Did humans evolve from ape or were adam and eve the first people?

were adam and eve the first people or did humans evolve from ape?

"Ok name one that has been around over 1000 years that is amoung the top selling books of all times."

Oh, indisputably, the Qu'ran.

And probably the Analects of Confucius, the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana and the Tao Ti Ching.

You better check your book list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
Wow the torah has been around for more than 3000 years and the Quran is in at 3rd.

You keep changing the rules.
'name 1 book that survived thousands of years like the bible did!!'
I named 8, and fleapit added at least 8 more.
'Ok name one that has been around over 1000 years that is amoung the top selling books of all times.'
I named one and probably four more.
'Wow the torah has been around for more than 3000 years and the Quran is in at 3rd.'
The Torah is probably only 2500 years old, and with about 13 million Jews worldwide who can read it, it can never make a top seller. 3rd is certainly "among the top selling books of all times". The thing about "top selling books of all times" is that such a number is heavily dependent on printing and on capitalism. Look at some of the other best sellers - all the Harry Potters, well wowee! What does that say about the importance of the bible? Look, you want to tell us that your book is really, really special, well it isn't. It's great literature, and it's given many phrases and ideas to western world, but it's only one among many other "inspired books" and many other great books, and many other best selling books. It also has some terrible messages, promoting genocide and intolerance and homophobia and racism and sexism and slavery and ...

Naaa . . . I'm not changing the rules. . . I'm just messing with ya.

What does that say about YOU?

It says he is at least reading this rubbish, as am I; and you too I expect.

Has anyone noticed that everyone who is on the Adam and Eve side of the discussion only say things like:

"No, humans did not evolve from apes, face it, they were created by god, not to be all religoes or anything. But there is a ton of proof, if you want I can name some, just pm me."

and

"n one really knows.. but what I do know is..evolution is crap!!"

the evolution side has all sorts of evidence to back it up .. Adam and eve have one book that is just full of stories
If you want to make a good argument for Adam and Evethen dont write something like
"Ya well the bible said so!"

And can someone please explain to me why evolutiuon is not taught in our schools?

I have no Idea why it is not taught in canadian schools but it is in U,S. schools, they call it natural science.
I don't agree with this time frame and theory but here is Science saying we all have one common female ancester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A703199
http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstracts/dna.html
You could give me a library of books stating Man Evolved and I would still Believe God created man and I will go to my grave believing that.

They may teach natural science, but they don't teach evolution nearly well enough, otherwise we wouldn't have confused nonsense like this.

The word rnealw doesn't understand is "common". "Common" in this context means "Mitochondrial Eve" is the earliest human woman who is an ancestor of all of us on our mothers' mothers' mothers'...side. All of the many other women living at the time (140,000 years ago) were ancestors of only some of us or none of us or sometimes through the male side, and a woman who lived much earlier is the earliest ancestor of all of us regardless of parental gender. There were many other women living at the same time as her, too. (There is also a Y-chromosome "Adam" but he wasn't Mitochondiral Eve's partner, in fact he lived at nothing like the same time as her.) This is all stated clearly in the third and fourth paragraph of your first Wikipedia reference (as of 9am 25/11/07, NZDT).

Basically it was a huge PR mistake of the geneticists to call this woman "Eve". They knew exactly what they meant, but far too many idiots have used to it try and back up Middle Eastern mythology.

rnealw's last line translated: "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts." What galloway_15 said.

In order to teach Evolution which is a scientific theory. they must also teach other things also like Creationism which you consider a theory.
And since Evoution is properly called the theory of Evolution. . . . I'd like to know when Theory evolved to mean the same as Fact? I think your the one confused there.
Oh.
"There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found." For example, "the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind."

Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of `finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids. The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull.

rnealw:
"In order to teach Evolution which is a scientific theory. they must also teach other things also like Creationism which you consider a theory."
No I don't, nor does anyone else. A court of law has recently ruled Creationism is not science. It does not reach the status of a theory, it's just a speculation.

If there is a theory of Creationism, what is it? That is, HOW did the Creator create? The bible says "God said 'Let there be.. and there was ..." but there's a yawning gap that "and" (and "omnipotent" fails to bridge. The bible is silent and so far as I know no creationist, sorry Scientific Creationist, sorry Intelligent Design theorist, has a clue - or has even given the matter a moment's thought.

"And since Evoution is properly called the theory of Evolution. . . . I'd like to know when Theory evolved to mean the same as Fact? I think your the one confused there."
Evolution has a theory, which has evolved over 150 years. It is supported by a mass of evidence which is readily available. The basic truth of evolution is now so well supported by the evidence that it would be perverse to deny it. That is what we mean by "fact".

'There is no evidence in the fossil record of one kind of creature becoming another kind. No transitional links or intermediate forms between various kinds of creatures have ever been found.' For example, 'the evolutionist claims that it took perhaps fifty million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But, again, there are no transitional forms. For example, not a single fossil with part fins...part feet has been found. And this is true between every major plant and animal kind.'

That is simply nonsense from beginning to end. It seems to have been written out of his head by some creationist (hence the use of the non-taxonomic term "kind" Lungfish have flippers that they use to propel themselves across land, and they're living animals. The coelocanth has four rather leg-like fins.

Evolution does not stand or fall on the fossil record, but the fact is that the fossil record is growing every day, and old gaps are increasingly being filled in. Trouble is, whenever a transitional form is found exactly half way across a gap, the creationists say "Look, now there are TWO gaps!" Fossilisation is actually quite rare, requiring specific circumstances to happen, and we're lucky to have any fossils at all.

Darwin was driven to formulate the theory of evolution by two big questions. Why are there so very many species - vastly more than necessary to make an earth in which humans can thrive? and Why is nature so cruel? His particular example was an insect that laid her eggs inside a caterpillar, and the young slowly eat the caterpillar from the inside, being careful not to kill her. His theory brilliantly answers both questions. Creationists have never begun to answer either. So far as I know, they haven't even tried.

rnealw:
"Evolutionists present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and often the flimsiest of `finds'. Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax."

This - which you seem to have lifted undigested from some creationist tract, is such a wild exaggeration that it deserves the name "LIE". ONE animal was falsely reconstructed from one bone in the nineteenth century, and was quickly withdrawn when other scientists pointed out its real origin.

"One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionist declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it."

The Piltdown forgery is well known. It was always considered anomalous, many considered it a hoax until it was finally proved to be one, by methods that were not available when it was "discovered". All through that time, it was described as having an "ape-like" jaw, contrary to the mainstream view of human skull evolution.

"Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and then placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look identical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of hominids."

Sorry, too vague be able to rufute on sight.

" The brow ridge that supposedly marked the hominid appears only in one skull."

This may have been true once, but it is certainly not true now.

The thing about these hoaxes and mistakes is that they come to light and are corrected. If evolution was a gigantic fraud, as you seem to believe, wouldn't we continue to insist that Piltdown was real, or at least be arguing about him? It was science, not religion, that exposed the Piltdown hoax.

Creationism has no such self-correcting facility. It has never made any discoveries. It has never proposed any mechanism more sophisticated than "Goddidit". It is a dead end, an alternative to science. That is why it must not be taught in science classes.

So if Evolution is a fact as you say, How come mankind has shown no signs of evolving in the last few thousand years of recorded history?
And what proof do I have that what you say is true and not just the belief of a couple of dozen people.

Thousands vs Hundred-thousands... there's a big difference...

Plus, there's less of a need to evolve in the past few millenia, humans have been developing better ways to survive.

"And what proof do I have that what you say is true"
Have a look at any real science journal, such as Nature or New Scientist. Go into any university library and look in the catalogue. The Internet can be useful if you look at the reliability of its sources. "The Selfish Gene", "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins are excellent modern introductions.

" and not just the belief of a couple of dozen people."
If it's numbers you want, the Creationists got going a petition of several hundred scientists supporting creationism. Real scientists responded with a petition of scientists supporting evolution - all called Steve. The Steve-o-meter registered 844 Steves as of November 16, 2007.

the only thing I've learned so far is that Evolution is a religion for Atheist

Then you haven't learnt anything.

1. Evolution is not a religion, because

1.1 a religion is a set of beliefs about the ultimate meaning and purpose of the Universe, usually (not always, as in Buddhism) involving the existence of a non-physical being or beings, and usually arrived at by inspiration/revelation, while
1.2 evolution is a scientific theory, derived (as they all are) from observation and discussion, susceptible to amendment by persuasion and reason

2. Plenty of theists believe in evolution.

But then, you seem determined not to learn anything. ("You could give me a library of books stating Man Evolved and I would still Believe God created man and I will go to my grave believing that."

Until Darwin, Creationism was the best guess going as to how the diversity of life arose, and it was almost universally believed (though cracks were already starting to appear). Evolution made a designer unnecessary, but not impossible (nothing does that - the idea is too shifty, an omnipotent being can by definition do absolutely anything, including hide from any refutation - that's why it doesn't explain anything).

Hey we all worship something. . . . You seem to worship science and Evolution.
Hugh. . . . . That almost sounded Agnostic.

Not all of us worship anything. (It depends what you mean by "worship".) I have a strong regard - no more - for the truth. Anyway, suddenly worship is BAD? What side are you on? I don't think you know what agnostic means. (Actually, like atheism it has two meanings. Some agnostics say they don't know whether there are any god/dess/es or not, others say it is unknowable.) But the question is not what I believe, it's whether there are any god/dess/es or not. Thanks to Darwin, we are no longer compelled to believe there is/are because of the diversity of life.