Adam & Woman, the first humans, are innocent victims of a confidence trick.

Pointing out that the story is a myth simply goes to show that the topic is certainly false. Adam and Eve were not the first humans and were not the victims of a confidence trick. This suffices to undercut your argument which prefaces on them being real for the most part. However, if one assumes the topic is not intended to describe true events then certainly there is a story there which can be evaluated in a literal manner. The story does not include any confidence trick. They were told not to do something and did it anyway. That's not a confidence trick. Further, to say the story is a myth is not an assumption on my part. I gave similar examples of similar creation myths. Further the talking snakes and magic trees are a pretty good mark in my favor on this point. However, that point isn't required. The story if evaluated as if it were truth, suffices to show the falsehood of the above topic. The story is quite straight forward and I recounted it quite exacting in my round 1 argument. I don't care that you're a lawyer. Furthermore most people who think that their job should give them cred are often very bad at their job. Simply because you can look at documents doesn't make you a biblical scholar. Further, despite your professional training you still seem inclined to make more than a few common and critical errors when it comes to analyzing myths. I'm quite certain the common Christian interpretation is wrong, and pretty sure the Jewish interpretation is pretty good or at the very least leaps and bounds better due to the lack of extraneous theological baggage. "The existence of myths is of course evidence in itself." -- Evidence that people make up myths. "That in itself made the picture neither true nor false" -- Let us say for the sake of argument that because the depicted events didn't happen they are false. "When we have that Theory, he said, we will know the mind of God." -- Flowery language when talking about science makes one a good communicator not the creator of a mythos. "Effectively you say the the proposition relates to myth which automatically makes it false, but you adduce no evidence to support that allegation. So you dismiss the topic on the basis of your own opinion." -- No, if you look I drew numerous parallels with similar creation myths, I pointed out the absurdity of it, I put it in a historical context, and did I mention the talking snake and magical trees? "I accept that the Adam and Eve story can properly be described as a myth constructed for a specific purpose," -- Then why whine about it? Argue the point you claimed to be making and go into the argument. The story being myth could easily be seen to contradict your clarifying subclause that "Adam & Woman" were "the first humans" but it isn't too hard to argue that that isn't a required claim of your argument. It's part of the topic. As con, and because that is false, I feel inclined to knock it down. However you seem stuck on the point which I would readily concede if nothing else than to focus on the actual argument. "cannot be brusquely dismissed because it does not match a preconceived view of human reality." -- It's a postconcieved view of reality. Due to the apparent "never happens" status of miracles like those in the Bible vs. the "happens all the time" status of the creation of fictional stories and myths. One should lean towards the premise that it's a myth until the evidence is far better. We should require evidence strong enough that the rejection of said evidence is less likely than the proposition it means to establish. It is clear too, that at the end of the day both sides find it difficult to provide evidence that would prove conclusively there could only be an evolutionary world or there just had to be a created world." -- Um. Not really. There's literally a world of evidence for this planet being filled with evolved life and which suggests a creator (save the special pleading of "it's here isn't it, where else could it have come from"). http://www.talkorigins.org... "which supplies an explanation for something which generations of humans have thought needed that explanation." -- You don't need lies as placeholders. "The Evolutionists deny that need." -- No. Evolution supplies that explanation with a robust and understandable theory which works and moreover explains more than just the questions asks. "a human back from the dead, is evidence that those scientists are guilty of failing in the rigour of their own pursuit," -- Failing to seek out Superman who reportedly was killed by Doomsday only to return from the dead does not negate scientific rigor. Those making the argument have the burden of proof. If they wish to prove that Jesus is guilty of rising from the dead they should prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, as there's nothing but hearsay from a really old text of numerous unknown authors and a heavy editing process... I'm pretty sure that that dog don't hunt. ---- TO THE READERS: What the hell was Brendan's argument? Why should I or anybody believe that Adam and Eve were conned? If you can answer that question, I encourage you to vote for him. Anybody? Apparently being a lawyer taught him to write long nonsensical gibberish not even relating to the topic. This honestly this felt a bit like the chewbacca defense. I'm not even sure what the argument was suppose to be. My argument was basically that the story is a myth and events did not occur and simply reading the story doesn't have any incidence of them being conned. --Don't eat from that tree or you'll die. - You won't die. *munch* --You bastards! That's not a con. http://www.youtube.com...