Adam and Eve as a Myth

[ImmortalFlame]

I love it when I get ganged up on.

Really, you're going to play the victim card? If you're unable to respond to other people's arguments, just admit it.

Eh, whaddya gonna do. Good luck with the evolution/atheism and whatnot. I'll stick to real science and the Bible.

You haven't presented any "real science". In fact, you haven't presented any science, period.

 

[javajo]

I am a polytheist, and even I know evolution is true.

KNOW? Good for you then.

Good luck with the willful ignorance of the science that governs most portions of your modern life, thing. You have basically, with your creationism, been suckered in by an internet meme.

Operational Science, not Origins or Historical Science. There's a difference.

Well, you seem to be pretty good on the bible; when are you going to start on the real science?
If your arguments are sound, the number of people posting against them counts for nothing.
Throughout your posts you have protested, "I believe [x,y,z] to be true" and added, in effect, "if you don't like it, tough". Thus far you are unassailable - no-one on this forum or anywhere else is entitled to tell you you can't believe whatever you want.
But when you start claiming that "real science" backs up those beliefs, you are fair game. And whining about being "ganged up on" will not make the criticisms go away.

I said I love it, no whining. I never said science backs up my belief in Adam and Eve. I just don't believe everything my professors spoon fed me in college. If it don't add up, I question it. That's good science.

Really, you're going to play the victim card? If you're unable to respond to other people's arguments, just admit it.

You haven't presented any "real science". In fact, you haven't presented any science, period.

Let me squeeze out a tear...nope, sorry. I will now present science to prove Adam and Eve...nope, sorry, just kidding. I think there is ample evidence for a worldwide flood, but that is not the topic of this thread, and I doubt you would consider the evidence anyway.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

KNOW? Good for you then.

Yes, actually know, I was an AP bio student in my 2nd year of high school, and got 100% on my chemistry final.. I have taken advanced courses and seen/performed experiments with my own hands. Nifty, hm?

Operational Science, not Origins or Historical Science. There's a difference.

This is just a garbage differentiation, in a weak attempt to dissemble; a latest ploy via the creationist community. There is no such separation. You presume incorrectly that evolution somehow happened only in the past and is thus, 'history'.

lol, 'historical science'. Since the archeological study of Biblical history thus also falls into your 'historical science', I guess you can throw the bible out the window as a flawed 'theory*' with no evidence, too?


*small note though: based on actual definitions the Bible merely presents hypotheses. It's nowhere near a theory.

 

[javajo]

Yes, actually know, I was an AP bio student in my 2nd year of high school, and got 100% on my chemistry final.. I have taken advanced courses and seen/performed experiments with my own hands. Nifty, hm?


This is just a garbage differentiation, in a weak attempt to dissemble; a latest ploy via the creationist community. There is no such separation. You presume incorrectly that evolution somehow happened only in the past and is thus, 'history'.

lol, 'historical science'. Since the archeological study of Biblical history thus also falls into your 'historical science', I guess you can throw the bible out the window as a flawed 'theory*' with no evidence, too?


*small note though: based on actual definitions the Bible merely presents hypotheses. It's nowhere near a theory.

Lol, are you following me? I've had college biology, big deal. So evolution is happening now? What species just evolved into a new species? There is a difference in the two sciences and one does not need a Bible to see that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let me squeeze out a tear...nope, sorry. I will now present science to prove Adam and Eve...nope, sorry, just kidding. I think there is ample evidence for a worldwide flood, but that is not the topic of this thread, and I doubt you would consider the evidence anyway.

"Oh, I could totally show you the evidence you've asked for several times, but you probably wouldn't consider it, so I won't."

Are you honestly expecting me to buy that tired, old excuse? People in this thread have had the patience and respect to explain to you, repeatly, how the evidence shows you that your beliefs have no scientific basis, but when it comes to you giving the evidence you claim to possess for your side of the story "meh, you wouldn't accept it anyway". You flat-out deny or ignore all the evidence we've presented, and when it comes time for you to do some heavy lifting instead you shirk your responsibility with an upturned nose. Well, how terribly convenient.

 

[javajo]

"Oh, I could totally show you the evidence you've asked for several times, but you probably wouldn't consider it, so I won't."

Are you honestly expecting me to buy that tired, old excuse? People in this thread have had the patience and respect to explain to you, repeatly, how the evidence shows you that your beliefs have no scientific basis, but when it comes to you giving the evidence you claim to possess for your side of the story "meh, you wouldn't accept it anyway". You flat-out deny or ignore all the evidence we've presented, and when it comes time for you to do some heavy lifting instead you shirk your responsibility with an upturned nose. Well, how terribly convenient.

Scientific evidence that Adam and Eve weren't real people? I trow not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Scientific evidence that Adam and Eve weren't real people? I trow not.

"I think there is ample evidence for a worldwide flood,"

 

[gnostic]

I love it when I get ganged up on. Eh, whaddya gonna do. Good luck with the evolution/atheism and whatnot. I'll stick to real science and the Bible.

I'm quite sure that others have pointed out to you, that even religious and theists (including Christians) have accepted evolution as the most plausible reliable explanation to how animals and plants evolve over so-many successive generations (or even over times), as well as acknowledging the verifiable evidences for what they are, that evolution is fact and real biological science.

That you would continually linked atheism with evolution, is a typical creationist response without basis to their argument.

Do you know how ignorant creationists are when they something like these following statements or claims?

• "Evolution is just a theory."
• Claim that there are no evidences for evolution.
• When they tried to distinguish between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.
• Or using silly argument of evolution, of turning cat-into-dog or crocodile-into-duck or other such nonsense.
• Fail to understand that evolution IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
• Even more recent claim that the Big Bang and Evolution are one and the same science.

I can't even begin to count the number of times that creationists will make these silly comments or outrageous claims about or against evolution.

I seriously don't think creationists should make any claim about or counter-argument against evolution-is-this or evolution-is-that, until they at least grasp the very basic concept of evolution.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Scientific evidence that Adam and Eve weren't real people? I trow not.

Since there is no evidence that they were, the correct scientific conclusion is that they were not. Until evidence comes to light to the contrary.

Got any evidence?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Lol, are you following me? I've had college biology, big deal. So evolution is happening now? What species just evolved into a new species?

Observed Instances of Speciation
Observed.

Which college was that?

 

[javajo]

I'm quite sure that others have pointed out to you, that even religious and theists (including Christians) have accepted evolution as the most plausible reliable explanation to how animals and plants evolve over so-many successive generations (or even over times), as well as acknowledging the verifiable evidences for what they are, that evolution is fact and real biological science.

That you would continually linked atheism with evolution, is a typical creationist response without basis to their argument.

Do you know how ignorant creationists are when they something like these following statements or claims?

• "Evolution is just a theory."
• Claim that there are no evidences for evolution.
• When they tried to distinguish between macro-evolution and micro-evolution.
• Or using silly argument of evolution, of turning cat-into-dog or crocodile-into-duck or other such nonsense.
• Fail to understand that evolution IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
• Even more recent claim that the Big Bang and Evolution are one and the same science.

I can't even begin to count the number of times that creationists will make these silly comments or outrageous claims about or against evolution.

I seriously don't think creationists should make any claim about or counter-argument against evolution-is-this or evolution-is-that, until they at least grasp the very basic concept of evolution.

Sorry, I don't buy it for a second.

Since there is no evidence that they were, the correct scientific conclusion is that they were not. Until evidence comes to light to the contrary.

Got any evidence?

Never said I did. I believe Jesus walked on water too, so.

Observed Instances of Speciation
Observed.

Which college was that?

That didn't quite get it for me. I mean the Hawthorne fly was still a fly.

Anyway, I'm not here to debate evolution with you, I just believe Adam and Eve were real people.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That didn't quite get it for me. I mean the Hawthorne fly was still a fly.
Anyway, I'm not here to debate evolution with you, I just believe Adam and Eve were real people.

You can only debate evolution if you know what it is.

As for the closing sentence, believe what you wish; just don't pretend you believe it for any factual reason. It isn't truth. I do not care what fantasies fill your time; just don't attempt to bring them into rational discussion with others. Once that occurs your fantasies will be exploded.

 

[javajo]

That's funny.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

More than you understand

 

[idav]

Anyway, I'm not here to debate evolution with you, I just believe Adam and Eve were real people.

Adam and Eve and Evolution can be true but never in a literal sense. The literal interpretation of Genesis does not support science.

 

[javajo]

More that you understand

Than.

Adam and Eve and Evolution can be true but never in a literal sense. The literal interpretation of Genesis does not support science.

I think it does.

 

[idav]

I think it does.

I'd like to see this science. You believe the fossils are found but your skeptical of the dating methods?

 

[javajo]

I'd like to see this science. You believe the fossils are found but your skeptical of the dating methods?

I'd share, but I don't enjoy being ridiculed by people who won't even read the books I would present.

 

[outhouse]

I'd share, but I don't enjoy being ridiculed by people who won't even read the books I would present.

then try presenting something credible.


again faith alone doesnt cut it.

 

[javajo]

Eh, you wouldn't believe it anyway.