
posted earlier http://www.answersingenesis.org is a great web site
with answers to just about everything regarding this matter. Check out
the Q&A section first
(http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp)

Hello Bebani,
To look at one interpretation of the topic, the Genesis account of
Adam and Eve is heavily symbolic in nature, and Adam and Eve may have
been symbolic characters representing the first humans. And if the
time is measured according to literal interpretation, the Genesis
account of creation should have happened around 4,000 years ago.
However, since the language of Genesis and other early books are very
different from later books, the years and times of this book might
best be interpreted in a non-literal sense. A day was explained in
Biblical prophetic symbolism to mean a thousand years, so the same
principle could be applied to Genesis, but it could mean even longer,
maybe one or ten million years or so.

One other angle is that before the Genesis creation occured, the earth
was already existing. According to Genesis, it was "formless and
void"; but it was there. So one way of interpreting this is that the
Earth was a barren rock somewhere in the past, and then through God's
intervention, life was created to populate and enliven this barren
rock. As you can see, there are so many ways of interpreting Genesis
in one's own terms that it becomes very difficult to determine which
is the most accurate, since Genesis' terms seem quite vague and
different in meaning. To coin a cliche, only God knows. :)

I don't want to cause more arguments, but I thought it was worth
mentioning that radio-carbon dating only represents one of several
hundred indicators of age used by geologists and archaeologists. You
can count the number of winters in glaciers to go back a million
years, you can compare the patterns of tree rings which died thousands
of years in the past and piece together a history going back many
thousands of years etc. There are many hundreds of methods, and the
really surprising thing is that they pretty well all agree that life
started to appear a few hundred million years after the oceans
appeared, and that higher organisms evolved gradually over the
following millions of years. Unfortunately the evidence amounts to
millions of pages, so it can't be reproduced here. You need to study
for a few decades at a geological institute with a good library to get
a reasonable understanding. Of course, just sticking to reading the
bible is a lot easier than trying to find out the truth...

Ok,
where do I begin?
There have been fourteen comments so far in relation yet there has
been little attempt at addressing the heart of the question. My thanks
extend to all of you for your opinions on Charles Darwin's
religiosity, the ups and downs of radio carbon dating, the division
between theology and the natural sciences, and the ways in which an
individual might explain the myriad of ideas before them.  Most
illuminating.  But from pussy-footing perhaps let's take strides
towards the issue itself.
The Church some hundreds of years ago chose to position the creation
4004 BC, in fact placing the very day of the year as the start of
Michaelmas term at Cambridge University.  How deliciously arbitrary!
So where does this place Adam and Eve in the context of human
evolution?  Well, I would say as perhaps an afterthought, if that.
It alarms me that there seems to be little understanding of these
issues.  Dinosaurs appear to have been eliminated from earth around
sixty-five million years ago.  This does not even compare to the six
thousand years attributed to human existence on this earth by the
Christian church.  Neither humans, nor apes, ever came close to seeing
a living dinosaur.
Neanderthals lived in Europe following the initial radiation of
hominids from Africa, there is some debate about when this might have
taken place.  Let me first clear up an issue.  Just because not all
scientists agree about something, we cannot infer that the whole idea
of scientific investigation is futile.  We should not forget that for
two thousand years theologians have been debating over the 'real'
meaning of the bible.  There is no consensus there either, and to
assume so is to believe in a false shared tradition and a supremacy of
thought.  But what there is much more consensus on is that
neanderthals ceased to exist as a separate species to anatomically
modern humans around 40,000 years ago, in Europe.  Note that they may
have intermixed with human populations, but they are not seen as our
direct ancestors.
So Adam and Eve come along into our story over 35,000 years after
Neanderthal groups, and they seem to have had complex societies too,
had ceased to exist.  Adam and Eve would never have met a Neanderthal.
Adam and Eve would have existed in a world, as described by academics
the world over, where agriculture and complex organisation of human
society already existed.  This is shown not only by fossil data,
genetic data, but also from evidence of the 'softer' studies on
linguistics, which show that by this point humans had spread over
nearly all parts of the globe that they now inhabit.  Languages
radiate and 'evolve' in much the same way the human genome has, and we
can see from more 'subjective', less 'scientific' studies that there
is simply no way that humans could have existed for only six thousand
years.  Sorry.
So please, I urge those who question science to stop viewing such a
dichotomy between religion and science.  Religion is a field of
academic study too.  But the main problem is the framing of the
question as an opposition between the specific christian creation
story and evolution, when in fact this shows a damning cultural
imperialism.  There are many hundreds and thousands of different
creation stories.  Not just one.  Please bear this in mind.

The answer to your question is that you don't really believe in
science, even though you say that. The approach "I believe this is
true, and I want to find a justification..." is false from scientific
point of view. In science, a statement is not considered truthful
unless the justification for it is known. If there are no known
grounds for the particular statement, it is called a hypothesis, which
can be right or wrong. And a honest scientist (the word 'honest' is
redundant here, because one cannot find the truth when not being
honest to the facts), one has to be prepared to abandon the most
beautiful hypothesis if it does not match.

How the story of Adam and Eve fits into geological time scale with
dinosaurs, neanderthals, australopithicines, and all the evolving
bones? Let's put it in the right form. The story of Adam and Eve is a
hypothesis. And geological time scale is a hypothesis too. They both,
only one, or none of them may be right. If geological time scale is
shown to be wrong, are you willing to abandon it? Equally, are you
willing to disqualify the "Adam and Eve" hypothesis if it goes against
archaeological findings? Before reading any further, make up your mind
about this question first. From the way the question was posed, I am
very doubtful you would sacrifice the story of Adam and Eve for the
truth.

Just some info for you to decide upon: the university of pennsylvania
researched on adam and eve a few years back by taking women from many
different cultures, backgrounds, religions, and so on and looked at
each one's DNA structure. They found that each woman, from a different
corner of the earth, had one strand of DNA or whatever they call it
that was the same in each. I only give you this for those of you who
are curious. i find it truly interesting, thank you all for your
comments!

I am suprised that no body mentioned the Mitochondrial Eve (or didn't
I saw it?). I personally think it is so not scientific to find
justification for a conclusion that you already believed in. But if
you have to find something, the Mitochondrial Eve might be one of the
(not so good) option.

A assumption that many biologist think convincing is that, like many
other animals, human only inherit its mitochonidria from the mother.
Taking it as a true statement, the comparison of mitochondrial DNA of
women from different race and region suggest that all the people lived
today MAY desend from a SINGLE women, who lived about 150,000 years
ago (also say 170,000).

Most serious scientist DO NOT think it has anything to do with the
Bibilical Eve due to many reasons. But I have seen many people take
that justification for the creation theory. You may want to look into
that a little bit.

Also, a few comment has mentioned that current scientific evidence of
the ages of fossile MAY not be accurate. But I have to say, these are
mostly due to lack of knowledge of the technology used today.

When the bible says the earth was created in seven days, it means
periods of times, or seven phases. First the earth existed as void
matter, then the solar system was created, then plant life, then
animal life (dinosaurs too?), then humans. This makes much more sense
with the geological time scale (I understand carbon dating, and though
it is not exactly accurate, it is pretty close) and has little if any
contradiction with carbon dating. When Adam was put on the earth, it
was the beginning of the seventh phase of God's plan. That doesn't
mean that human forms didn't exist before Adam-- they just weren't
considered part of our human family. This makes sense too if you
believe that there are other planets with other people on them (which
I do)-- God has infinite creations, and many children. They are part
of God's creations (his spiritual offspring, perhaps), even though
they are of a different biological family.

As for the Adam and Eve story, recent research has in fact shown that
Human Mitochondrial DNA, which is as i recall inherited from mother to
daughter is inhereitted from a what researchers call a Mithocondrial
Eve! Some scientist get very deffensive about her being called Eve
cause they claim that she isnt neccesarily the only women of her time
(which is approximately 200.000 years ago), but before this turns into
a debate wether she was our true foremother or not, let me just state
that my theory that she IS the Religious Eve(from the Tora, Bible and
the Quran), is just as plausible as the other theories, including
bottleneck and so forth... Some christian sites then start confussing
this ME (mitochondrial Eve) with some far fetched theories to make it
fit with the christian theory that earth is 6000 years old (which as
one of the sharp persons who responded to you about is relative for us
humans) As we humans define time by the length of a day. In fact time
has never been a constant constant. It is a constant but its values
changes depending on the speed of light, pr the scientific
description.
(Google search "Mitochondrial DNA" +EVE : give among others these
links to Mithrochondial EVE: 1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve 2.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Facility/4118/misc/eve.html)
Scientist have also been looking for a Genetic Adam through the male
Y-chromesome and have reached the conclusion that he must have lived
approximately 100.000-150.000 years ago. There seems to be quite a
gap, but our knowledge on random mutation in but mitochondrial DNA and
regular DNA is limeted to quite recent studies and i do belive that
given more time we might reach somewhere back to around the same
times. As for Darwins theory of evolution it is just that a theory, no
freely living species have developed into new species since its
postulation and if that theory is to hold ground mutations should
constantly create new species, but only the viable mutaions should
survive. Show me one new freely living mutated species viable or not!!
However the fact of adaptation and the selection will always create
new features such as black moth and white moth ratios etc. etc.....

To sum up your question about Adam and Eve here you go: 

1. The Earth is about 6000 years old (give or take a few hundred). Not
millions or billions of years old.

2. Adam and Eve were alive at the same time the dinosuars walked the Earth. 
 a. Here is a website that shows fossilized human footprints inside
fossilized dinosaur footprints. What more proof do you want then that!
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

3. Cain (son of Adam) married a sister (Adam and Eve's daughter). To
further explain how Cain acquired his wife check out the included
link.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html

4. Evolution is a religion. There are no scientific facts based on
evolution. There are variations within a kind called micro-evolution,
which means you can get different kinds of breeds of dogs by mix
breeding dogs. However, there is no such thing as macro-evolution
which means getting something totally different such as a dog and cat
giving birth to a bird.

These were just a few examples. 

Here are some links to check out for further knowledge. Jesus said "if
you seek you will find".

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp
http://www.livingwaters.com/

The world?s population at this very moment is worshipping more than
5000 different deities which in my opinion have been created for many
different reasons which include:

Greed - The thought of reaping eternal bliss in heaven for minimal
efforts and to use this to control the masses.

Fear - To make people afraid of something and today most surviving
religions has some kind of hell to ensure compliance from its
followers.

To explain the unknown - This is the most common reason for a religion
to spring up. It is because the human population at large is ignorant
of scientific explanations and they thus attribute anything to the
whims of some or other deity which they perceive to be in control of
all the aspects of their meagre existence. Death is also a reason, or
more precisely the fear of it. People being aware of their own
mortality instinctively try and find a way to delay the inevitable
(myself included) but religion gives the weak of mind (unlike myself
who is 100% atheist) a safety blanket to take some of the fear away. I
know for a fact that there is no afterlife but merely oblivion when
you die and that everything you ever were merely vanishes into nothing
as your brain dies. The tunnel of light which people claim to have
seen is merely a reaction of your visual cortex as it becomes starved
of oxygen and that is merely all that there is to it.

Everything I have seen and studied on the subject of religion leads me
to conclude that the whole concept of there being a god which judges
you when you die or an afterlife to carry about as much weight as an
issue of the "Weekly World News" tabloid and it is just as silly.

This aside the mere fact that I have a collection of meteorites and
other geological specimens which has been aged in the multi billion
year age category proves that there was no abrupt creation of the
"heavens and the earth". If you look an ordinary chondrite meteorite
you will see the oldest matter known to man which has been dated at
4.65 billion years. It represents the matter which condensed from the
solar nebula even before the planets formed and it shows us how our
planet and even the sun formed because the chondrites actually match
the sun's composition. I have stone tools which are more than 50000
years old in my collection as well which I collected myself from
various construction sites. About 50km northwest from my present
location there is a 200000 year old meteor crater.

>i am a person that believes in both religion and science, I don't try
>to differentiate between them because i feel as if they only
>accentuate upon the other and help each other once studied critically.
>Literally, i believe they can fit together peacefully

Science and religion is two mutually exclusive concepts due to science
only relying on hard discovered truths and is constantly changing with
the times as better and better theories are created to fit into the
overall model. Religion on the other hand is unchanging and unwavering
in its stance no matter how much evidence exists to disprove the whole
concept. It has directly suppressed science and it is still trying to
suppress science by taking a lot of things that respectable scientists
said and twisting them completely around. Then there is also the so
called "creation scientists" which tries to convince people of below
average intelligence of the veracity of their claims because they know
that any self respecting scientific institution merely laugh their
asses of for the crackpot things they try and claim as the truth. I am
a student of all true proven sciences and I just cannot accept any
falsehoods being propagated about my scientific peers by these so
called "Creation Scientists".

People like jockoboco will believe anything that they are told no
matter how outlandish the idea may seem. Well jockoboco for what
reason do you believe that the earth is a mere 6000 years old? What is
your concrete scientifically proven evidence? I do not mean the
hearsay evidence of the bible you use as science textbook but concrete
scientifically reproducible evidence. Also unless the early humans had
three forward facing toes instead of five and lived 65000000 years ago
the claims that humans walked with dinosaurs are simply laughable.
Evolution is an religion? Where in the hell(excuse the pun)did you
drag that notion from? Are beLIEvers really so desperate to prove
science wrong that they will try and prove something wrong which has a
mountian of evidence to prove it correct? Why can't you just wake up
and realise that we are merely the result of random chance? Evolution
is a proccess which started 3.5 billion years ago with the first
formation of amino acids and is still continuing today so just give it
a rest.

In closing I would like to add that in about 100 000 000 000 000 000
years from now our universe would either be a cold lifeless void or
would have collapsed back onto itself to prepare the way for the next
big bang. Do what I do and just live your life because it is all that
you will ever have.

If I offended anybody then i apologise profusely :o)