Biblical Hominids

there's a difference between inspired by experience and based on experience. flood myths for examples definitely didn't just pop out of nowhere from pure creativity. no, they were created in societies that lived near water, such as mesopotamia. a flood myth doesn't neccisarily require a historical extremely catestrophic flood. what it requires is people who have experience with flooding imagining a flood much much worse

The hypothetical first men and women, the carriers of the original human gene, are usually referred to by scientists as "Adam" and "Eve'. Tho this is obviously more of a nod to the story, rather than a recognition of it as fact.

*example

However we are almost certain there were huge floods after the last ice age ended. So it's not a stretch to believe that all the great flood myths, or most of them, originate in this event.

yes it is a stretch because there's thousands of years between those floods and our evidence of flood myths, especially when the places where we do find flood myths, guess what, lived near water that periodically flooded. also, flooding after the ice age was for the most part gradual, not sudden flooding that would endanger human lives, at the worst would over the course of few years make a settlement unihabitable. the only case of rapid flooding i know of was in the black sea, but the speed that this flooding occured at is disputed and we aren't absolutely certain that it occurred quick enough that people living nearby would die

>it is a stretch because there's thousands of years between those floods and our evidence of flood myths

So? A heavily distorted story can be passed down trough oral tradition for millennia. It doesn't matter if it isn't very accurate.

> flooding after the ice age was for the most part gradual, not sudden flooding that would endanger human lives

It would of forced them to move out of their lands, which would no doubt be a very catastrophic event in the relatively uneventful life of a neolithic peasant.

then God looks like Homo over 1million years ago.

Then we are not made in God's image?

>So? A heavily distorted story can be passed down trough oral tradition for millennia. It doesn't matter if it isn't very accurate.
yes, it is possible, but i find it much more likely to originate in the fact that mesopotamia had frequent flooding rather than an event that their ancestors may or may not have witnessed and may or may not have passed down.

>It would of forced them to move out of their lands, which would no doubt be a very catastrophic event in the relatively uneventful life of a neolithic peasant.
yes, but this is a very different type of catastrophe than in the typical flood myth. i don't see how passing down memory of the fields you used to collect wild wheat from dying from encroaching salt water could be blown out of proportion over time to water covered the whole earth up to the mountain tops. also this is far less dramatic and therefore far less likely to be passed down. there's all kinds of other ecological changes during this time like the formation of the sahara that would be equally devestating but didnt get corrosponding myths

Stories that survive thousands of even hundreds of years usually have an important moral or purpose to them.

You could interpret it that way but generally speaking the tale of Adam and Eve is a theological metaphor for creation that only has been interpreted as literal in the early 20th century. According to the general biblical interpretation as such a metaphor then yes, it could be believed that Adam and Eve are representative of the first members of the Homo genus that he sculpted through the use of natural laws.

utter bullshit. with a few exceptions (Origin) genesis has always been interpreted literally. it was only with modern scientific knowledge making a literal position impossible to hold without denying these facts that a nonliteral interpretation became mainstream. based on the text itself there is no reason to think that it was originally intended to not be literal. give me a metaphorical explanation for the entire genealogy from adam to the exile and the flawed table of nations

Only Homo here is you, OP

>that only has been interpreted as literal in the early 20th century
Proofs?

Origen believed 4900 years had passed from the creation of Adam to the destruction of Jerusalem, so he took the genealogies in genesis literally at least.

...

Uhhhhhhh no. Just stop embarrassing yourself you are 100% in the wrong

You're retarded

Are you retarded?

You look like homo