17 Nov 10
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviously) the case for Adam & Eve. I'm keen to read the views from the Christians who believe mankind has been on earth for only 6,000yrs or so.
Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf they're not able to quote the Bible, ought you be able to cut and paste the first five websites you find in Google?
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou ...[text shortened]... y 6,000yrs or so.
Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere are no other information about Adam and Eve to be found anywhere but from the bible. And this is only (in best) hear-say. A good story explaining how it started to be told during the long dark nights around the bedouine cam-fires at ancient times. There are no arheological findings or any other observations that can back this Adam and Eve story up. Not even set it correctly in time.
If they're not able to quote the Bible, ought you be able to cut and paste the first five websites you find in Google?
So we just hve to treat ti as - a story. A good story but not more than that.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMaybe.
If they're not able to quote the Bible, ought you be able to cut and paste the first five websites you find in Google?
But the claim has been made that archaeology and true science (whatever that maybe) corroborate the Biblical accounts. There is no need for scripture.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobJust a personal observation and my opinion only, but I have to ask, why are you guys ( atheist ) here in the Spiritual forum? I know it's open to any and all and that's great I guess but it seems to me by posting stuff like this your here to do nothing more then to try tear down our Faith and our belief in God and the Bible which he has given mankind.
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou ...[text shortened]... y 6,000yrs or so.
Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
I personally don't go to whatever other forums you guys come from and attack your ideas on life.
It would seem to me that a spiritual forum is for spiritual matters. And again it's just my opinion but we all know your viewpoint which we don't agree with so I don't see why your here and just wondering what your trying to accomplish? If it's to break my faith..it ain't gonna happen.
17 Nov 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou see dear Noobster in the case of Adam and eve, out with the sacred text one has recourse to what? The data cannot be independently corroborated. We can of course put forth the case that the interpretation of data can be used to corroborate the case by attacking evolution, by calling onto question carbon dating methods and their reliability, by the lack of fossil evidence, the lack of intermediary creatures, that mutations don't produce new species etc etc but that ends up the usual evolution v creation which quite frankly is tiresome. Again we could try to use the data in a positive way, stating that DNA mapping leads us to believe that there was indeed a primordial eve but that hardly satisfies the creation account and simply seeks to rationalise it, or we could go even further and state that its purely allegorical and it has certain archetypes and symbols and is not altogether without beauty.
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou y 6,000yrs or so.
Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
To deny us the use of our sacred text though is to fight an unarmed man for clearly the basis for our belief has its roots in the validity of the text, now if we can establish that its trustworthy, by looking at prophecy and its fulfilment, by looking at epochs of history, of dates and rulers, of cultural aspects brought to the surface and corroborated by archaeology, then we can attempt that, but to fight an unarmed man is piracy of the high seas, for we are being held to ransom without our sacred text!
Perhaps i did not make myself clear originally, we hold that scripture is inspired, science, archaeology whatever, simply may lend corroborative details, they are not in themselves though absolutely necessary to establish the trustworthiness of scripture. To state that there is no need for scripture is a gross misrepresentation and I may add a liberty that has been taken without consent!
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75Have you anything to contribute to the thread?
Just a personal observation and my opinion only, but I have to ask, why are you guys ( atheist ) here in the Spiritual forum? I know it's open to any and all and that's great I guess but it seems to me by posting stuff like this your here to do nothing more then to try tear down our Faith and our belief in God and the Bible which he has given mankind.
...[text shortened]... dering what your trying to accomplish? If it's to break my faith..it ain't gonna happen.
If not, toodledo.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell, it is a simple question of whether the scientific consensus endorses polygenism or monogenism. I think monogenism is more popular. If I recall properly, comparisons of mitochondrial DNA suggest a common ancestor for all homo sapiens. But this isn't RC's religious quirk because in fact, whatever their stance on biblical literalism, the majority of Christians churches remain committed to monogenism (i.e. an original homo sapiens, like Adam and Eve.) The Catholic Church, for example, acquiesces to evolutionary science but still maintains that even a non-literal reading of Genesis requires monogenism.
This little snippet was posted by the illustrious Mr Carrobie in another thread,
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
If this is true, could our fun loving Christians, who are fond of the literal interpretation of the Bible, present me (and the forum obviou y 6,000yrs or so.
Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you admit that for this particular account at least, your original claim was false:
The data cannot be independently corroborated.
Robbie:
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts
Perhaps i did not make myself clear originally, ...
Perhaps you told a lie and now wish withdraw it without admitting your error.
we hold that scripture is inspired, science, archaeology whatever, simply may lend corroborative details, they are not in themselves though absolutely necessary to establish the trustworthiness of scripture. To state that there is no need for scripture is a gross misrepresentation and I may add a liberty that has been taken without consent!
The issue is not why you hold biblical accounts to be trustworthy, the issue is whether your claim that history, archeology and science support the biblical accounts. To prove the latter claim, you cannot use the supposed trustworthiness of the Bible as evidence as it is neither in question nor useful to the argument.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLet's recap something you said to Fabian a few days ago -
you see dear Noobster in the case of Adam and eve, out with the sacred text one has recourse to what? The data cannot be independently corroborated. We can of course put forth the case that the interpretation of data can be used to corroborate the case by attacking evolution, by calling onto question carbon dating methods and their reliability, by t ...[text shortened]... pture is a gross misrepresentation and I may add a liberty that has been taken without consent!
your position is an act of faith, you doubt but you have no scientific data with which to backup your claim, it therefore remains unsubstantiated and pure conjecture......
and this is what you said yesterday -
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.
Show me the archaeology and true science that back up the Biblical account of Adam & Eve as you intrepet it. I don't understand why you need scripture? You think maknkind has been on the planet for 6,000yrs or so, you claim to have evidence that corroborates this.
'Show me the money' Carrobie.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYou recall correctly Conrau, mtDNA and Y-Chromosone analysis indicates a common ancestor for us all going back 150,000-200,000yrs ago. My intention of this thread was to challenge the literal interpreters of the Bible ie. those who think mankind has only been on the planet for 6,000yrs or so.
Well, it is a simple question of whether the scientific consensus endorses polygenism or monogenism. I think monogenism is more popular. If I recall properly, comparisons of mitochondrial DNA suggest a common ancestor for all homo sapiens. But this isn't RC's religious quirk because in fact, whatever their stance on biblical literalism, the majority of Chri ...[text shortened]... ry science but still maintains that even a non-literal reading of Genesis requires monogenism.
17 Nov 10
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75It didn't hit a nerve, for your comments to do that i would have to care what you had to say. Alas, that is not the case.
Didn't like my post I see... Must have hit a nerve.
Your comments were irrelevant to this thread and nothing but a lot of hot air.
17 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75I don't think so, I think Proper Knob just interpreted your post as an attempt to hijack the thread. It certainly was off-topic. However, your question does have a relevence to the forum as a whole so if you started another thread, I'm sure plenty of the atheists would wade in and attempt to answer it.
Didn't like my post I see... Must have hit a nerve.
Just not in this thread.
--- Penguin.
Ps. It has also been discussed many times before.
17 Nov 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobyou see the problem you have here dear Noobster is that i did not state that science and archaeology back up every Biblical account, i was thinking of specifics, but you have gone and attributed to me values that were never present. For example your insistence on using Adam and Eve is indicative of this, I myself was thinking along the lines of the fall of Tyre, which CAN be corroborated by archaeology, or the fall of Babylon which can also be corroborated through archaeology. Again there are many other aspects, dietary lawns for example which can be corroborated through science or other ideas like the earth being a spherical shape, the water cycle, all corroborated and ABLE to be corroborated with science. You see my friend the folly of assigning values whence none exist, you argument has more straw than strawey the straw man eating strawberries!
Let's recap something you said to Fabian a few days ago -
your position is an act of faith, you doubt but you have no scientific data with which to backup your claim, it therefore remains unsubstantiated and pure conjecture......
and this is what you said yesterday -
the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as or so, you claim to have evidence that corroborates this.
'Show me the money' Carrobie.[/b]
It is rather convenient for you that we have no recourse to our ancient texts, for me thinks that if we had, you would be in for a roasting!😛