The case for Adam & Eve.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you 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 ...[text shortened]... s whence none exist, you argument has more straw than strawey the straw man eating strawberries!

One event proven archeologically out of 100 events doesn't prove the other 99 ones are all true.

This thread is solely about Adam and Eve. This is what this thread is all about.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
One event proven archeologically out of 100 events doesn't prove the other 99 ones are all true.

This thread is solely about Adam and Eve. This is what this thread is all about.

One event????, you really have no idea what you are talking about Fabian, nor could you, for you do not read scripture nor study it. For the sake of kindness i shall absorb your remark and pretend that you're prejudice is based on an informed judgement, one can always live in hope. We can, if allowed go through the genesis account and point out the parts which corroborated by science, but we are not allowed, reeks of another rather poor ambush like your insistence on a yes and no answer in the infamous 'what do i need to get salvation/heaven, saved from hell, saved from Armageddon' post.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you 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 ...[text shortened]... s whence none exist, you argument has more straw than strawey the straw man eating strawberries!

Unfortunately Rob i can't read your mind, or anyones for that matter. If your thinking of specifics, it would help if you write that down, not just think it. I can only go on what you write on the forum, not what you think. So when you wrote this -

the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

You actually meant this -

the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate some of the Biblical accounts.

That is a massive difference. Trying to pin the blame on me for your failure to communicate your thoughts correctly is frankly disingenuous and pathetic. You claimed the Biblical accounts could be backed by archaeology and 'true' science, is the story of Adam & Eve not a biblical account??!! Of course it is.

Originally posted by Penguin
I 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.

Just not in this thread.

--- Penguin.

Ps. It has also been discussed many times before.

Thanks. Not trying to highjack the post ( even though they do it to us constantly )but just posting my opinion and nothing else.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There 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. ...[text shortened]... rectly in time.

So we just hve to treat ti as - a story. A good story but not more than that.

What kind of evidence would you like to see? Could it be there is none as the flood would have destroyed anything that may have existed if it had existed at all? There are millions of humans that have existed on this planet but we have no records or birth certificates or whatever you'd have to see to believe it, that have actually lived. Do you doubt all those millions were not real also?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One event????, you really have no idea what you are talking about Fabian, nor could you, for you do not read scripture nor study it. For the sake of kindness i shall absorb your remark and pretend that you're prejudice is based on an informed judgement, one can always live in hope. We can, if allowed go through the genesis account and point out the ...[text shortened]... famous 'what do i need to get salvation/heaven, saved from hell, saved from Armageddon' post.

But now we're talking about the existance of Adam and Eve some 6000 years ago. Nothing else. This is what this thread is all about.

I haven't seen any archeological proofs that these two individuals without bellybuttons shared a fruit (we don't even know that it was an apple or banana)because they were fooled by a talking snake. There wasn't even a witness present. The whole story is nothing more than a hear-say at best.

Let's stay on topic.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
...You actually meant this -

the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate [b]some of the Biblical accounts.

...
[/b]

And the difficulty with the Mormons is purely that it is a much younger religion. The biblical events that you are now restricting your statement to are simple historical events that were contemporary at the time the stories were written. That does not add any support to the credibility of the supernatural events depicted in the book, such as the first two chapters of Genesis.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Unfortunately Rob i can't read your mind, or anyones for that matter. If your thinking of specifics, it would help if you write that down, not just think it. I can only go on what you write on the forum, not what you think. So when you wrote this -

the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate gy and 'true' science, is the story of Adam & Eve not a biblical account??!! Of course it is.

I can easily state the same dear Noobster, you have taken a post out of context and assigned to it values that were never intended, what is more, your insistence that we have no recourse to our sacred text which forms the very basis of our assertions is quite unscrupulous and reeks of a set-up, kind of like insisting on a yes or no answer, you are allowed to ask questions, but we can provide no reasons of our own. Hardly fair is it. If we could do it, we could point out the scientific accuracy of the account,

in the beginning God created- a scientifically accurate statement, it is generally acknowledged since the nineteen fifties that the universe indeed had a beginning

God formed Adam from the dust - another scientifically accurate statement, for we are as humans about ninety percent carbon, all the elements which make us up can also be found in earth or dust.

and so we could go on

thus we could do it, but you have not let our evidence speak for itself and on the flimsiest of basis - your prejudice against scripture - how mean and pathetic (in the original sense of the word)

Originally posted by galveston75
What kind of evidence would you like to see? Could it be there is none as the flood would have destroyed anything that may have existed if it had existed at all? There are millions of humans that have existed on this planet but we have no records or birth certificates or whatever you'd have to see to believe it, that have actually lived. Do you doubt all those millions were not real also?

I don't even know if *you* exists, but that is besides the point. This thread is about the existance of Adam and Eve some 6000 years ago, not about you, nor me.

Let's stay on topic.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But now we're talking about the existance of Adam and Eve some 6000 years ago. Nothing else. This is what this thread is all about.

I haven't seen any archeological proofs that these two individuals without bellybuttons shared a fruit (we don't even know that it was an apple or banana)because they were fooled by a talking snake. There wasn't even a wit ...[text shortened]... s present. The whole story is nothing more than a hear-say at best.

Let's stay on topic.

ok, ill let you discuss it with Noobster then, have fun! we are here if you need some Biblical evidence! It is after all, the spirituality forum, well at least the last time I looked it was 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I can easily state the same dear Noobster, you have taken a post out of context and assigned to it values that were never intended, what is more, your insistence that we have no recourse to our sacred text which forms the very basis of our assertions is quite unscrupulous and reeks of a set-up, kind of like insisting on a yes or no answer, you are al ...[text shortened]... s - your prejudice against scripture - how mean and pathetic (in the original sense of the word)

in the beginning is the scientific limit of that one. Science says nothing at the moment about how that beginning happened, or even if the 'how' question has any meaning with regard to that event.

God formed Adam from the dust - another scientifically accurate statement, for we are as humans about ninety percent carbon, all the elements which make us up can also be found in earth or dust.

Actually, no. we are somewhere between 55% and 75% water. Carbon is only about 18% of our mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_makeup_of_the_human_body). So the more scientific statement would be "from the sea" or "from the rain".

[edit] just occurred to me that you also mention all the elements which make us up can also be found in earth or dust so just to pre-empt you saying that dust is more than just carbon, so many different chemicals can be found in 'dust' that it is equivelant to saying that Man is made out of 'stuff'. Hardly earth-shattering scientific news.[/edit]

--- Penguin. (sorry for quoting Wikipedia as a source but I'm sure the sources it links to will be sufficient for anyone with more time for research.)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, ill let you discuss it with Noobster then, have fun! we are here if you need some Biblical evidence! It is after all, the spirituality forum, well at least the last time I looked it was 🙂

Then I lean back and enjoy a mutual respectful debate with Proper Knob (not Noobster) and you.

The result can be only one of two outcomes: (1) There are infact scientific proofs that the story of Adam and Eve, living some 6000 years ago is true, or (2) One has to have a religious belief that it is true.

Originally posted by Penguin
in the beginnins the scientific limit of that one. Science says nothing at the moment about how that beginning happened, or even if the 'how' question has any meaning with regard to that event.

God formed Adam from the dust - another scientifically accurate statement, for we are as humans about ninety percent carbon, all the elements which m sure the sources it links to will be sufficient for anyone with more time for research

yes it is a scientifically accurate statement though, and i apologise for the inaccuracy of my dust statement, it was the other way around, ninety percent water the rest carbon and other elements, was made off the top of my head, i tried to locate the actual article but could not find it, no need to apologise for any references, indeed its rather refreshing. It may be hardly earth shattering, or just another strange coincidence i suppose that the writer of genesis just happened to guess it , kind of like the universe having a beginning i suppose, just lucky 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I can easily state the same dear Noobster, you have taken a post out of context and assigned to it values that were never intended, what is more, your insistence that we have no recourse to our sacred text which forms the very basis of our assertions is quite unscrupulous and reeks of a set-up, kind of like insisting on a yes or no answer, you are al ...[text shortened]... s - your prejudice against scripture - how mean and pathetic (in the original sense of the word)

you have taken a post out of context and assigned to it values that were never intended.

No i haven't. This is your full post from 'the mormon church' thread 16 Nov '10 21:54.

Lol, you know i am always glad if i can raise a smile dear Noobster, the fact of the matter is though, both history and archaeology, as well as true science corroborate the Biblical accounts.

What have i taken out of context? Would you care to point it out for me? As far as i understand it, the story of Adam & Eve is a Biblical account, yes?

your insistence that we have no recourse to our sacred text which forms the very basis of our assertions is quite unscrupulous

No it isn't. You claim to have archaeology and true science that backs up the Biblical account, asking you to provide this evidence is hardly inscrupulous.

Fire away.

Ok, why don't we talk about the fall of Tyre then, or the fall of Babylon? or the fall of Jerusalem to Titus?? events which can be corroborated with archaeology? mmm, scared that you might find some vestiges of fulfilled prophecy not corroborated by your materialism? As for Adam and Eve, your argument is straw! you assigned values where none were intended! care for some strawberries to fill your straw basket?