it seems likely to me that both evolution and creationism are responsible.
the creation verses in the opening chapter of genesis are talking about the
universe being created and then, at some indeterminate time later, the earth
recovering from a cataclysm, which is called "tohu" in the verse, and this sets
the scene for a re-terraforming of the planet and ushers in the advent of homo sapiens.
the water recedes and reveals dry land that was already there.
the written word is an odd thing. you can read a sentence with the same words in it,
and completely change the meaning by where you put stress on the words. somethings
are automatically assumed. we've assumed that the 2nd verse in genesis chapter 1, follows exactly in time, after the first verse. there's no
indication of that. the only real indication we have for time passage
is when the first genealogies appear and they only cover the genealogies of one family
of human beings. where's the genealogies of other families? prior creations? the angels were created beings. where's their genealogies? not in
the bible cause the bible isn't about what happened from the moment of big bang till the arrival of jesus, but rather, things that pertain
specifically to humans in one family line. somewhere they might have some ancient text that explains what happened on this planet prior to homo
sapiens, such as sumerian texts or plato's works or tibetan text, but so far, the only examples i have seen have been extremely sparse and not nearly
as informative as the fossil record.
personally, i believe we were originally some kind of clones that had fully regenerative bodies with no expiration date, and that later mammal dna was
spliced in, which gave us the ability to procreate and resulted in the end of fully regenerative bodies (text says something like, block the way to
the tree of life, which i think means, don't let the section of dna replicate which is responsible for full regeneration, etc. prior to that, new
humans were cloned from the elohim. that would make us intelligently designed AND intelligently nerfed.
the only real question for me would be, does that mean homo erectus and older varieties were also man? they'd have to be, unless they were reptiles.
if they can prove erectus was mammalian, i think erectus would count as adam. Australopithecus though, not so sure about that one. doesn't look like
a man of any variety, to be honest.
by the way, adam is a plural word.
edit on 23-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)