Israeli researchers determine when Adam was born
Published: 25.01.14, 19:28
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
16 Talkbacks for this article
1. Are taxpayers paying for this garbage?
Sam ,   PT   (01.25.14)
Just like the trees and everything else were fully developed at the time Hashem created them, so were Adam and Eve, the first people. Any NORMAL person would not believe these shtuyot. In many instances the Torah has been proven to be more expert than scientists. Only recently have scientist discovered the danger of certain foods that the Torah prohibited for Jews to eat.
2. Adam & Eve
Paul K. ,   Philadelphia, USA   (01.25.14)
and now we know the rest of the story... Good Day!
3. Birthdays.....
anita   (01.25.14)
Why 209,000?Let's make it a nice even 210,000. It's so much easier to remember. Oh.... and what month were they born? I'd like to celebrate their birthday, wouldn't you?
4. There is no hard evidence
Rich ,   Toronto, Canada   (01.25.14)
that the first homosapienā€˜s names were Adam and Eve. In Akkadian, a semitic language that came before Hebrew, the name Adam is Adapa which means man.These character names were taken from Babylonian myths. The Talmud does not date back 200,000 years. According to the Rabbis the creation of the world was 5774 years ago. And that creation date is WRONG!
5. EVE is not a Person but -
Arn. ,   Sweden.   (01.25.14)
- personality since it is written, Eve means Living because She was the Mother of all. Only a Personality can be Mother of all. Arn.Sweden.
6. If somebody can give me Adam's exact birthday,I will send hi
Alan ,   Jihan isburg SA   (01.25.14)
a nice pair of Nike shorts.The fig leaf must be getting a little worn
7. Adam wasn't born
Chris Perver ,   Bangor, N. Ireland   (01.25.14)
The title is misleading. Adam was never "born". If he was, you have to ask the question, who gave birth to him?... ad infinitum.... There has to be a time when two people, male and female, were created, just like the Bible says.
8. Adam birth date
Harold ,   USA   (01.25.14)
I think these professors have nothing else to do. Now they are releasing stupid stories about Adam and Eve. I just want to know if they had ID cards to vote on birds and bees.
9. #7
Harold ,   USA   (01.26.14)
True and that's why he did not a belly button. Eve did not have belly button too because she was created of one of Adams ribs.
10. Homo heidelbergensis wasn't much different from modern
Ray ,   USA   (01.26.14)
humans, and they lived 1.5 million years prior and along side Homo sapiens.
11. #9 "that's why he did not a belly button"
A ,   Belgium   (01.26.14)
Apparantely your intellectual development didn't progress much further than the neanderthal.
12. At least the Bible is consistent
paulD ,   Jerusalem   (01.26.14)
Scientists change their flawed theories every year. The fact that science has to rely on what is observable at present, to what may or may not have been the chemical reality of the world at an earlier time, makes carbon dating totally speculative. No one in their right minds believes in the evolution of species, Darwin is dead, not G-d.. Species die and new species are born. They will be endlessly searching for a missing link to keep their false hope alive.
13. To No. 12
Leslie Bash ,   London, UK   (01.26.14)
Unwittingly, you have highlighted the strength of science - a readiness to change in the light of new evidence.This is what makes it distinct from religion - which is underpinned by belief. I am ready to travel by airplane not because of a belief in some miraculous power that keeps it flying but because of scientific principles which support aero technology. Now, it is possible that atmospheric conditions could change to the point where the science becomes lacking and planes fall out of the sky. In which case, new science and new technology is called for - not new prayers.
14. And God created Adam and Steve
Miri   (01.26.14)
15. this is a published, "scientific" paper?
tom ,   toronto, canada   (01.26.14)
"groups of adams and eves living side by side"? the authors of the study don't seem to have thought that one through very well - where did these "groups" come from? how likely is it that the same mutation that made a new species ocurred spontaneously in entire groups of (conveniently) males and females? is there any evidence of such an event in *any* species, ever? and if this purports to be "science" is there any empirical evidence to support a whole big pile of assumptions (rate of mutation, average time per generation, etc.)? over 10,000 generations and 200,000 years, volcanoes, solar flares, and meteorites changed the environmental factors enough to make such "calculations" nothing more than speculation. it's just one group of theorists pushing their own set of assumptions to prove their own preferred conclusion.
16. How many mutations per generation?
Wayne bailey ,   Torquay, england   (09.24.18)
You say you calculated adams age but the number of genetic changes by how old parents are when they had off spring ok what was the average age? ! And how many gwnetic changes happen every generation? No doubt if we had the numbers you used we'd come up with very different answers to you! Geneticists have proven 8,000! No doubt you got this high number by presuming 1or 2 chages per generation! Any way if we evoled slowly over time slowly from genetic mutations can you prove ONE OF THESE MUTATIONS THAT WAS BENEFICIAL? AND INCREASED OUR GENETIC INFOMATION?
Back to article