Adam & Eve had tails? Someone answer these:

Humans had tails at one point in earth history, but now it is only a few tail bones left. So my question goes to creationists: Did adam and eve have a tail? If not, and we always looked like we do now, WHY do we have tailbones?






How about embryos? You dont believe we are animals, or are related to them. But still, an human embryo looks like this, and it evolves into a human.




1)

Know what this is? yup.. its a human.


2)
Now lets look at something TOTALY different:

This is not a human.. its a dog.


3)
And this next one is acctually an elephant:



So if these cells evolve into animals, why is is so hard to believe in evolution? Don’t think of evolution as a ladder always moving up. Evolution just moves forward.

The Uranta Book states that man was an ancestor the lemur...it gives a good description of the evolutionary and intellectual development of that species to man...really cool if you think about it, I LOVE LEMURS

PAPER 62 - THE DAWN RACES OF EARLY MAN, Oct 19 2000

* line 27: About one million years ago the immediate ancestors of mankind made their appearance by three successive and sudden mutations stemming from early stock of the lemur type of placental mammal. The dominant factors of these early lemurs were derived from the western or later American group of the evolving life plasm. But before establishing the direct line of human ancestry, this strain was reinforced by contributions from the central life implantation evolved in Africa. The eastern life group contributed little or nothing to the actual production of the human species.
* line 29: 1. THE EARLY LEMUR TYPES
* line 31: The early lemurs concerned in the ancestry of the human species were not directly related to the pre-existent tribes of gibbons and apes then living in Eurasia and northern Africa, whose progeny have survived to the present time. Neither were they the offspring of the modern type of lemur, though springing from an ancestor common to both but long since extinct.
* line 33: With the passing of time the seacoast of India southwest of the mountains gradually submerged, completely isolating the life of this region. There was no avenue of approach to, or escape from, this Mesopotamian or Persian peninsula except to the north, and that was repeatedly cut off by the southern invasions of the glaciers. And it was in this then almost paradisiacal area, and from the superior descendants of this lemur type of mammal, that there sprang two great groups, the simian tribes of modern times and the present-day human species.
* line 37: A little more than one million years ago the Mesopotamian dawn mammals, the direct descendants of the North American lemur type of placental mammal,
* line 46: These aggressive little animals multiplied and spread over the Mesopotamian peninsula for more than one thousand years, constantly improving in physical type and general intelligence. And it was just seventy generations after this new tribe had taken origin from the highest type of lemur ancestor that the next epoch-making development occurred--the sudden differentiation of the ancestors of the next vital step in the evolution of human beings on Urantia.
* line 84: Thus it was that the dawn mammals, springing from the North American lemur type, gave origin to the mid-mammals, and these mid-mammals in turn produced the superior Primates, who became the immediate ancestors of the primitive human race. The Primates tribes were the last vital link in the evolution of man, but in less than five thousand years not a single individual of these extraordinary tribes was left.

PAPER 65 - THE OVERCONTROL OF EVOLUTION, Oct 19 2000

* line 75: Later in the evolutionary unfolding of intelligence, the lemur ancestors of the human species were far more advanced in North America than in other regions; and they were therefore led to migrate from the arena of western life implantation over the Bering land bridge and down the coast to southwestern Asia, where they continued to evolve and to benefit by the addition of certain strains of the central life group. Man thus evolved out of certain western and central life strains but in the central to near-eastern regions.

www.urantia.org...

[edit on 12-11-2008 by ATSGUY]

reply to post by Daniem


Great post I gave you a blue star, it would have been red but there wasn't one.

I think creationist will be scraping the bottom of the logic barrel with this one.

I've yet to see a painting of Adam with friction marks on his belly from Eve's tail and have no idea when the missionary position was forced upon consenting adults.
Would Lilith have counted as a misionary? one wonders, If indeed Eve did have a tail could there have been a possibility that she mistook it for a snake ?
Could there be a link here with the true meaning of original sin ? Perhaps eve or even adams first wifey, lifted the serpent but adams own serpent missed?

Ahh, the madness that is religion --

It is to help the baby move around in the placental fluids . . . I figure.

It is said that man was created last because he was imbued with all of the charachteristics of all the creatures created before him. "Evoulution" as it is called, is a logical conclusion to the facts presented by similarities between species, but "Natural Selection" is far too much of a mathematical impossibility. Also, there are scriptures that decribe Adam being 100 cubits tall, and covered with a fingernail-like skin, so the tail wouldn't be that big of a stretch.

reply to post by Daniem

How about embryos? You dont believe we are animals, or are related to them.

Ate who? When did I (or any spokesman for Christianity, for that matter) say the human body is not animal?

I think you're trying too hard...

TheRedneck

the devil put it there to confuse you becasue he had a dinosaur bone left after his easter egg hunt special hiding session with the other bones

what kind of a godless baffon are you to not already know this?






starred this could get interesting if the fundies come wondering in

[edit on 12/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by dashen


Dude I have to ask, where on earth did you get that from ? this could turn out to be a 1 line post

reply to post by TheRedneck


I didnt say christians believe that.. as most christians DONT believe that. Most christians believe in evolution.. so this one is only for the creationists..

they believe we are seperate from apes, and never evolved from another state. we are "different" than animals. the creators special ones. we are sometihng else. i have heard 100's of people say that.

that's not to say we are not animal as in the definition of the word.. but you mean we are not an animal in the way that you dont like elevating animals to the level of people, or lowering the level of people to animals.

The real problem is the inability to say i don't know. There are many questions left unanswered in the case for intelligent design. There are also many gaps in the fossil record which atleast at this time make it impossible to PROVE macro evolution. If anyone were to find a single fossil showing a transitionaly evolving animal linking the old to the new it would be a different story. As of now the fossil record shows evidence of micro evolution, but also seems to show spontaneous creation and extinction, when all the missing links are thrown out the window. An open mind, and willingness to look at dissenting information from the status quo, will bring us all that much closer to the truth. Teaching theory as fact it not the way to go, and before anyone wants to bash that crazy creationist, realize first that your firm belief in evolution is also faith based.

reply to post by Daniem

OK, this time you did describe me to some extent... so let me elaborate on what I do believe...

I believe that mankind (humans) are dual-status beings. We are both spiritual and physical. If you leave out the physical, you get a ghost; if you leave out the spiritual you get... well, check the CA Prop 8 threads...

I believe that while other species of animals may have some sort of spirit as well, it is not as advanced as ours. Therefore, we are indeed superior to other animals on this planet.

I do not believe we came from apes. Rather, I look at creation as something akin to the auto industry. Each creature (or class of) was created using similar technology, which leads to similarities between them. Just as a 1934 Ford bears similarity to a 2008 Corvette (both have an engine, both have four wheels, both have a steering mechanism, etc.), one did not come directly from another. Yet, both were designed using the same technology, to accomplish different things: the Ford to move one from point A to point B with a minimum pf available technological advances, the Corvette to move people from one side of the country to the other very fast while looking very good.

I do believe that species can mutate over time to form adaptations to environmental changes. This has been sufficiently proven by scientific observation and experimentation. I only question the limits of such evolution.

I do not believe that any superiority I mentioned above is just cause to purposely promote suffering in any creature. Use, yes, abuse, NO!

In light of what I have stated above, nothing in your OP surprises me or degrades my faith in my beliefs in the least. The only thing that will do such is scientific observation and experimentation, both done in a non-biased, open, peer-reviewable manner.

The fact that we start off with a mini-tail means nothing, except that it is there for a purpose we do not understand... yet.

TheRedneck

reply to post by ATSGUY


Who doesn't love Lemurs? They are God's critters.

he he he he

For those who are a little slow, take an extra long look in that mirror of yours.

What do you see???

Oh a Primate..... LOL...

Yes our body is most definitely of The Primate species now isn't it ??

But hey get over yourselves those that deny it as for me I have taken a liking to my Primate Body so leave it alone and let me enjoy being a Monkey, oh but without that tail, maybe they used to dock it when boys were 6 days old.... LOL..




Now about that Primate in Genesis his name was A'Dam ( or is it the Dammed One???)

Any way there was a few hundred little Aliens that came to the Earth if you read.

You can Find the Names of the Leaders of these Aliens that came and stole our women and copulated with them in The Books Of E'Noch...

So there was a little genetic manipulation that took place.

I guess we are all half alien and half primate then... LOL..

What the hell we looked like back then who knows????

There is another point I should also make here and that is that A'Dam was not in the singular sense as most believe but according to many other writings namely "The A'Dam books" and "Little Genesis" and probably others I am Not aware of the name A'Dam was in the plural sense and Not the singular.

Just a little frivolous info....

Any way, there is that fact, we are Definitely of The Primate Species... and are Cross breeds at that (with Aliens so this is possibly how many nationalities came into being or was it ??????)


Hi groingrinder love your little critter .....LOL..


[edit on 12-11-2008 by The Matrix Traveller]

Humans had tails at one point in earth history, but now it is only a few tail bones left.

There's really no evidence humans ever had tails. The coccyx is not really a tail at all and it serves a function in human anatomy. Evolutionists are guilty of causing medical malpractive because of their fallacious wishful thinking looking for vestigal organs.

The concept of vestigial organs even resulted in cases of “evolutionary medical malpractice.” Young children once had their healthy (and helpful, disease-fighting) tonsils removed because of the widespread belief that they were only useless vestiges. That idea actually slowed down scientific research for many years. If you believe something is a useless, non-functional leftover of evolution, then you don’t bother to find out what it does. Fortunately, other scientists didn’t take that view. Sure enough, studies have shown that essentially all 180 organs once listed as evolutionary vestiges have significant functions in human beings.

www.answersingenesis.org...

So this "tail bone" fallacy is another case of Darwinism holding back science. The embryo looks the way it does because muscles and limbs don’t develop until stimulated by the spine. As the legs develop, they surround and envelop the so called “tail bone,” and it ends up inside the body.

So my question goes to creationists: Did adam and eve have a tail? If not, and we always looked like we do now, WHY do we have tailbones?

Adam and Eve were likely better physical specimens than modern humans. No they didn't have tails, humans do not have tails.

Why we have a coccyx is just a basic anatomy question, perhaps a little research before you write an OP would have answered this...

The coccygeus muscle can draw the coccyx ventrally to give added support to the pelvic floor against abdominal pressure. It draws the coccyx forward after defecation. This muscle is inserted by its base into the margin of the coccyx and into the side of the last section of the sacrum. The coccygeus muscle consists of the levator aid and the prirformis which enclose the back part of the outlet of the pelvis.

In females, the coccygeus muscle draws the coccyx forward after it has been pressed back during parturition. Smith (1986:134) reported that the movements of the coccyx help to enlarge the birth canal during childbirth.

www.angelfire.com...

So there you go... Believing the human coccyx is a vestigial tail is simply an article of blind faith in the creed of Darwinism.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

So there you go... Believing the human coccyx is a vestigial tail is simply an article of blind faith in the creed of Darwinism.

not really

The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move and contract (Baruchin et al. 1983; Dao and Netsky 1984; Lundberg et al. 1962). Although human tails usually lack skeletal structures (some medical articles have claimed that true tails never have vertebrae), several human tails have also been found with cartilage and up to five, well-developed, articulating vertebrae (see Figure 2.2.1; Bar-Maor et al. 1980; Dao and Netsky 1984; Fara 1977; Sugamata et al. 1988). However, caudal vertebrae are not a necessary component of mammalian tails; contrary to what is frequently reported in the medical literature, there is at least one known example of a primate tail which lacks vertebrae, as found in the rudimentary two-inch-long tail of Macaca sylvanus (the "Barbary ape") (Hill 1974, p. 616; Hooten 1947, p. 23).

daphne.palomar.edu...

not all mamalian tails have bone or cartalidge structures in them, as many vestigial tails and psuedo tails are without bone and cartalidge also

but some do have them

this shows a 6 year old girl with multipul vertabrae in her vestigial tail

this would more then imply that we as did all mammals had a tail at one
point


the fact the cocynx anchors muscle does not mean it wasnt once a tail just that the nub we have left i used to anchor muscles, in the same way muscles are anchored to and around the cocynx on people with vestigial tails

and Darwinism hasnt existed for over 120 years, so yes anyone who beleives in Darwinism is wrong. the theory has advanced Darwinists wouldnt have as they are dead




[edit on 13/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
. If anyone were to find a single fossil showing a transitionaly evolving animal linking the old to the new it would be a different story.

What about a Unicorn surely that was transitional ?

reply to post by Daniem


Hey dude if Adam had a tail then god would have a tail no ?

God was a Primate then ?

Did we lose the tail when god lost his tail I wonder ?

What with Adam having a tail and no penis 2 mates and no belly button, he surely must have been a chimera produced by the Annunaki

reply to post by noobfun


I think you are wishing something was there that isn't. humans never had tails. With all the many deformities that have occurred in humans I don't think any have produced a tail. Wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists will not change that fact. sorry.

reply to post by Daniem


I hate to break the news and I'm sure everyone will jump on me for but I disagree.

We did not evolve from animals, we have remained the same for the most part since we were originally created as a species and placed on earth. Now that does not mean we were not created from the same stuff that animals were created from but we did not naturally evolve from animals like other lifeforms have on this planet.

Some upgrading changes have taken place in our DNA and for certain races depending on location throughout the world but we did not evolve from another species. The only evolution/growth that has been going on is intellectual/technological and spiritual other than of course the natural changes that can occur over time to a race from being in a particular climate/location on earth. (But nothing major)

This is not to say that we do not have the capability of physically evolving as some animals have and do because evolution is a real thing, it's only to say that we as a species were physically created just like we are today and placed here remaining the same for the most part from the time of our original creation. Any tails showing up are malformities/mutations that are very rare and can happen with many other species even animals. That doesn't mean to say we used to have tails, but it does mean to say we were made from some of the same stuff as animals.

Now I'm sure the first question people will ask me is how would I know and what makes me so sure or prove it. If I was to say I have my sources and found out these answers then you will call me a liar or perhaps you will try to disprove me altogether based on some scientific evidence pulled out from somewhere, you may even believe it.

So I will state this as my opinion and if you choose to attack me for it please do so in a nice manner.

Pretty pretty please.














[edit on 13-11-2008 by Malevolent_Aliens]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
There are also many gaps in the fossil record which atleast at this time make it impossible to PROVE macro evolution. If anyone were to find a single fossil showing a transitionaly evolving animal linking the old to the new it would be a different story. .

what would you like?

fish to amphibian? amphibian to reptile?

tell me what you want from and too, please make it sensable monkey to person is idiocy

primate to human isnt

when palentoligists are having furious arguments about if a fossil should be classed as a reptilian like mammal or a mammal like reptilian

that should be more then a little hint we have so many transitional species we arnt sure where the divide is anymore

uk.youtube.com... this is by no means a complete list and many more have been found filling in gaps between the gaps this video shows just fast forward to 2:44 and enjoy the music and learning experience