The case for Adam & Eve.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
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.

"Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense."

The Bible is true.

Romans 3:3,4
"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, [/b]let God be true, but every man a liar;.."[/b]

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
get a life my friend, just because a no nonsense attitude is part of the Swedish psyche doesn't mean we have to be subject to it, i care not for points scoring nor for winning debates, i just like having fun, you should try it some time, its good for your health. Would you like to assimilate us and make us all clones?

This is not about me. This is a debate between you and Proper Knob. You say that the story of Adam and Eve is correct and you say you have a proof that it is correct. You say that a proof that the story is correct because women lack a rib. A few postings further you take that argument back by saying 'just joking'. What will be the next step? The list of elements in clay and human body is also a joke?

If you take your right to change your opinion whenever you like by just saying 'joking', then you are not a serious debater. Proper Knob is more reliable. He doesn't change his mind whenever he wants by saying 'joking'. He can be trusted.

And this has nothing to do with me. Don't play this cad. Perhaps you are joking...?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Please, none of this the Bible is true because the Bible says so nonsense."

The Bible is true.

Romans 3:3,4
"For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, [/b]let God be true, but every man a liar;.."[/b][/b]

"every man a liar" Every man? Even StPaul? Then when he says the bible is true, then he is a liar. And this is a proof that the bible is full of untrue stories.

This is an example of what will be the result when using the bible to prove the truthness of the bible. You end up in a paradoxial circular reasoning.

The Adam and Eve story is only to be found in the bible, nowhere else. Noone was there witnessing the event, except Adam and Eve themselves, and the talking snake, and god, of course. Neither of them knew how to write, so even if the event ocurred, the story is told from one person to another until the story found someone who actually could write it down. So the story is full of errors, and can be at best be described as hear-say.

However, there are no substance behind the Adam and Eve story. It's just one story among many other, used to describe things to the children around the camp fires. Another story explains why the elephant has a long trunc. Not true that one either.

So why not just treat it as a good story? Why take the glory out of the story by saying it's true?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This is not about me. This is a debate between you and Proper Knob. You say that the story of Adam and Eve is correct and you say you have a proof that it is correct. You say that a proof that the story is correct because women lack a rib. A few postings further you take that argument back by saying 'just joking'. What will be the next step? The list of e ...[text shortened]... .

And this has nothing to do with me. Don't play this cad. Perhaps you are joking...?

this is a public forum, for use by the public, its not about me and Noobster or anyone else. I did not state that i had proof, Noobster assumed that I had proof based on his interpretation of a previous text in another thread, infact, if you go back and read my very first post you will see that i stated quite clearly that external evidence for Adam and Eve is scant and that without recourse to Biblical account it would be nigh impossible to prove, never the less, just for the sake of argument, futile i know, we acquiesced to jump through his fiery hoops! How we do this is entirely up to us and we dont need no kill joys telling us how we may go about it, so either loosen up or join the circus!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is a public forum, for use by the public, its not about me and Noobster or anyone else. I did not state that i had proof, Noobster assumed that I had proof based on his interpretation of a previous text in another thread, infact, if you go back and read my very first post you will see that i stated quite clearly that external evidence for Adam ...[text shortened]... ont need no kill joys telling us how we may go about it, so either loosen up or join the circus!

May I interprete your words as you don't think it is possible to prove the story of Adam and Eve? If so, I agree. It is impossible.

I also agree with your previous words, that there once existed places and characters that infact are possible to prove.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
May I interprete your words as you don't think it is possible to prove the story of Adam and Eve? If so, I agree. It is impossible.

I also agree with your previous words, that there once existed places and characters that infact are possible to prove.

its no more possible to prove than the existence of God, all we can do is make inferences from what we observe. The Bible itself is our basis and we may demonstrate its trustworthiness. As i stated at the outset, we can attack all sorts of evolutionary ideas, but that does not prove the existence of Adam or Eve, it simply makes the case for creation more credible by diminishing the case for evolution. We can of course present out case for scripture and supply details of why its true and let the reader make up their own minds.

Noobster gripe is that the scriptures state that Adam was created in 4026 B.C.E. roughly six thousand years ago, this naturally conflicts with his notions of evolutionary hypothesis. Never the less, what evidence is there? well we are told that human kind has been around in its present form for 80,000 years, well where is the evidence, for we have a conflict, for what we observe is human history pertaining only to the last 3,000 years, writing having only existed for the same relatively short period, artefacts and settlements the same, nothing for eighty thousand years and then suddenly an unprecedented flourish, suddenly the Aztecs and the Egyptians manage to build huge edifices, the Babylonians a huge city, well well, nothing for eighty thousand years and then this! we are told that people did not write things down because there was no need until cities and commerce came about, so for eighty thousand years we lived alone and then suddenly only in the last three thousand decided to build cities and write things down, hardly satisfying is it!

The fact of the matter is, cities, written language, art and literature are extremely new, leading us to the conclusion that humanity has been around for a relatively short period of time, the observable evidence is contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis that we have been around for gazillions of years, even given the idea that its only eighty, nothing for eighty thousand years and then the pyramids, i mean, come one, whose kidding who now?

hopefully that will ruffle a few feathers 😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
...nothing for eighty thousand years and then this! we are told that people did not write things down because there was no need until cities and commerce came about, so for eighty thousand years we lived alone and then suddenly only in the last three thousand decided to build cities and write things down, hardly satisfying is it!

For all intents and purposes "nothing" for three thousand years, dude, and then suddenly space travel in just the last 50 years. Perhaps mankind started in the 1950s.

Originally posted by John W Booth
For all intents and purposes "nothing" for three thousand years, dude, and then suddenly space travel in just the last 50 years. Perhaps mankind started in the 1950s.

dear Mr Booth, point is practically irrelevant to the discussion, why? because the development of technology has been gradual as knowledge has been built upon knowledge for the last three thousand years, nothing for eighty thousand years and then kaboom, sophisticated methods of writing and huge edifices, another case of punctuated equilibrium i suppose?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its no more possible to prove than the existence of God, all we can do is make inferences from what we observe. The Bible itself is our basis and we may demonstrate its trustworthiness. As i stated at the outset, we can attack all sorts of evolutionary ideas, but that does not prove the existence of Adam or Eve, it simply makes the case for creatio ...[text shortened]... ramids, i mean, come one, whose kidding who now?

hopefully that will ruffle a few feathers 😵

Advances in technology is exponential because it depends on discoveries/inventions on other technologies.

During the stone, bronze and iron ages, advances were very slow.

In medieval times there was slowed down progression because of the church pushing dogmatic beliefs (e.g. a flat Earth).

Big jumps occurred when certain revolutionary discoveries/ideas were made, which helped in develop further technologies/ideas. For example, the renaissance period revolutionised critical thinking, and spawned scientific process which caused an explosion in invention, and hence technology.

The industrial revolution was another big jump, which speeded up processes, which encouraged more invention.

So, it started off which a world with a low population, and the occasional idea which caused a slight advance. Scientific advances and education caused more people in parallel to be able to come up with ideas and invent things, by the 20th century, we had a flood of invention and discovery.

You are assuming that advances are linear, but all you have to do is look from the beginning of the 20th century to see a phenomenal rate of advancement (far faster than previous centuries), involving electronics, computers, flight, space travel, nuclear energy etc. All because it had so many developments going on in parallel throughout the world.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is a public forum, for use by the public, its not about me and Noobster or anyone else. I did not state that i had proof, Noobster assumed that I had proof based on his interpretation of a previous text in another thread, infact, if you go back and read my very first post you will see that i stated quite clearly that external evidence for Adam ...[text shortened]... ont need no kill joys telling us how we may go about it, so either loosen up or join the circus!

I did not state that i had proof, Noobster assumed that I had proof based on his interpretation of a previous text in another thread.

You said the Biblical accounts could be corroborated. That's pretty self explanatory to me, and probably to everyone else who can read. To save yourself having to backtrack maybe a little more care with regard to your choice of words could be demonstrated next time. 🙂

Do we have a consensus then? The Adam and Eve story cannot be shown to be the truth!
Anyone can believe in it of religious reasons, but there are no base for its credence in the scientific world.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
its no more possible to prove than the existence of God, all we can do is make inferences from what we observe. The Bible itself is our basis and we may demonstrate its trustworthiness. As i stated at the outset, we can attack all sorts of evolutionary ideas, but that does not prove the existence of Adam or Eve, it simply makes the case for creatio ...[text shortened]... ramids, i mean, come one, whose kidding who now?

hopefully that will ruffle a few feathers 😵

You have been reading the wrong books, robbie. Or you have let yourself to be taught by the wrong people.

Unless you are joking with us...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... nothing for eighty thousand years and then kaboom...

If you think there was "nothing for eighty thousand years" then this aint your field of expertise, dude. But you're just joking, aint ya? Like before.

Originally posted by John W Booth
If you think there was "nothing for eighty thousand years" then this aint your field of expertise, dude. But you're just joking, aint ya? Like before.

Unfortuanetly he's not.

Originally posted by lausey
Advances in technology is exponential because it depends on discoveries/inventions on other technologies.

During the stone, bronze and iron ages, advances were very slow.

In medieval times there was slowed down progression because of the church pushing dogmatic beliefs (e.g. a flat Earth).

Big jumps occurred when certain revolutionary discoveries/ide ...[text shortened]... r energy etc. All because it had so many developments going on in parallel throughout the world.

yes i understand all of that, never the less, it does not explain the phenomena, nuthin for eighty thousand years, no not even a sandcastle, next we have the pyramids and sculpture, we have apparently went from stone axes to painting, inscription, calligraphy, written language, huge cities and massive edifices overnight.